Confusing Language

One of the big problems with the detainee bill is that the language is sufficiently murky that no one really seems to know what it says. A basic question arising from the bill is whether or not suspension of habeus corpus can be applied to citizens or not, a pretty basic scoping question I would think. Law professor Jack Balkin suggests that it could apply to citizens, whereas law professor Glenn Reynolds says it doesn't. If the bill can't even clearly lay out its own scope, it had no business being passed. Not that our elected officials would actually take their responsibilities seriously. Why should they start now?

Nipples: Demons from the Great Beyond?

Great satirical video from Andrew Kantor. He's got breasts on the brain.

Good Work if You Can Get It

Recently the TSA relaxed the restrictions on liquids and gels that can be taken on airplanes. Did anyone notice this guideline :

Items used to augment the body for medical or cosmetic reasons such as mastectomy products, prosthetic breasts, bras or shells containing gels, saline solution, or other liquids; ... You are not limited in the amount or volume of these items you may bring in your carry-on baggage. BUT if the medically necessary items exceed 3 ounces or are not contained in a one-quart, zip-top plastic bag, you MUST declare to one of our Security Officers at the checkpoint for further inspection

So does that mean women with breast implants or padded bras of more than 3 ounces have to declare them to security for further inspection? If they are implants, does that count as carry-on baggage? As part of inspecting the implants, does the bearer have to prove they are medically necessary?

And what about women with naturally large breasts, the type that you might think were augmented but are actually all natural? Do they have to get inspected as well to prove they are all woman?

(HT: TravelgearBlog, via Andrew Kantor)

Christianists Versus Islamists

A German opera company has dropped plans for a production of a Mozart opera which contained a scene with the severed head of Muhammed. It was canceled because of security fears, that offended Muslims would take out their offense in bombs and violence. It should be noted that the same scene includes the severed head of Jesus, but there's apparently no fear of offended Christians bombing anything. Just of Muslims. This comes shortly after Madonna wriggled her way back into the news with a faux crucifixion scene in her concerts. Again, no fear of offended Christians hitting her car with an IED.

This event perfects illustrates something that's bothered me for a while. I regularly read Andrew Sullivan's blog. A kick he's been on the last few months, or maybe longer, is to identify the Christian Right in the US as Christianists. It's a term that implies an equivalence between the Dobson's and Falwell's of our world and the Islamists who man the terrorist groups. Along these same lines, the ever insightful Rosie O'Donnell recently claimed that "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam," again indicating an equivalence between the two.

Give me a break. I am no defender of the religious right. Au contraire, I am a pretty strong opponent. But the difference between them and bin Laden's ilk should be obvious to even a casual observer. When Dobson starts deploying suicide bombers, when Falwell starts teaching his people how to build IED's, then we can start talking about an equivalence.

Both Sullivan and O'Donnell are homosexual, so let's look at gay issues. As Sullivan has documented, homosexual sex in Iran and other Islamist countries is a capital offense, punishable by public hanging. So radical Islam wants to kill the two of them. Radical Christianity, on the other hand, wants to deny them a legal right to marriage and other rights, but their basic right to life is not much in danger. Isn't there a bit of a difference? Here, Sullivan and O'Donnell can be openly homosexual without fear that the state, even in the reddest states, will bust down their door and haul them off to the gallows. But, the one is just as "threatening" as the other?

Here, artists can put on plays or make movies or perform concerts offensive to the Christian right. Scorsese made Last Temptation of Christ to great opposition. I don't recall theaters having to debate the threat of bombings if they showed the movie. They had to consider a mob of protesters outside their doors, but that's it. But show a cartoon of Muhammed, and get ready for the explosions. But, the one is just as "threatening" as the other?

Terrorist Attacks Over Time

Larry Johnson shows a graph showing the number of terrorist attacks around the world as a function of year:

He proceeds to draw several conclusions from this. The most notable thing, of course, is the big spike in 2004 and 2005. But what does this actually show? If I did a similar plot of US military deaths per year from 1932 through 1945, there would be a big spike in deaths in 1942, and an even bigger one in 1943 which would continue through 1945. Furthermore, the number of deaths between 1942 and 1945 would be a significantly higher than the period between 1932 and 1935. Why? Well, maybe you've heard of World War II. So seeing that spike in 1942 wouldn't mean much more than the fact that the nation was at war in 1942 and wasn't earlier.

The spike in Johnson's graph in 2004 is surely due to the rise of al Qaeda operations in Iraq and the fact that the US has become engaged in active, regular military confrontation with the enemy, which it wasn't in earlier years. So, of course, the number of attacks (which is the enemy's way of fighting) is going to go up. All this proves is that we are at war with al Qaeda, something we already knew.

I'm not defending the administration. I'm just questioning how this graph shows its incompetence.

MLK Was a Republican?

What is the point of this? A conservative black republican organization is running radio ads "accusing Democrats of starting the Ku Klux Klan and saying the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican." This is apparantly enough of a story to warrant civil rights researchers debunking it, and Think Progress highlighting it.

I don't know if the claim is true or not, nor do I care. Neither claim seems all that implausible. Let's face it, it was Democratic legislatures and Democratic governors who signed the Jim Crow laws. Southern whites were predominantly Democrats, accounting for Democratic control of the south for nearly a century after the Civil War. If the Democratic party didn't actually start the KKK, it should be expected that most members were Democrats.

Similarly, black America was predominantly Republican until the 1960's, particularly in the south where the white Democrats were oppressing them. MLK, a southern black man born and raised well before the civil rights movement of the 1960's, could therefore be presumed to have been a Republican, just as today we would presume a southern black man with similar background would be a Democrat. (That doesn't mean he was, just that it could be presumed and should come as no surprise.)

So what? Does the fact that a century ago the Democratic party was the party of racist oppression have any relevance to today? Does the fact that a century ago, black Americans voted Republican have any relevance to today? What point does this group think it's making by claiming MLK was a Republican? Why is this point so important that other groups feel the need to deny it? So what?

Update To continue the theme, two of the most prominent figures against civil rights--Arkansas governor Orval Faubus, whose opposition to desegreation of Little Rock schools led to the Army being sent in to force the issue, and Alabama governor George Wallace--were both, you guessed it, Democrats. But, again, does that have any relevance to today's Democratic Party? I don't think so.

Christianity Has Come to This?

Is this what Christianity in this country has come to? The Traditional Values Coalition ("empowering people of faith through knowledge") endorses Bush's ambition to torture people and calls on churches throughout the nation to lobby in its support. Bob Ramsey points out some of the distortions and errors in the coalition's justification for this affront to the faith.

This is what political influence has wrought on the Christian Right. Whatever vestiges of "Christian" are left are rapidly being stamped out. Have they no shame? Have they no respect left for their supposed Lord? As Ramsey says, blasphemy, not a word I use often or easily.

Update Jesus' version of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Traditional Values Coalition version: "Do unto others as they do unto you, maybe moreso." WWJT? (Who would Jesus torture?)

Obsidian Wings digs into the Bible to understand what a proper Christian view should be. How sad that a self-professed former Christian understands Christian values better than a pastor. Would that this "pastor" and his followers would read Isaiah 59:3-9.

The Pope Is Wrong About Islam

In response to the Pope's statement linking Islam with violence, radical Islam reponds,

"We shall break the cross and spill the wine ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome ... (May) God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement, posted on Sunday on an Internet site often used by al Qaeda and other militant groups.

See, what was the Pope thinking? Violence in Islam?

10 Years Ago

For most of us, Sept. 11 will always evoke memories of that dreadful day in 2001. But it is just a date on a calendar. Every year has its own Sept. 11, and each edition has its own events and memories. For some, it will be a wedding anniversary or the birthday of a child. For others, it will be the day they started a longed for new job.

For me, the day will always be defined by the Sept. 11 of 1996. That morning, after six years of study and work, I stumbled through my doctoral dissertation oral defense at Brandeis University to complete requirements for my degree. I was one of the early users of the Very Long Baseline Array, particularly in the area of polarimetric observations, and produced one of the best early images from that network, an image of the quasar 3C309.1 that my former group at Brandeis uses on their home page to this day. I also did some interesting work on Mrk 501, a very popular source at the time. My unfortunately short list of publications can be found at the ADS site, along with links to PDFs of many of them. (That's a bone of contention toward my former advisors at Brandeis, who never got around to reviewing the numerous drafts I wrote to publish my research more extensively. I did much better work than this list would suggest. I recently put one of those drafts up on the web.) My most widely cited paper presented Monte Carlo simulations and statistical analysis of brightness ratios. Some time ago, I briefly summarized some of my research here. If you want to know how to process VLBI data in software that had better be totally obsolete by now, check out my once well read calibration memo.

What Is It With Brad Pitt?

What is it with this guy? I like him as an actor and all, but geesh. Last year, he felt important enough to tell a Senator what he could do. Now, he's campaigning for gay marriage by threatening to not marry Angelina until "everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able." Does he really think the voters and legislatures of this country are so concerned with his marital status that they will legalize gay marriage just so he can marry Ms. Jolie? Just how important does he think he is?

Bush's Interrogation Rules

In yet another testimony to the legacy of our values-impaired president, Adam Liptak writes of the new draft legislation to legalize torture:

The intent of the legislation, [senior administration officials] said, is to prevent the prosecution of interrogators under amendments to the War Crimes Act that were passed in the 1990’s.

Clinton's great affront was to receive oral sex from an intern and to then be evasive about admitting it. Bush's great affront is to authorize activities that could lead to prosecution under the War Crimes Act. Have I commented lately how much Bush is a disgrace to this country?

2006 NFL Weekly Picks

For the last few years, I've written a weekly post predicting each game for the upcoming weekend in the NFL season. This year I don't expect to be able to devote the time to writing that post every week. I might still on occasion post something, but not every week. You can see the games I'm picking at Yahoo's Pro Football Pick'em.

Accommodating Genocide

Darfur still hasn't gone away. The latest update from Erice Reeves:

In the face of ongoing genocide in Darfur, the international community's failure to accept the "responsibility to protect" (that's United Nations language, officially adopted) innocent civilian lives has taken its last, abject form. The National Islamic Front (NIF) regime in Khartoum, made up of the very men who have for more than three years orchestrated the systematic destruction of Darfur's African tribal populations, has been told directly and unambiguously that there will be no U.N. peacemaking force without its consent.

In the revealing words of British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, Khartoum's agreement to U.N. deployment "is quite crucial" to taking any meaningful action. Jones Parry's words have been repeated explicitly by U.N. and U.S. officials, as well as officials of other countries possessing the military resources that are the only possible source of protection for approximately 4 million people in Darfur and eastern Chad -- people whom the United Nations describes as "conflict-affected" and in growing need of humanitarian assistance.

In short, the international community has conferred upon the genocidaires the power to veto deployment of the very force that might halt an accelerating slide toward catastrophic human destruction.

Given present trends (Khartoum has launched a major military offensive in northern Darfur) and the woeful inadequacy of the present African Union monitoring force -- and presuming no intervention to protect civilians or the humanitarian efforts upon which they depend -- mortality in Darfur over the next year could exceed the present death toll of about half a million human beings, some 10,000 people a week.

(Emphasis mine) Give me a moment to express my opinion of the UN in classic hand and finger gestures. And of course our so-called "moral" president plays right along. Read the whole thing, as Instapundit would say. And be mad.