 |
 |
|
|
|
|
All this outrage, but no competent counterargument. Legal experts agree that the ruling draws the logical conclusion from previous case law. The one dissenting opinion in the ruling basically states that the harm done to children coerced into reciting the religious component of the pledge is minimal compared to the fact that a lot of people would ìfeel goodî if the pledge is kept as it is. But the Supreme Court itself has tossed out ìfeel goodî arguments in the past.
The Wall Street Journal had to resort to an ad hominem attack and an appeal to consequences in its condemnation of the ruling. Both are logical fallacies, prissily delivered, and a sure sign that the editorial page doesnít have an argumentative leg to stand on.
Of course, the outraged, most of whom havenít read the ruling, are being fed a misrepresented version of it. It is, in fact, about protecting children from undue influence. Unlike children, adults do not suffer coercion when they choose to recite the pledge, or not to recite it, or only parts of it. These are the kinds of decisions adults are capable of making, but not impressionable children. The government should not mandate that children be asked to recite an endorsement of religion. That is not the governmentís job.
And yes, those two words do amount to an endorsement. The words ìunder Godî were added specifically for that purpose in 1954, to show that the US was a God-fearing nation, in stark contrast with those Godless communists. The facetious might make the argument that since the cold war has been won, those two words are no longer needed.
Finally: No, American money is not next, as certain alarmists would prefer us to believe. We do not tend to recite ìIn God We Trustî every time we use money, and hence we are not coerced by the existence on coinage of what is undeniably an endorsement of a religious concept. Other invocations of God, at public occasions such as the start of Congress, serve a secular purpose, and as such have their place. The addition of ìunder Godî served a religious purpose, as President Eisenhower so eloquently put:
ìFrom this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.î
Honest libertarians everywhere will be rejoicing at the news that the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because it refers to the US as one nation "under God," which violates the separation of Church and State. The decision was just handed down by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Not enough people realize that freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Pertinent info: The pledge was first codified by Congress in 1942. "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954, also by Congress.
The plaintiff-appelant Michael Newdow, did not seek damages, but "declaratory and injunctive relief;" he simply wants "under God" to be removed from the pledge, not that the pledge be abolished outright.
Excerpts:
In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation ìunder Godî is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation ìunder Godî is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase ìone nation under Godî in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and ó since 1954 ó monotheism.Interesting fact: The addition of "under God" to the pledge was made during the Eisenhower administration, "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism." Continue reading "Pledge of Allegiance, I"[...]
A profession that we are a nation ìunder Godî is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation ìunder Jesus,î a nation ìunder Vishnu,î a nation ìunder Zeus,î or a nation ìunder no god,î because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.
[...]
Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the Pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the Pledge.
For 4 years up until September 10, 2001, I often took the N/R subway to work, getting on at 8th Street and getting off at Cortlandt Street, where passengers were disgorged into the huge underground mall below the World Trade Center. I would track past hundreds of commuters, a J.Crew, a Gap, a Sephora; perhaps I'd get a cafe latte from New World Coffee, at the North-east base of the North tower, before heading though its entrance hall on my way to the pedestrian bridge that led to the World Financial Center.
Soon after Sept 11, 2001, the N/R train resumed its service, but without stopping at Cortlandt Street. The first few days, passengers would look up from their doings and stare quietly out the carriage windows at the wooden support struts that had been hastily built. In orange spray paint on the walls, "DO NOT STOP," conductors were told. After a few months, as the salvage efforts on Ground Zero progressed, the station was cleaned up, and the struts disappeared. People no longer looked up or grew quiet as we passed the station.
Yesterday, for the first time, out of the corner of my eye, I noticed a bright spot where the mall was. Today, I confirmed it: the exit that used to take me to the mall has been opened by workers, and it leads to bright daylight.
I've grappled with the idea that in my head, the mental map I've built up from years of walking through the World Trade Center still exists, even though the place does not. Until today, subconsciously, the mall still existed behind those boarded-up doors.
In the same way, being kept away from the actual site of the disaster protected me from having to update this map, but as of yesterday, they let you walk all along the southern perimeter of Ground Zero, with an unobstructed view of the site, much like any construction site. I walked by there. You can clearly see the rebuilding of the 1/9 subway line, as well as many partly demolished subterranean levels. I'd seen some of this before from our office's window at Falkor LLC, but being right next to it, on the ground, makes it all a lot more immediate. Go and have a look if you haven't been recently.
A remarkable (and brave) analysis of the divergent perceptions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, by Amira Hass in Ha'aretz.
A Belgian appeals court has thrown out a lawsuit accusing Ariel Sharon of crimes against humanity, on a technicality. I know at least one family member whose job will become a lot easier:-)
As the article underscores, neither the Lebanese who filed the lawsuit nor the Israeli government have ever seen this as a legal proceeding, but as a political means to an end. For Belgium, the law was intended to be among the most progressive in the world in terms of prosecuting violations of human rights, but it turned into a nightmare when complaints brought by citizens affected bilateral relations between Belgium and the states whose heads were indicted. The law in effect allowed individuals to form Belgian foreign policy. Also, it promoted tit-for-tat retributions--in addition to Sharon, Arafat was indicted as well, and so was Saddam Hussein, I believe.
But now the law has been defanged. And a good thing too, because one embarrassing aspect of this law is that it is meant to have universal jurisdiction--nobody in the world is immune. Nobody, that is, except for Belgian members of parliament, who are immune to Belgian laws.
Bush's policy statement on the Middle East had some articulate flourishes: Notably, he separated the current Palestinian leadership from the aspirations of the Palestinian people, and thus seemed to be trying to boost support for a new civil society that Edward Said has been documenting of late as a breeding ground for a future generation of Palestinian politicians. To this end, Bush called on new elections in Palestine, and dangled the carrot of a provisional Palestinian state if certain hurdles were met, such as the establishment of a constitutional framework, and a fair, working judiciary.
He also balanced the usual statements of understanding about the terrorism that Israelis are being subjected to right now with an appreciation of the ìanger and despair of the Palestinian people,î and that it is ìuntenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupationî. He also said that ìpermanent occupation threatens Israelís identity and democracy.î These opinions are not exactly what Sharon or Netanyahu would volunteer, and in doing so Bush makes an effort to separate his position from that of Israel.
But if he really wanted to address the huge chasm between Israeli and Palestinian perceptions of what would amount to a fair resolution of this mess, Bush should also have criticized Israelís policy over the past decade of simultaneously building settlements on occupied territories while pursuing a negotiated peace. This settlement policy has negated any chance of success of a peace process, and it continues. This is perhaps the biggest perceived violation Palestinians feel towards their land, and one that will need to be addressed before a permanent peace is possible.
I think the hurdles placed before the Palestinians will prove too high, when all that is offered at the end is a provisional Palestinian state, with final status talks about Jerusalem still not resolved. That amounts to too big a stick and too small a carrot. And as long as Palestinians feel an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital is dependent on the whim of an Israeli government that is in no mood to dole out favors, the dead end of terrorism will remain a seductive lure for those morons who crave "martyrdom".
On a different note, is the phrase ìplight of the Palestiniansî used so often because it alliterates so well?
Another reason why the east coast is better than the west coast: New York cops don't care if England fans are screaming their heads off in your bar over pints of ale at 7am, while in San Francisco they'll raid you if you give out free coffee after 2am.
World Cup predictions? Ideal finals would be Germany-Turkey (for the geopolitical implications) and Brazil-Korea (for the effect it will have on football's popularity in Asia if Korea wins, as well as the blow to Brazil's ego).
Minority Report is a fantastic movie that everybody must rush to go see twice. It melds Spielberg's knack for movie magic with riveting science fiction, and pays plenty of tributes to previous science fiction classics. And finally a director has managed to create a blockbuster movie with a wholly convincing future world that does NOT look like a Blade Runner clone--unlike most other recent science fiction, including Attack of the Clones and The Fifth Element. A big influence is A Clockwork Orange: look for such details as the eye operation and the drunk in the hallway--but also in the dystopian aspects of the society that is portrayed.
The plot is complicated, and Kim has rightly pointed out a problem that I haven't found a satisfying answer for in the newsgroups, though others there have noted it. Spoilers follow, so please see the movie first...
<spoilers>
Pre-cogs can see murders that will happen in the future unless they are prevented by the pre-crime police. One way to make a pre-cog see a future murder is to hire an assassin--as with the ploy to kill Agatha's mother. But the way in which John Anderton is set up doesn't seem to fit this requirement. All we have is a paradox, because it is not enough to hire somebody to wait to be killed--this is not sufficient cause for a murder to happen: the intended murderer--Anderton--only starts the chain of events when he sees himself in the pre-cog's vision. Director Burgess does not appear to have any control as to whether the pre-cogs see this particular future and show it to Anderton--and so he gets set up--or see a future in which Anderton does nothing, in which case nothing would have happened and there would not have been a setup.
Is all that Burgess does hire a murder victim? That to me seems insufficient to propel the plot. But perhaps I've missed something, and I need a second viewing. In the newsgroups, some argued that indeed this is enough. Others noted the special aspects of a future that is perceived by a intended perpetrator--in other words, only in Anderton's case was it sufficient to merely hire an intended victim, because he has access to futures, including his own, and is in a unique position to act on this pre-cognition. Burgess would know this.
My own theory is that Agatha is much more of a plot driver than we are let on. She shows the stored memory of her mother's murder to Anderton in order to set him on a path to solving it. Part of this process involves Burgess trying to derail him, and in doing so he is shown to be the villain, and the murder of Agatha's mother is solved. There are still some loose ends here, but I will go see the movie again and check if this interpretation stands up to scrutiny.
</spoilers>
From the department of the bleeding obvious comes news that eating too much makes you fat, according to this gem of a report. However, the shocking conclusion is that "Americans are being manipulated by the food industry into eating far more than they need, or even want to."
You know what's next, of course. A 550-pound man will sue McDonalds for being asked by employees over a period of 15 years if he wanted to supersize his meals, when they should have known supersizing was dangerous to his health. Expect McDonalds to deny that their products kill, however: "The food and restaurant industries have started to strike back at such campaigns, saying it is a lack of exercise and not eating more that is to blame."
I personally plan to sue my local movie theater for offering a bucket of popcorn for only 50c more than the $4 dixie-cup size. I thought it was a bargain, but now I realize "People think they are getting bargains but they are just getting calories". Yep, value marketing is manipulation, and I look forward to having my day in court.
And Starbucks is not going to be let off lightly either. For years, they've been asking me if I wanted something to eat with that coffee. And I daresay that on occasion, I've succumbed to the serpent-headed lure of a pretty barista and asked for that chocolate croissant just to impress her.
But even if I haven't ordered the supersized portions at restaurants, merely sitting near friends who do can have devastating consequences; inevitably, fries get stolen, food gets shared around, and deserts are ordered collectively. Passive eating may well be the next great public health epidemic.
Continue reading "Dept. of the Bleeding Obvious"And so Belgium's World Cup ambitions end with a 2-0 loss against Brazil, despite an early Belgian goal that was disallowed by a blind referee and some great game play that made the Brazlians look decidedly un-stellar. Of the 4 teams I've been rooting for (in order of allegiance: Belgium, Sweden, England, US) England and the US have made it to the quarter-finals. Looking more and more possible: an England - Germany final rematch.
Continue reading "Belgique: Nul Points!"A favorite east village haunt, Bar Veloce, was the site of a bizzare hostage taking/shoot-out with police last night.
I've seen this TV ad several times now, and it galls me every time: "Drug money supports terror. If you buy drugs you might too." To which the obvious rejoinder is: So legalise them already.
Continue reading "New drug ads"How many Jews does it take to change a light bulb? It depends.
How many Israelis does it take to put up a fence between Israel and Palestine? It depends on your definition of 'fence'.
Needless to say, this is not the fence that I think is in the best interests of Israelis to put up. My fence would follow pre-1967 borders and involve the removal of Israeli settlers. The 'security fence' being built roughly follows those borders, but cuts off from Palestine Palestinian towns that straddle the 'green line'. This fence will also separate a few Israeli farmers from their fields, but more importantly, put a good number of settlers on the "wrong" side of a proto-border, for want of a better term. Temperary security fences have a habit of sticking around for a long time.
Look! A new improved rule 30. Press play when you're ready. The red line is a continuous thread that emanates from the first square. Go ahead and try different widths (14 is one of my favorites).
Continue reading "Look! A new improved rule 30"A poll out Tuesday will be grist for the op ed pages Wednesday: "A majority of Palestinians believe the aim of their 20-month-old uprising should be to eliminate Israel and not just end Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip," reports Reuters.
It's one of those depressing polls, where my intuitions about majority sentiment need to be adjusted pessimistically--even after obligatory bias checks: It's technically a majority--51%--but with a three percent margin of error, a broader moniker, such as "around half of all Palestinians," would be a more balanced description of the poll result. The poll shows a hardening of Palestinian public opinion since last December, when a similar poll found 44% supported the elimination of Israel.
I last needed to adjust my intuitions pessimistically as a result of a poll conducted among Israelis in March 2002. It showed that 46% of Israelis favored the forced "transfer" of Palestinians out of Palestine to Jordan or elsewhere. "Transfer" is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, and it implies the end of Palestinians living in Palestine. Palestinians are perfectly free to found a Palestinian state, the expressed sentiment goes, as long as it is east of the river Jordan.
Sixty percent of Israelis supported "encouraging" Palestinians to leave Palestine, while 31% would "transfer" even Israeli-Arabs out of Israel. (I can't bring myself to remove the scare quotes from "transfer".)
I was surprised by both results. At the time, the Israeli poll was explained away by Israeli moderates as a perfectly understandable venting of frustration at the current situation, and that Israelis didn't really believe in a plan that had hitherto been espoused by fringe fanatics. No doubt, Palestinian moderates will argue that Palestinians are merely venting their frustrations, and that they don't really want to eliminate Israel. Would that both were right.
The one lesson to take from this is that roughly half of each group's population cannot bear the thought of the other side living on their own land. Extremists on either side have succesfully destroyed all middle ground, and both sides are engaging wholesale in the demonization of the other as a monolithic enemy. And yet, it remains evident to all save the extremists that the existence of both states is the only feasible peaceful soluton. The only choice available to either side is how many civilians will be killed before this solution is enacted. And no, this is not naive--Israel has the option to withdraw unilaterally and build a wall around Palestine to satisfy its security concerns. Palestine has the option to engage in Ghandi-esque forms of nonviolent resistance, and quickly regain the unequivocal support of the rest of the world that Israel will find impossible to resist.
It'll be interesting to see if US op-ed pages evaluate the Palestinian poll in the context of Israel's own hardening of public opinion, or if they cannot resist an easy swipe. It would be a victory for jingoism.
What's Stephen Wolfram been up to over the past 20 years? Dealing with the implications of his discovery of rule 30.
In this Flash application, every successive row of squares is generated by applying a simple rule to the preceding row. For each square in the new row, the rule looks at the three closest squares in the preceding row. In our case, if all 3 are black, for example, then the new square will be white--and if the one immediately above is black but the other 2 are white, then the new square will be black, etc... There are 256 such possible rules (because a set of 3 squares with 2 states has eight possible permutations, and for each permutation the new square has 2 possible states). Rule 30, displayed here on he right, is special: Wolfram discovered that it is capable of generating completely random behavior from a row containing just a single square.
My implementation of rule 30 does not lead to perfectly random behavior, because--for space reasons--the leftmost square and the rightmost square have been turned into neighbors. Because the amount of squares in a row is fixed (at 30) there is a finite set of possible permutations, and so eventually the combinations must repeat. In our particular case, this happens every 250,000 iterations or so, or about every 2 days at the current pace. Still, not bad for a few lines of code.
Continue reading "Stephen Wolfram's New Kind of Science, Cont."A gem from Matthew about our Dean of old. The New York Times issued this correction today:
Because of a transmission error, an article yesterday about a visit to the Philippines by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz to assess plans for American troops to extend a counterterrorism training mission with the military there misstated a phrase in his description of the situation. He said, "The stakes are large there, and so are the problems" ó not "Mistakes are large."Transmission errors are a wonderful thing. No such luck for the Uruguayan president: Here is an AP story from yesterday:A picture caption misidentified the object under Mr. Wolfowitz's shoulder. It was a life preserver, for use if his helicopter landed in water, not a holster.
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - Uruguayan President Jorge Batlle offered a teary apology in a nationally televised meeting with Argentina's president Tuesday for calling Argentines a "bunch of thieves" and sharply criticizing its leadership.I too apologize immediately every time I insult a much bigger neighboring country, but could Batlle have gotten away with claiming transmission errors? Did he not say Argentines are a bunch of chiefs? Or whatever the Spanish equivalent is. Continue reading "Wolfie Watch"Looking somber, Batlle went on television at the side of President Eduardo Duhalde at the Argentine leader's suburban compound to say he was sorry for his outspoken comments, broadcast a day earlier.
Blog maps: what a great idea, and probably the next big thing in the blogging universe. Of course, New York is leading the charge: nycbloggers.com is a gorgeously designed site with a great concept--using subway maps to drill down to local blogs while preserving their privacy.
But the content referenced by nycbloggers.com is what's most compelling. I never partake in online chats because anonymous opinions tend to the utterly stupid. Blogs, meanwhile, are personal and have a reputation to defend, so there is room for intersecting interests. One obvious interest that strangers share is their neighborhood--but until now, there was no way of linking blogspace to meatspace. Blogmaps do precisely that. I look forward to scanning through all the East Village blogs, and then virtually foraying into Brooklyn along the N/R.
And when you're done, here is a Belgian/Dutch blogmap to peruse.
Continue reading "Blog map of NYC"This is as good a story as any to broach the topic of the World Cup. From a bleary conversation this past weekend while watching the Sweden - England match at an ungodly hour, I remember this famous British headline: "Subs sink Krauts" after substitutes scored the winning goals against a German team. Can anyone remember others?
Continue reading "Good headers"There is no denying it: I will do silly things for the sake of art. if you are in New York in July, come watch the premiere of Apartment 5E. Else, just watch pictures from the making of.