2006 archive

From Vulture Central:

Listen here.

From El Reg:

Two ambulance drivers’ unswerving obedience to their satnav system ended up turning a 30 minute hospital transfer into an eight hour, 430 mile wild goose chase.

The crew were supposed to be moving a male mental patient from King George hospital in Ilford to Mascalls Park hospital near Brentwood, a 12 mile journey, but a faulty satnav system directed the London Ambulance crew 200 miles off course – and they ended up in Warley, Manchester.

Sometimes, you just can’t beat a book.

.

I grew up along the Atlantic coast. Hurricanes were a regular visitor in my youth. I have a four-year old’s memories of Hazel. Donna knocked out power for a week (my father dug a new well with a pitcher pump so we could have water).

I remember the eery sudden quiet when the eye crosses overhead and the view through the eye of the pillars of clouds.

But, since the late 60’s, no major hurricane has come up the East Coast of the United States. Yeah, people talk of Agnes and Camille, but they came ashore on the Gulf of Mexico; by the time they arrived in the East, they were just big, well, really, really big rainstorms. No wind to speak of, no storm surge. What flooding they caused in the East was because the rain just could not run off fast enough; it did not come from the ocean trying to occupy the land.

No one who grew up where I did would have built–or bought–the kind of condos and hotels that have appeared along the Atlantic Coast in the 40 of years since a major storm has come up the coast in full force.

Now the insurance companies are figuring it out–You can’t fight Mother Nature.

If you want to build there, you can’t get insurance. If you have already built there, you’re screwed:

A place near the water has been an American dream for a very long time. Fifty-four percent of Americans live within 50 miles of a coast.

This is the year, however, in which the big boys in global finance got religion about climate change. As a result, this American dream — as far north as the Washington area, and even New York and New England — is under attack.

The Gulf Coast was hit hard by two massive hurricanes in the fall of 2005.

Follow the money. Insurance doesn’t sound like a world-changer. It seems so banal and prosaic, like reliable electricity or clean water.

Yet without it — you want a place to live? You cannot get a mortgage without insurance.

You want a job? A commercial enterprise cannot run without insurance.

And you are not getting the insurance.

It’s not tree-huggers. It’s actuaries. They don’t care about trees, but they do care about losing money.

With apologies to Abbot and Costello:

According to Salon, this was written by James Sherman. According to YouTube, it was animated by moksanim.

According the quiz, this is me:

(with a tip to Phillybits)

. . . unless your boss is George Bush and your subject is ethics:

Bioethics expert George Annas has spoken at hospitals and universities nationwide about medical bias, AIDS, and the right to die. But it was a lecture touching on human rights and Guantanamo Bay that landed him in the center of a debate that some say threatens free speech at Philadelphia’s VA Hospital.

After Annas’ speech, given Sept. 28 to more than 100 people at the Veterans Administration hospital, the Department of Veterans Affairs received a single, unsigned letter of complaint questioning whether federal agencies should sponsor speakers who oppose current administration policies.

Administrators at the Philadelphia hospital appear to share the writer’s concern.

Chief of staff Martin Heyworth wrote in an Oct. 16 e-mail to the program director that if future talks in the series looked as though they might generate a similar reaction, “there might be some merit in canceling the rest of the series.”

Yesterday, the Local Rag considered several winter health myths, such as this one, and whether are based on truth:

Americans gain several pounds over the holidays. Not true – or at least it wasn’t six years ago. The average weight gain between Thanksgiving and New Year’s was less than a pound, based on a study of 195 adults who were repeatedly weighed from September to mid-January by researchers at the National Institutes of Health.

It has been confirmed, however, that Americans think they gain more. In a 2004 survey of 1,000 adults by the Kaiser Permanente health plan, 43 percent of men and 49 percent of women said they tended to gain “a few pounds” during the holiday season.

The analysis is mythical.

Ingredients:

1 can black beans
1 can diced tomatoes
1 small can tomato sauce
1 med. onion, chopped
2 stalks celery, sliced thin
1-2 cloves garlic, minced, or equivalent garlic powder or dried minced garlic
1/2 tsp. pepper
1/4 tsp. salt
2 tsp. basil
1 tsp. paprika
1/2 tsp. rosemary
2 tbs. butter.

Saute garlic, onion, and celery in butter.
Add black beans, diced tomatoes, and tomato sauce. Bring to a boil, then reduce to simmer.
Add spices and simmer until reduced to thick (1 to 1 1/2 hrs.)
Serve with chopped raw onions, sour cream, and garlic bread.

What it is. Why it’s important. Who is attacking it.

(Hint: It ain’t furriners.)

Yes, there is a Union League.

Reaction here.

So, Windows Vista has “translucency.”

Sorta like this? (KDE 3.4.2 running on Slackware Linux 10.2) (That’s XMMS over Opera over my wallpaper.)

Old Technology.

And check out Ubuntu with Beryl. (Thanks to Opie for the link.)

As amply reported, Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki chose not to meet with the current Federal Administrator yesterday.

But al-Maliki’s insistence on not attending the three-way meeting with Bush and Jordan’s king was a troubling sign of possible U.S. difficulties ahead in the effort to calm Iraq.

(snip)

Al-Maliki’s refusal to meet with Bush while Jordan’s king was in attendance showed a level of mistrust toward his Sunni-dominated neighbors that could bode ill for the U.S. strategy.

The leader of your own puppet government, who maintains office only through the force of your arms and resides in your “Green Zone,” stands you up.

The current Federal Administrator invaded Iraq and remade the USA into a paper tiger.

I made this up last night:

Ingredients:

3/4 lb. beef (top round or flank steak)
1/2 tsp. salt
pepper to taste
garlic powder or pressed fresh garlic to taste
1 cp. bourbon (may substitute Cabernet Sauvignon)
1 tbs. Gourmet Garden Basil Herb Blend* or equivalent basil
water
1 to 2 tbs flour.

Slice beef into thin (1/4″) strips and place in bowl or pan large enough to allow the beef to form one layer.

Prepare marinade: Mix salt, pepper, basil, garlic, and 1/2 cp. bourbon. Add enough water so that marinade will be sufficient to cover beef.

Pour marinade on beef and stir well to coat beef. Refrigerate, the longer the better. Turn beef halfway through.

When ready to cook, remove beef from refidgerator and reserve marinade.

Cook beef slowly in a skillet over low to medium heat (allow 10 to 15 mins., depending on degree of doneness desired), turning once.

Meanwhile, place reserved marinade in sauce pan and heat to simmer. Add remainder of bourbon and reduce. Taste and add additional seasonings as desired.

Thicken marinade with flour.

Place beef in serving dish and cover with marinade.

Serve with rice or lightly buttered (no margarine–margarine is evil) noodles.

Serves two.

______________

*I would never buy anything like this, but it was in the house.

I have a long running, intermittent conversation with one of my friends about separation of Church and State and how, exactly, to draw the line.

My two or three regular readers know that I am adamant that the State should not prescribe nor endorse any religion; furthermore, history makes it very clear that the United States of America was not founded as a Christian nation.

Indeed, the fourth amendment is explicit: the government may neither endorse nor restrict religion (though I suspect that certain more outre practices, such as, to choose an absurd example, human sacrifice, would not be protected):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There can be no argument that a public school teacher’s leading a prayer or, in a devotional context, reading a Bible verse is “establishment of religion.”

Whether or not a Christmas tree in the public square or Christmas lights on the streetlamps is “establishment of religion” is, so far as I am concerned, murkier. It looks more like recognition of the religious roots of the Christmas holiday. Attempts to legislate on such issues gets into the murky area of divining the intent of those who mount the tree, the lights, or the nativity scene. The Supreme Court’s rulings have been similarly murky on such issues.

That murkiness has left lower courts with no real guidance on this issue, so, if when some true (dis)believer sues a municipality on such a display, the lower courts are apt to rule just about any way. Fear of litigation therefore leads to really stupid actions, such as this one, which amount to trying to deny the obvious, that Christmas, underneath all the hype, a birthday celebration.

Monday’s Radio Times investigated this topic, amongothers, regarding the place of Christianity in public life. From their website:

A call for social justice activism among Christians. We talk with TONY CAMPOLO whose newest book is Letters to a Young Evangelical: Art of Mentoring. Campolo is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University in St. David’s, Pennsylvania. He is also an ordained minister, having served American Baptist Churches in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and presently serves as associate pastor of the Mount Carmel Baptist Church in West Philadelphia.

You can listen here (Realplayer).

Even though the government is enjoined from establishing religion, the individual is unrestricted in exercising it (subject to issues of the public peace), which leads to the question, what happens in the voting booth? In other words, in the public square, how do we reconcile the actions of the believer, which arguably will be informed by his or her faith, with the responsibility to respect the free exercise of other believers of other faiths and sub-faiths.

In the comment to the post to which I linked at the beginning of this article (here’s the link again), Opie quite correctly pointed out that, throughout this country’s history, religious persons have acted to change public policy from motives founded in their faith and asks rhetorically

Should we evangelicals not vote? Should we vote, but only by his morals and not our own? Should we be disenfranchised?

The challenge warrants an answer. Not my answer, for it is a challenge to all Americans to grapple with the place of religious belief in secular public life. (And, of course, the answer is “No” to all three questions.)

But it leads me to explore the issue–what are the boundaries of separation of church and state in be political arena, particular for voters?

I resolve the question for myself–for no one else–for myself with the following guidelines. The musings below are written from a Christian perspective, because that is my perspective. I welcome others’ thoughts:

To vote for someone or to support a policy that is intended to advance a religion along the way of being “established,” that recognized by the state as either the de facto or de jure“official” religion, violates the social contract that the Constitution of the United States embodies. It directly counters the will of the Founders and is, in the truest since, unAmerican.

That overrides any other guidelines.

Also unAmerican is refusing to consider (note that I did not say “support”) persons or policies unless they receive the imprimatur of certain religious groups. This goes dangerously far to applying a religious test to public policy, which is also banned in the Constitution.

Voting for a candidate because you agree with his or her public policy positions for whatever reason, including religious conviction, is okay. Sincere religious belief will infuse all the actions of the believer and cannot be compartmentalized.

Claims that God is on someone’s side is grounds for suspicion. Believers attempt to be on God’s side, but do not boast of it. Consider Matthew 6: 5-6:

5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

A corollary to this is that those who “pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets“–those who make a show of their piety–should be viewed with suspicion.

Unfortunately for those of us who favor hard analysis, much of this comes down to the attitudes and motivations of the individuals as they act politically.

But we do not have access to attitudes and motivations. There is no little window in the backs of our heads in which others can peer to see what’s actually going on in there.

We have access only to actions and deeds, and from them must infer the attitudes and motivations that underly them.

Footnote: I find Andrew Sullivan’s coinage to label those who are “trying to bully their way around the political world” intriguing. I would not use it, but I find it intriguing.

On the Media explores myths about the recent election:

Election-night graphics had barely faded from TV screens before the media rushed in to explain what the vote meant. One narrative was that the Republican base turned against its party because it felt betrayed. Another was that the electorate was registering its disgust with the war. But Time.com Washington editor Ana Marie Cox tells Bob that many of those explanations are, in fact, myths.

Listen here (Realplayer).

I’ll link to the transcript when it’s posted.

Addendum, 11/29/2006

Here’s the transcript.

Fool.

Money.

Parted Disjoined.

Sheesh.

From the Cato Institute:

The government’s annual accounting of hunger in America reported no hunger in its last outing. Instead, it found “food insecurity.”

Likewise, no one is even considering retreating from Iraq. “Redeploying” the heck out of there is, however, an option.

In Washington, words are a moving target that conceal at least as much as they reveal. Doublespeak runs through the discourse on Iraq, terrorism and domestic matters to a point where it’s hard to tell what is going on.