So the Vice President oversaw the biggest defense cuts in history, but he criticizes Kerry? I don't see how that isn't hypocrisy.
This Newsweek article by a devout Christian explains why "under God" should not be in the Pledge.
Galison, Peter. Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare’s Maps: Empires in Time. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2003. 389 pp. Acknowledgements, notes, bibliography, index. $16.77 hardcover, ISBN 0-393-02001-0.
Contrary to popular belief in the United States, Einstein did not operate in a scientific vacuum, and his time as a patent “clerk” in Bern was not a dead-end that was a complete waste of his talents and abilities. At least that is the opinion of Peter Galison’s Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare’s Maps. Focusing on the time period between 1890 and 1910, Galison examines the role of developments in coordinated time theory, the impact of France’s Ecole Polytechnique on research methods, and the training Einstein received in the patent office in the development of his theory of special relativity. At the same time, Galison places both the adoption of standard measurements for time, space and geography in the context of late 19th century international politics and traditions of European scientific thought.
Although it is disguised in biographical studies of Henry Poincare and Albert Einstein, Galison’s real target seems to be the development of the theory of special relativity, which he ultimately attributes to Einstein. Although he credits Einstein with the discovery, Galison repeatedly states that the theory was the outgrowth of physics research involving electromagnetic fields and time coordination efforts of cities, railroads, and nations. In this respect, the biographical treatment of Einstein and Poincare is merely a tool that provides understanding of the main topic. This is not to imply that Einstein and Poincare are an afterthought, rather they are the main characters in a story that involves them, but is not about them.
The reason Galison takes this tack is that it provides the most accessible method for discussing the development of the theory of relativity in the greater context of scientific inquiry and the pressures of international competition over weights and measures, universal time standards, and the location of the prime meridian. However, at times, Galison focuses so much on these issues that it is easy to lose sight of Einstein, Poincare, and relativity. It can be argued that Galison provides so much background and historical context that it overwhelms the reader with excessive amounts of detail.
Galison chooses Einstein as one of his two speakers on the topic of coordinated time and relativity simply because it was Einstein’s 1905 paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” that signaled the change from an emphasis on classical mechanics in the study of physics to a new theoretical-practical model. Poincare, on the other hand, is chosen as the foremost practitioner of the practical mechanical philosophy, and a product of the foremost school of engineering in Europe. (14) The contrast between the scientific philosophies of the two men allows Galison to illustrate the profound significance of the change represented by Einstein’s theory of special relativity, and is easiest to illustrate biographically.
Before leaping into the intricacies of international relations, the training of engineers, or the workings of Swiss patent offices, Galison takes the time to explain Einstein’s theory of special relativity and how it was different from prevailing thought on how electromagnetic fields work. In 1905, when Einstein introduced the theory of special relativity, most physicists believed that light waves moved through some unknown substance as waves in the ocean or sound waves through the air. Unable to quantify the unknown media light moved through, 19th century physicists dubbed it ether, and hoped that eventually they would be able to identify it empirically. (15) The problem with using ether to explain physical phenomena went beyond merely being unable to quantify it or study its effects; it required that identical events require multiple explanations depending on minimal changes in the experiment. The example Einstein used to introduce his theory was that under the old classical mechanics methodology using ether, the electricity generated in a coil when near a magnet was explained differently depending on whether the coil moved toward the magnet, or the magnet moved closer to the coil. Einstein believed that there should be a single explanation for the electrical field generated regardless of whether the coil or magnet moved, and he blamed the requirement for separate explanations on physicist’s insistence that ether existed.
Einstein’s solution was to dispose of the ether entirely. He did this for two reasons. First, he believed that there should be a single explanation for what he saw as a single problem, and second, because the existence of ether could not be demonstrated empirically. Without any proof of ether’s existence, Einstein saw no reason to jump through scientifically questionable hoops to account for it. This led him to the postulate that there was “no way to tell which unaccelerated reference frame was at rest”, which meant that physical objects that were not accelerating behaved independently of the reference frame they occupied. (17) This new principle of relativity is interesting not only in the impact it had on 20th century scientific understanding, but that Galileo had noted that when at sea in smooth waters, experiments, such as ball drops, behaved in the same manner they did on land. As Galison states it, “ There was simply was no way to use any part of mechanics to tell whether a room was ‘really’ at rest or ‘really’ moving.” (16) The general idea behind the theory of relativity was understood for at least three hundred years before Einstein published his paper.
Relativity enters into Galison’s broader topic due to Einstein’s extension of it to the speed of light. Einstein contended that the speed of light was always exactly the same, regardless of the speed of the source relative to the observer. What this meant was that rather than light moving at 300,000 kilometers per second + the speed of the source, light always moved at exactly 300,000 kilometers per second. This impacted physicists’ conception of simultaneity, which in turn affected ideas of how the coordination of disparately located clocks should be done. Einstein insisted that the concept of simultaneity be defined procedurally, saying that just because he received to signals at the same moment did not mean they were sent at the same moment if the signals traveled different distances. Einstein demonstrated the solution using a clock coordination scenario, which was particularly apt given the importance of clock coordination for the running of trains and the prestige of governments. Einstein’s procedure for clock coordination said that users should have, “one observer at the origin A send a light signal when his clock says 12:00 to B at a distance d from A; the light signal reflects off B and returns to A. Einstein has B set her clock to noon plus half the round trip time.” (22) If the speed of light remained the same in any direction, then it could be used to determine trip time so that clocks could be easily coordinated over large distances.
In isolation, Einstein’s theory, even with it’s deliberate inclusion of a procedure for time coordination, could have been significant only to scientists. However, Galison points out that it had an almost immediate impact on time coordination, which stretched along rail lines and across oceans, due to the research of James Clerk Maxwell. A Cambridge physicist, Maxwell developed a theory that “showed light to be nothing more than electric waves.” (23) This allowed Einstein’s theory of relativity to have an immediate impact as railroads and telegraph stations used electricity to coordinate their clocks.
The immediate applicability of the theory of relativity to clock coordination highlights two issues of international concern at the turn of the 20th century, which Galison concentrates heavily on. The first issue was the development of standard units of measure for both weight and distance. After diplomatic maneuvering the honor of creating, distributing, and storing the standard meter and kilogram fell to France, which painstakingly created the copies to be held by other nations and kept the originals and “witnesses” in carefully protected vaults. The second issue was of standardized, universal time, and it was much more difficult to resolve.
Galison discusses in detail the task of laying undersea telegraph cables, which were used both for communication, but also for mapping and time coordination. While the use of the cables for time coordination is an immediately obvious use of the cables given Einstein and Maxwell’s work, their use for mapping is not so intuitive. Both mapping and time coordination were pre-requisites for the adoption of universal time standards.
Mapping comes into the equation because of the difficulty of mapping accurate longitude lines. Longitudinal calculation requires extremely precise measurement of time, a task that was near impossible with the chronometers available for rail and shipboard use. Laying undersea telegraph cables, which could be used for time coordination, also allowed cartographers to determine extremely precise calculation of the longitude of the receiving stations. While this solved the problem of determining exactly where any geographic location was in relation to another, it did not solve the issue of where to start counting longitude from, which was a political issue.
For every day people, the solution to the international political dispute over where the prime meridian should be located is what makes Einstein’s theory of special relativity relevant. This dispute, which focused on whether the prime meridian, or longitude of zero degrees, should be at Greenwich, England, or Paris, France, was ultimately decide by the United States’ adoption of standardized time zones based on Greenwich as the zero line and England’s dominant role in overseas shipping. Of course, Galison does not immediately leap to this conclusion, and continues to discuss the lives and training of both Poincare and Einstein after discussing it, but this is the essence of Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare’s Maps. As he says himself, his work is the story of the development time coordination, and the adoption of a universal time standard represents the ultimate in time coordination, which is ultimately the legacy of Henri Poincare and Albert Einstein.
'Nuff Said. Its all about the Benjamins.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1573102,00.asp
This kid is a jackass. For a spoiled student to criticize a football player turned soldier who gave his life for a cause he believed in is beyond the pale. All of our servicemen and women should be honored for their sacrifices. Period.
Evidently some of our allies think so.
The L.A. Times has an interesting article on Senator Kerry's journey from combat veteran to anti-war leader. Many thanks to Hesiod for pointing it out.
Here's what the good General has to say. As far as I'm concerned, it's good enough for me. After all, I've never been shot at.
The White House must be really afraid of what ill happen once people understand how badly they blew the call on the threat before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
They also are trying hide the Graham-Rudman-Gingrich report from early in the Presidency, evidence that the CIA provided repeated briefings on the topic, the President's Daily Brief from August 6, 2001, and the fact that the Attorney General stopped using commercial aviation for his trips after a warning from the FBI.
Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
How to make food better without GMOs.
So why aren't we seeing questions about Tom Ridge receiving communion, or people who support the death penalty?
And why are we talking about Kerry receiving communion when the President, who claims to be so devout (and the chosen of God) doesn't bother with services?
Check out this tribute to a "Soldiers' Soldier". The loss of Pat Tillman is unfortuinate and serves to draw all of our attention to the tragedy of lives lost overseas, but this story depicts the average soldier in the field.
They only get the illusion of Freedom.
Someone needs to explain to me how it was ok for Vice President Dick Cheney to call for cutting defense during the 1980s, but not ok for Kerry to do so?
Looks like the Bush Administration is up to some interesting little statistical trick to artificially boost GDP calculations. Currently they are using services/goods based productions, not industrial output. According to the Economist, this artificially boosts the GDP.
Excellent. Between Space Ship One and Xcor, we may get there yet. Ok, NASA, what have you guys got?
You'd think that the most expesnive military on the planet, with access to the best tanks and fighting vehicles would have no problems getting supplied by a President that claims that American troops should have whatever they need to get the job done, right? You'd be wrong.
The reality is that the Army and Marines can't get enough heavy hummers, bolt on armor doesn't work, there are only 70 tanks in Iraq, the Strykars are held in safe areas because their tires are preceived as vulnerable, and the troops have a hard time getting body armor.
Meanwhile, our men and women in the field remain in the meat grinder.
As long as we have to remain in Iraq (and we do, unfortunately), it should be with adequate numbers of personnel, proper equipment, and the right doctrine. Until we can get to that point, there won't be any real rebuilding. That means that both Americans and Iraqis will continue to die for no purpose.
Just another reason to vote for John Kerry in November. At least he acknowledges the problems we have in the Middle East.
When Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry left the hamlet of My Lai on March 16th, 1968, leaving 470 unarmed Vietnamese civilians dead in it's wake, it forever changed the perception of the world that American troops operated in a more humane and honorable manner toward civilians than soldiers of other nations. My Lai: A Brief History with Documents is James Olson and Randy Roberts' courageous attempt to address the events at My Lai objectively, fairly, and honestly, without drawing conclusions regarding the conduct of Charlie Company, investigators, or jurors at courts-martial. That difficult task the authors leave to the reader.
Olson and Roberts begin My Lai with the story of Ronald Ridenhour, a Vietnam veteran who learned about the massacre at My Lai from another soldier in a Vietnamese bar in April of 1968. This soldier, Charles Gruver, told Ridenhour that this company had gone to My Lai and killed everyone they found. (1) Over the course of the next few months, Ridenhour confirmed the story with other soldiers he knew that had been involved. Ultimately, he wrote a detailed letter to his Congressman, several Senators, President Richard Nixon, and others detailing all of the events that had taken place, even though doing so implicated several of his friends in the commission of war crimes.
The remaining text is divided into two elements. The major portion consists of the documentary evidence of the incident: after action reports, briefing notes, witness testimony, congressional reports, courts martial proceedings, and newspaper accounts. The remainder of My Lai consists of background and explanatory information provided by Olson and Roberts. The combination of the two elements is what makes My Lai such a useful tool for understanding both the incident at My Lai hamlet and the Vietnam War as a whole. This value of the background and interpretive information is quite easy to demonstrate, particularly if the volume is approached with the understanding that at least some readers will have little understanding of the issues of the war. A particularly important passage illustrates the differences between North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh and South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem. Ho Chi Minh is described a nationalist leader who led his people against the Japanese occupation of Vietnam and continued to fight against the French after the war, earning the respect of the Vietnamese. Ngo Dinh Diem, on the other hand, is described as “a corrupt, anti-Buddhist Roman Catholic who soon alienated most South Vietnamese.” (4) The result was that the United States was propping up South Vietnam by 1965.
Background is even more important in understanding the events leading directly to My Lai, and in the text encompasses two separate issues. The first issue is the nature of the fighting in Quang Ngai province, the region My Lai was situated in. Quang Ngai was considered a Vietcong stronghold, and the home of the 48th Vietcong Local Force Battalion, which was long a thorn in the side of American and South Vietnamese forces. Immediately before the massacre at My Lai, both the 48th Battalion and Charlie Company were active in the area, with Charlie Company taking many casualties from snipers and booby-traps without being able to engage the enemy. The area immediately surround My Lai had supposedly been cleared of Vietnamese civilians, leaving only Vietcong and Vietcong sympathizers. This is particularly important in understanding the tragedy at My Lai, as both factors may have led the soldiers of Charlie Company to believe that only combatants would be in the area. (17)
The background issue relates specifically to Charlie Company’s leadership and training. The two most important leaders, in terms of culpability for the massacre, were the company commander Captain Ernest Medina and Lt. William Calley. Captain Medina is described as an incredibly competent officer who took care of his men and used an “us vs. them” philosophy to create unit cohesion. (17) Lt. Calley, the major villain of the episode, appear to be the antithesis of Capt. Medina. Where Medina had worked his way up to his position through discipline and perseverance, Calley was pushed through Officer Training School despite his obvious incompetence. (12) These differences led Medina to despise Calley, and Calley to behave obsequiously toward his superiors.
Charlie Company appears to have received adequate training in the combat arts and following orders, however, both the background information and findings of the Peers Commission indicate that Charlie Company received little serious instruction in the laws of war, despite receiving carry cards with instructions for interacting with civilians and enemy prisoners. Specifically, Charlie Company soldiers that were questioned before the Peers Commission had little memory of their training in the Geneva Convention’s rules other than that the training officer had acted like the rules could be freely ignored (42), but that training to obey orders without question came to the forefront of their memories.
The final element leading to the My Lai Massacre, according to Olson and Roberts, was operation orders that were understood by many of the men, particularly in Lt. Calley’s 1st Platoon, to mean that anyone found in My Lai was to be killed. While this was disputed by Captain Medina and Army journalist Jay Roberts, and 1st Platoon’s Gregory Olsen (among others), 2nd Platoon’s weapons squad leader Mat Hutson testified that Medina had briefed the Company that, “he had orders to kill everyone in the village.” (63) This belief was shared by 1st Platoon’s Harry Stanley, who testified that, “we all agreed that Captain Medina meant for us to kill every man, woman, and child in the village.” (63)
Ultimately, My Lai: A Brief History with Documents uses official documents, accompanied with the commentary of the authors to illustrate one of the United States Army’s darkest moments. It does this not only by presenting documents directly related to My Lai, but also by discussing the origins of the Vietnam War, the prevailing conditions in Vietnam in 1968, the mental state of American soldiers, and the practice of ticket punching that shuttled officers in and out of the region. Both the documents and the background information are required for readers to make sense of the events of March 16th, 1968, not to mention the cover-up that followed. Olson and Roberts especially take the time to discuss the massacre, the cover-up by officers ranging from Lt. Calley to General Westmoreland, and the reaction to both at home in the United States. If any criticism can be found of My Lai it would be that no stand is taken regarding the actions of Charlie Company. However, the lack of a stand can also be considered a strength, in that it allows the reader to draw his own conclusions.
Sobel, Dava. Galileo’s Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love. New York: Penguin Putnam, 2000. 420 pp. Map, timeline, table of weights and measures, bibliography, acknowledgements, notes, art credits, index. $15.00 paperback, ISBN 0-14-028055-3.
Arguably the greatest scientific mind of the early modern era, Galileo Galilei challenged the Catholic Church’s stance that the Copernican theory that the Earth was not the stable center of the Universe, while attempting to stay true to his faith, and Dava Sobel relies on the letters of his eldest daughter Suor Maria Celeste Galilei to show the depth of the conflict between the two imperatives. These letters provide Sobel with the title for her work, although after reading the text, the subtitle, “A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love”, seems more apt than the main title, “Galileo’s Daughter”, because the text focuses far more on Galileo and his life than Marie Celeste.
Indeed the title of Sobel’s work, in conjunction with the opening pages, imply that Galileo’s tale will be told through the eyes of Marie Celeste via her surviving letters to her father. The reality of Galileo’s Daughter is quite different, with Marie Celeste’s letters not truly coming to the forefront until Galileo’s confrontation with Pope Urban VIII and the Office of the Holy Inquisition over his espousal of Copernicus’ work in his book Dialogue of Galileo Galilei…Concerning the two Chief Systems of the World, Ptolemaic and Copernican, Propounding inconclusively the philosophical and physical reasons as much for one side as for the other. The extensive bibliography and notes show that the vast majority of the material in Galileo’s Daughter comes from sources other that Marie Celeste’s letters to her illustrious father. As a result, readers who expect to gather great insights into Galileo though the eyes of his daughter may find themselves looking for more.
In truth, a biography that focused entirely on Suor Maria Celeste Galilei’s life and her interactions with Galileo would be only marginally interesting to any but the most dedicated Galileo scholars. These dedicated individuals are the ones who seek out, as Sobel did, Marie Celeste’s letters are decipher them on their own, or seek out direct translations of the type that appear scattered throughout the text as supporting material. Rather than taking that tack, Sobel seamlessly intertwines existing Galileo scholarship with English translations of the letters to provide an emotional and familial context for Galileo’s ordeal.
Sobel places Galileo’s work and life in historical perspective by focusing on four key events: the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, Copernicus’ promulgation of the Pythagorean theory of the sun-centered solar system, the election of Galileo’s friend as Pope Urban VIII, and Galileo’s refinement of the telescope as an astronomical instrument. The first three factors combined to negatively color the Church’s official response to the publication of Galileo’s controversial Dialogue, while the third placed Galileo in the position to confirm Copernicus’ theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun through empirical observation. Galileo’s confirmation of this theory is what placed him in conflict with the Church in Rome and the Office of the Holy Inquisition. This conflict did not develop immediately, and Sobel uses Marie Celeste’s letters to trace its course and impact on Galileo’s psyche.
Galileo was first drawn into conflict with the Church as a result of his popularity in Rome and elsewhere, which was derived from his assault on the Aristotelian system of physics in his astronomical works The Starry Messenger and History and Demonstrations Concerning Sunspots and Their Phenomena. The Starry Messenger described the surface of the moon and its phases, four moons orbiting Jupiter, and movement of Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter across the heavens. History and Demonstrations Concerning Sunspots and Their Phenomena described and traced the paths of sunspots during the Sun’s revolution on its axis. These two works combined with Galileo’s public debates with critics regarding the behavior of masses in water (Sobel, 43) to attack the basis of Aristotelian and Biblical dictum that the heavens were forever unchanging. Galileo’s success debating his opponents and advocates of traditional views of physics was exacerbated by the humiliation he dealt opponents through physical demonstrations, as well as his popularity in the Roman and Florentine social scenes.
According to Sobel, the first indication that he might experience problems with the church due to his scientific discoveries came from a friend in Rome, who wrote to him, “that a certain crowd of ill-disposed men envious of your virtue and merits met at the house of the archbishop there [in Florence] and put their heads together in a mad quest for any means by which they could damage you, either with regard to the motion of the earth or otherwise.” (Sobel, 45) This warning came during his work on Bodies in Water, which disputed Aristotelian theories regarding the behavior of objects floating in water and inflamed his enemies, may have provided the final impetus Galileo needed to send his daughters into the convent for their protection. The publication of History and Demonstrations Concerning Sunspots and Their Phenomena caused his critics to take things to a more dangerous level by involving the Church hierarchy, and according to Sobel, Galileo gave them a perfect opening to attack him.
The ammunition that Galileo’s critics used against him were a letter he sent to his former student and friend Benedetto Castelli, who had earned the displeasure of Pisa’s Grand Duchess Mother Madama Cristina with his discussion of the moons of Jupiter and the motion of the planets around the Sun (Sobel, 61), and a letter sent by Galileo to the Grand Duchess in an attempt to explain how Copernican theory did not dispute the contents of the Bible. (Sobel, 67) Galileo’s argument, which Sobel quotes extensively, was that not only did Copernican theory explain Joshua’s stopping of the Sun’s course across the sky better than Aristotelian theory, but that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit in such a way as to explain events and the path to salvation to those who would not understand the more complex workings of the universe. (Sobel, 63) Galileo also contended that Scripture could not be interpreted literally, but must be accepted allegorically in order to avoid heresy at all turns. Unfortunately for Galileo his letter to Castelli was copied and distributed repeatedly, only to fall into the hands of his enemies. After altered copies of his letters to Castelli were presented to the Office of the Holy Inquisition, Galileo went to Rome to defend his theories before the Princes of the Church.
At this juncture, Sobel uses the letters of those around Galileo to describe his mental state. The Tuscan ambassador, Piero Guicciardini, noted that “He is passionately involved in this fight of his and he does not see or sense what it involves, with the result that he will be tripped up and will get himself into trouble, together with anyone who supports his views. For he is vehement and stubborn and very worked up in this matter and it is impossible, when he is around, to escape from his hands.” (Sobel, 73) However, she still has not introduced much in the way of letters or personality of Marie Celeste. Granted her age at this point, thirteen years, in Galileo’s career was such that the any letters may not have produced significant insight into his life or character.
Galileo used his time in Rome to develop a new theory concerning the Earth’s tides to support the theories of Copernicus without using his observation of the heavens. However, this new evidence would not assist him in his interviews with the representatives of the Office of the Holy Inquisition. Based in part of the Council of Trent’s dictum reserving to the church the sole ability of interpreting Scripture, Copernican theory was declared heretical, and Galileo was formally instructed to cease discussing or teaching the theories of Copernicus with anyone. While leaving Galileo free to research other scientific and philosophical issues, this particular instruction would play a large part in his formal trial for heresy after the publication of Dialogues. It is that trial and his subsequent imprisonment that allows Sobel to use Marie Celeste’s letters as the foundation into her revelation of Galileo the man.
The second half of Galileo’s Daughter, telling the tale of Galileo’s trial before the Inquisition and imprisonment, provides Sobel with the material to pain her picture of Galileo as a dedicated scientist, Catholic, and father. It also allows her to introduce Marie Celeste as a dutiful daughter both to Galileo and the Church. Galileo’s second and most serious misadventure with the Church was caused by his misplaced belief that the election of his friend and fellow philosopher as Pope Urban VIII would allow him more freedom to explore Copernican theories.
Marie Celeste’s letters, as presented by Sobel, present an interesting mix of emotional support, need, descriptions of daily life in the abbey, and the domestic affairs of running Galileo’s household. At least while Galileo was in Rome and during his imprisonment, Marie Celeste ran his household from her home in the abbey. One example of her concern for Galileo is evident in a letter to him at Rome, “on the one hand, this gives me great distress, convinced as I am that you find yourself with scant peace of mind, and perhaps also deprived of all bodily comforts.” (Sobel, 243) She later wrote to him to offer solace after Dialogue was banned, saying, “My dearest lord father, now is the time to avail yourself of that prudence which the Lord God has granted you, bearing these blows with that strength of spirit which your religion, your profession, and your age require. And since you, by virtue of your vast experience, can lay claim to full cognizance of the fallacy and instability of everything in this miserable world, you must not make too much of these storms, but rather take hope that they will soon subside and transform themselves from troubles into as many satisfactions. (Sobel, 279) Many of the letters devote large sections to the management of Galileo’s home and its grounds, such as the disposition of wine, lemons, and beans, or maintenance of the structures. This part of Galileo’s Daughter is the most compelling as it most clearly illustrates the relationship between Galileo and Marie Celeste, and provides a clear picture of Italian life during the 17th century.
What Dava Sobel has achieved with Galileo’s Daughter is definitely not a biography of Suor Marie Celeste Galilei, or even a work that focuses on her relationship with her father, but a fully textured look at the life of her father Galileo in which Marie Celeste’s letters play a decisive part in adding much of the color and emotion to the story. Sobel’s achievement with Galileo’s Daughter is not limited to her portrayal of Galileo, his work, and relationship with his children, but extends into international politics, Church politics, and competition among Europe’s foremost thinkers for notoriety. She is also able to entwine all of the above with a subtle examination of 17th century Italian life, at least for those with a modicum of success, influence, and privilege. The overall effect is to immerse the reader while expounding on the trials and tribulations of one of Europe’s most influential thinkers.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040510&s=alterman
In addition to using anti-tank missiles as weapons of political assassination, attack helicopters and tanks against stone-throwers, and bulldozing the homes of families of suspected terrorists, the Israeli army is taking Palestinian hostages and using them as human shields. In one case, they tied an innocent thirteen year-old boy to the hood of a jeep to deter stone-throwing youths, and in another they forced a neighbor to knock on a militant's door to deliver an ultimatum, resulting in the door-knocker's death.
This type of barbarity reduces the Israeli army to just another well-armed band of thugs, particularly in its reticence to fix the problem and discipline its troops. How exactly do they expect the Palestinians to react, other than with more violence?
This link has a gallery of our troops coming home. Hopefully there won't be too many more homecomings like this.
This is pretty neat. Remind me again why we still use oil?
Tami Silicio, the woman who took the photo of the flag-drpaed coffins has been fired by the defense contractor she worked for for breakign company and Pentagon rules. So has her husband.
Once the source of the photo became known, it was inevitable that she would lose her job and possible face other consequences. What seems unbelievable is that she seems to not have recognized that in advance.
Still, the policy itself is asinine, as I've said before. We need visual representations of the impact of our governmental policy in Iraq. This unfortunately includes the deaths of soldiers and civilians, both American and Iraqi, in the war-zone.
If the media were truly liberal, or even independent, the Boston Globe would have challenged this out and out lie:
"The president made a pledge before the American people, and he made his complete file available to the media and the public" - Dan Bartlett
Instead, the Globe chose to attack John Kerry for apparently refusing to release his military records, which he has now done, in a much more complete and unedited fashion than the President did?
John Kerry's full records appear at this location, along with all of his after action reports. One interesting item pointed out by Kevin Drum is that while the President refused overseas duty (contrary his claim of voluteering for it), John Kerry specifically requested to go to Vietnam. No who is the patriot here?
The FBI wants quick and easy access to all of your electronic communications, and they want to force your communications providers to build in access for them. As if merely sucking in every bit that goes down the pipe at the ISP level isn't enough.
The assault on individual liberty in the past six years is astounding. In addition to the ever popular FISA court, where the Feds could get secret wiretaps for Intelligence investigations, we have Echelon, the Patriot Act, and others. While we (and the media) pretend that we are all protected by the Bill of Rights, in reality, the Federal Government has moved to retrict political speech, to reduce access to attorneys, to conduct secret and un-monitored searches of homes, fincancial records, communications, and library records. We have also officially lost our right to habeas corpus and to face accusers in court.
And most of this has been brought to us by the people who claim that these new measures are necessary to protect "freedom". What are we left with? Freedom to by ever more cheap crap with our dwindling paychecks, the freedom to have our jobs (manufacturing or new economy) sent overseas to maximize profits for corporations, to live in fear, to be lied to by our government officials, to be attacked for having opinions different from the President, and to provide huge amounts of corporate welfare to already wealthy companies.
Makes you wonder who's side these people are on, doesn't it?
We all know that President Bush doesn't care what we think, but it appears that he doesn't repsect his father's opinion either, saying that he "answers to a higher Father" instead. Excuse me?
Does this mean that in the run-up to war, rather than discuss the situation with someone who had "been there, and done that", he trusted that God would provide the answers through divine inspiration?
Maybe I'm out of the mainstream here, but I don't believe that God takes a direct hand in human events. I think that he expects us to use the resources around us and our own (God-given) abilities to make our way. To my way of thinking one of those resources for the current President would have to be the President's father, the only person with personal experience with the issue of committing troops to a war.
There's a popular parable that refers to exactly this situation:
Torrential rains, dangerous flooding
Warnings sent throughout the town.
Leave your homes and get to safety
You'll be fine on higher ground.
Taking children, pets and treasures
Most locked their homes and went
But one said "I'm religious,
Help will come, by heaven sent.
In a while he heard a boat outside
A man called - Come with me!
The town is flooding, we can save you
But he stayed on bended knee.
I'm religious, God will save me!
I'd be weak to leave my home,
I know His eye is on the sparrow
And that I'm not here alone.
A little later he heard whirring
A chopper hovered overhead
We'll drop a rope, hold tightly to it;
No, God will save me, what he said.
I'm religious, God will intervene
I am confident, I prayed
I'll be safe from rising waters
So they left, and the man stayed.
He drowned, and faced St. Peter,
Perplexed, confused, the whole thing odd,
Irate at his unanswered prayers
He demanded to see God.
Standing straight with all conviction
He said Why did you let me die?
I did exactly as you taught me
And I insist you tell me why.
In booming voice "I sent you warnings,
I sent men twice, it was so clear
That your prayers were being answered,
It's not my fault you didn't hear."
It is pretty clear to me, that in his arrogant belief that he is the chosen of God, that the President is turning a blind eye, or a deaf ear, to the assistance that he has been given. Maybe that's why the wheels have come off the wagon in Iraq, and a bloody mistake has been made even bloodier.
Sure, you didn't. Let's start at the top, with new information first.
USA Today is reporting that NORAD was running exercises where aircraft, civilian and military, were hijacked and crashed into buildings for two years before September 11th, 2001. Interestingly the simulation of a crash into the Pentagon was scrubbed as "not realistic". That sounds like quite a few people had a good idea that planes might be used as weapons to me.
Also recently, it's been reported that the Hart-Rudman-Gingrich commision, which delievered it's report to the President twelve days after he entered office
Then there's the note that Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft after the FBI warned him not to. I've mentioned this point before, and from the date on the article's byline (July 26th, 2001) it was noticed at the time. I find it really interesting that someone who tried to cut the counter-terrorism budget and changed the FBI's focus away from fighting terrorism would make that change lightly.
This batch of letters to the editor of Stars & Stripes make a good, if saddening, read. One of the spouses says it best - Support the troops, not the mission. I can't agree more.
Those tireless defenders of freedom on the Republican side of the aisle in Washington are trying topush through legislation that will allow a Federal Commision the right to monitor "anti-Americanism" in foreign studies centers at U.S. universities. Which means that political ideologues could be passing judgement on the classes, books, and professors at our Universities with little oversite.
I first heard about this possibility back in November (see below), but hadn't much looked into it, but as the bill has passed the House, it looks a bit more threatening. The group behind this is probably the same one that pushed it's report on "un-patriotic" faculty and students at universities in the aftermath. You know the outfit headed by Lynne Cheney and Joe Lieberman.
Anyway, the point is that once again those who pushed us into the USA Patriot Act and war in Iraq, who deride peace protests as unimportant "opinion polls", and confine protesters away from the President and his delicate sensibilities. These are the people who defend freedom by storing it away on a shelf and take it out only when it suits them.
By introducing a climate of fear in political science, international relations, history, and area studies departments, this legislation could mean that students are taught only one side of the story, leaving them unprepared for reality and unable to determine the truth for themselves. As quick examples, this legislation could keep future students from examining all side of the Vietnam War and the domino theory, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the genocide of the American Indian.
The next question is where does it stop? Right now, this proposes to monitor only programs that receive Federal funding. Of course, it's possible that that could include any institution that has students paying for classes with Federal Financial Aid, but even if it doesn't what keeps legislators from extending it in that manner? When does it shift to all universities, or to all instructors who receives grants for research? A Federal attempt to monitor these programs sets a dangerous precedent, and can only negatively affect scholarship at our schools.
All of that ignores the basics of American political philosophy. At it's core this is an attempt to restrain free speech on our college campuses. What's worse is that the perpetrators are not even trying to hide that fact.
Congress moves to regulation of postcolonial studies pls.
forward widely, especially to anyone you know in
the academic world.
From Michael Bednar
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin
Congress Moves to Regulate Postcolonial Studies (fwd)
Oct. 20, 2003
Friends,
As many of you who know me well will soon realize, I have
become a political activist for the first time in my life. I
am not here to rant, but to inform you on current
legislation that is being debated in the House of
Representatives. The legislation in question, H.R. 3077,
will rewrite the Title VI legislation that has provided FLAS
money to many of us and that also funds the various
area-studies centers in our universities. In particular, the
legislation proposes the creation of an "advisory board"
that may severely impact universities by dictating the
curricula taught, course materials assigned in class, and
the faculty who are hired in institutions that accept Title
VI funding. It gets worse. The U.S. House of
Representative's Subcommittee on Select Education Hearing on
"International Programs in Higher Education and Que stions
about Bias" on June 19, 2003
http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/108th/sed/titlevi61903/wl61903.htm
begins with an opening statement by Representative Phil
Gringrey that includes the following passage: "we are here
today to learn more about a number of programs that are
authorized and funded under Title VI, which are some of the
oldest programs of support to higher education. These
programs reflect the priority placed by the federal
government on
diplomacy, national security, and trade competitiveness.
International studies and education have become an
increasingly important and relevant topic of conversation
and consideration in higher education... However, with
mounting global tensions, some programs under the Higher
Education Act that support foreign language and area studies
centers have recently attracted national attention and
concern due to the perception of their teachings and
policies."
Testimony provided by Dr. Stanley Kurtz (available from the
link above) portrays areas studies centers as hotbeds of
unpatriotic anti-Americanism. Dr. Kurtz focuses, in
particular, on post-colonial theory and the work of Edward
Said's Orientalism in which "Said equated professors who
support American foreign policy with the 19th century
European intellectuals who propped up racist colonial
empires. The core premise of post-colonial theory is that it
is immoral for a scholar to put his knowledge of foreign
languages and cultures at the service of American power."
(quoted from Kurtz's statement found at
http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/108th/sed/titlevi61903/kurtz.htm
Kurtz asserts that the rampant presence of post-colonial
theory in academic circles, with its bias against America
and the
West, has produced a corps of professors who refuse to
instruct or support (with FLAS grants) students interested
in pursuing careers in the foreign service and/or
intelligence agencies. Kurtz comments that: "We know that
transmissions from the September 11 highjackers [sic] went
untranslated for want of Arabic speakers in our intelligence
agencies.
Given that, and given the ongoing lack of foreign language
expertise in our defense and intelligence agencies, the
directors of the Title VI African studies centers who voted
unanimously, just after September 11, to reaffirm their
boycott of the NSEP [National Security Education Program],
have all acted to undermine America's national security, and
its
Foreign policy. And so has every other Title VI-funded
scholar in Latin American-, African-, and Middle Eastern
Studies who has upheld the long-standing boycott of the
NSEP."
The answer, Kurtz proposes, is to create an oversight board
that will link Title VI funding to students training for
careers in national security, defense and intelligence
agencies, and the Foreign Service. How effective was Dr.
Kurtz's presentation? The committee not only believed
everything Dr.Kurtz claimed, they even implemented most of
his
suggestions, including the "advisory board."
An amended House Resolution, H.R. 3077, proposes to create
an International Education Advisory Board, with appointed
members from homeland security, the Department of Defense,
and the National Security Agency, "to increase
accountability by providing advice, counsel, and
recommendations to Congress on international education
issues for higher education."
(Quoted from the Sept. 19, 2003 press release of
Congressman John Boehner, committee
chairman,http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press108/09sep/hr3077psub091
703.htm)
The full resolution of H.R. 3077 can be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3077:
H.R. 3077 was amended in subcommittee and this amended
resolution elaborates on the composition and role of the
International Education Advisory Board (see especially pages
16-24).
The amended H.R. 3077 can be found at:
http://edworkforce.house.gov/markups/108th/sed/hr3077/917main.htm
Click on the link that says "Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute" which will download an Adobe Acrobat pdf file.
This amended H.R. 3077 has been sent to the full committee,
which met on Thursday, September 25 at 11:00 AM to discuss
the resolution before sending it to the House of
Representatives. Just in case you think that I have lost my
marbles or that I am over-reacting, the Higher Education and
National Affairs newsletter, published by the American
Council on Education, and available
athttp://www.acenet.edu/hena/ includes the following
comments on H.R.
3077 (page 1, continued on page 4): House Republicans
intend for H.R. 3077 to build on existing international and
foreign language studies Title VI programs, adding what many
in the higher education community believe is
unnecessary federal oversight through a new International
Education Advisory Board." Federal international education
programs were the focus of a House subcommittee hearing in
June, during which one witness testified to a strong
"anti-American" bias in many college and university
international departments which he claimed could possibly
undermine
American foreign policy. ACE presented opposing testimony
(see
http://www.acenet.edu/washington/international/Hartle.Testimony.pdf
As a subcommittee press release asserted, this advisory
body would be created in consultation with homeland security
agencies in order to increase accountability by providing
advice, counsel, and recommendations to Congress on
international education issues for higher education." Higher
education leaders oppose this board on the grounds
that the powers it is granted are so broad that they put
institutions in danger of losing control over their own
curricula, hiring practices, and other aspects of their
international programs." In short, it seems that the House
of Representatives is about to regulate the courses and
content that we, as future professors, will teach in
colleges and universities. The possibility that someone in
homeland security will instruct college professors (with
Ph.D.s) on the proper, patriotic, "American-friendly"
textbooks that may be used in class scares and outrages me.
This morning, this was news to
me. If this is new to you and if you feel as equally scared
and angered that the government may censure your future
academic career, then I urge you to:
1) distribute this message to other professors and students
in area studies; and
2) write a handwritten letter (in ink) to your local
congressmen and to John A. Boehner, Chairman of the Full
Committee on Education and the Workforce at the following
address:
John A. Boehner
1011 Longworth H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515
Please refrain from emails and typewritten or computer
printouts as these are often ignored in Congress as being
mass-produced by special-interest groups. Write in ink, in
legible penmanship, and let your voice be heard.
Best,
Michael Bednar
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin
The final crew of CSS H.L. Hunley, the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel, was laid to rest alongside the first two crews of the submarine today. The event seems to have provoked some limited controversy over having a ceremony to honor Confederate sailors, but while acknowledging that Confederate symbols have been appropriated by white supremacist loons, I think this misses the point.
The Confederates, who fought for various reasons were ultimately American soldiers who died for their beliefs, and should be honored as such. The causes of the Civil War have in recent years been rendered down to the slavery and States' Rights issues, but netiher really encompasses the totality of strife between the sections of the United States.
At least to my mind, burying these men with full military honors was the appropriate way to lay them to rest. Others are welcome to their own opinions, of course.
When I saw this picture, it almost made me cry.
This image is currently located in the discussion groups at www.democraticunderground.com. I'm not sure how they got it, but I received it in a daily email from Buzzflash. It is definitely an image that the Bush Administration has worked tirelessly to keep out of the media in the belief that images of coffins and body bags undermined support for the Vietnam War. They may even have a point.
The issue, though, is that the American people have the right to know the cost of the President's meaningless war in the desert. So far this month, between 73-76 American soldiers have returned home by way of Dover, but other than mere numbers in new accounts, no one sees the evidence, which keeps it from being real.
Further, despite the fact that each fallen soldier (and I include all service in this) is received with full military honors, the fact that the nation does not take part in that rendering of thanks for services dimishes that. We need to acknowledge each death in our nation's service and extend our condolences to the families of those who made the supreme sacrifice. And the President should allow us to do so.
Here it is. He says all of the right things, with the exception of "pull out now". Given that we now have a responsibility to assist Iraqis in rebuilding the nation we destroyed, that probablt the most responsible choice. If, that is, we can stay there without creating more problems for ourselves.
Gary Gerstle. American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. xv + 454 pp. List of figures, acknowledgments, introduction, photographs, epilogue, endnotes, index. $19.95 (paperback), ISBN 0-691-10277-5.
Gary Gerstle’s America is a place where race relations, particularly racial discrimination, have been the overwhelming catalyst behind both domestic and foreign policy for the entire twentieth century. His work, American Crucible, charts the impact of race on twentieth century America and the conflict between the competing forces he calls “racial nationalism” and “civic nationalism”. Civic nationalism is the age-old founding myth of the United States as “the nation’s core political ideals, in the American belief in the fundamental equality of all human beings, in every individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and in a democratic government that derives from the people’s consent.” (4) In contrast, racial nationalism “conceives of America in ethnoracial terms, as a people held together by common blood and skin color and by an inherited fitness for self-government.” (4) American Crucible makes the case that both ideologies find their roots in America’s founding documents – the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and are therefore embedded features of American political thought.
To make his case, Gerstle starts with Theodore Roosevelt, who becomes his icon for an America that struggles with a desire for a nation that truly meets the criteria of civic nationalism where all citizens are valued for their abilities and all citizens have an equal chance of making a decent life for themselves, but can not quite keep from using race as a lever. American Crucible presents the racial basis for Roosevelt’s philosophy of what makes an American and what made the United States a great nation first, which certainly gives the impression that it was the most important part of his philosophy. The Theodore Roosevelt described believed that the quest to conquer North America from the Indians forced the Scottish, Irish, English, German, Dutch, and Swedish settlers “was enough to weld [them] together into one people,” which caused them to “become Americans, one in speech, though, and character.” (21) This in itself does not seem overly concerned with race, or how it effected the development of the United State, other than demonstrating Roosevelt’s belief that disparate peoples could be forged into an American whole through adversity. This is further illustrated by the method he used to recruit men into the Rough Riders, or 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, which included frontiersmen from the Southwest and a leavening of other types of Americans, particularly “the fifty men, most of them athletes, who had come from Harvard, Princeton, and Yale and who possessed a refined sensibility and a capacity for leadership…” and “a smattering of Irishmen and Hispanics, at least one Jew, one Italian, four New York City policemen…” (27) Specifically excluded by Roosevelt were blacks and Asians, who were kept out of the Regiment for the same reasons that Roosevelt praised the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act saying, “From the United States and Australia the Chinaman is kept out because the democracy, with much clearness of vision, has seen that his presence is ruinous to the white race.” (23)
The role of blacks, both in Cuba and in American society, was a vexing problem for Roosevelt, according to Gerstle. On the one hand TR believed that their importation as slaves was a blight on America because they could not be truly assimilated, and they could not play the role of the savage opponent necessary to bind white Americans together. Roosevelt also believed that black could not be treated as equals because “Negroes … would not take well to democracy, a form of government that depended on the kind of self-control and mastery that only the white races had attained.” (23) As a result, while Roosevelt praised the skill and effectiveness of black troops in Cuba, because their effectiveness did not mesh with his world-view, he immediately began to diminish their contributions and worked to eliminate them from America’s military services.
In essence, the composition of the Rough Riders mirrored Roosevelt’s views on race: any European was welcome as long as they were willing to give up all ties to their former nations. This combined with Roosevelt’s ideas that all citizens should have equal rights and that government should reign in the excesses of large businesses for the good of all to create a new paradigm in American politics that would come to fruition in the New Deal. (68)
Gerstle continues chronologically through the 20th Century cataloging the rise and fall of both racial and civic nationalism, which seems almost cyclical in nature. Wartime policies seem rooted in racial nationalism, with racially motivated policies appearing during both World Wars, with the most extreme example the internment of Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast. This is not to say that American Crucible neglects the anti-immigrant policies of the 1920s. Gerstle discusses these in great detail, particularly as they relate to immigration restrictions for Europeans and Asians, as well as the reform policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s and 1940s. FDR’s policies included repealing prohibition and increasing immigration quotas. FDR also focused on the Depression as the enemy, rather than a separate racial group as had Theodore Roosevelt and the World War I generation. (139)
Indeed, FDR ushered in an era where racial nationalism does not seem to be a key component of policy or debate, with the exception of the war in the Pacific, which Gerstle claims was more savage due to racial conflict between Americans and Japanese. The war against Japan, Gerstle contends is a “race war”, fueled by the Japanese assault on American’s belief that they were racially superior to all non-whites. (191) Despite this, Gerstle believes that American intellectuals working with FDR created an image of the United States where “people of all races, creeds, and religions coexisted and prospered.” (195) This illusion survived until the Civil Rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s.
American Crucible blames the fall of the new atmosphere of relative tolerance and domination of civil nationalists on three things: the civil rights movement, Black Nationalism, and protests against the Vietnam War. The reason for the inclusion of the first two is simple, Gerstle states that, “By forcing a showdown with the racial nationalist tradition, King and his black supporters triggered furious resistance from white Americans who could not accept the elimination of race as a defining characteristic of American nationhood.” (269) This movement, which Gerstle claims was incubated during the New Deal, simply involved black Americans requesting, at long last, their place at the table of political and economic equality. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his supporters were operating under the assumptions of the civic nationalist New Deal, which proclaimed that all Americans should have equal access to government protections. Unfortunately, American racial nationalism was still alive.
Gerstle blames the dormant and unchallenged racial nationalism of the South for the rise in Black Nationalism after the Democratic National Convention of 1964, when Freedom Democrat delegates were not seated. (294) The new emphasis by some Civil Rights groups, particularly that of Malcolm X, on “Black Power” and that the uniqueness of black culture had an inherent value, led irrevocably, according to Gerstle to the rise in multiculturalism among ethnic Americans, which increased America’s consciousness of race. (329)
America’s Crucible closes with the aftermath of the Vietnam War, which Gerstle seems to see as a victory of sorts for American blacks due to their increased acceptance to positions of responsibility in the United States military, particularly in command positions of white soldiers. He goes on to address Ronald Reagan’s discomfort with black’s and issues of race, while still trying to promote the ideal that anyone can succeed in attaining the American Dream.
In all, Gerstle does an admirable job of illustrating the centrality of race to the development of the United States in the 20th Century. Particularly important is the depiction of American reactions to other European “races” such as Italians, Jews, and Irish from the 1890s to the 1920s. This conception of race may not occur to those steeped in the modern mind-set concerning race relations. Gerstle also provides valuable in-depth analysis of the Civil Rights movement and its impact on race relations and the continuation of the New Deal and civic nationalism. However, because American Crucible has not been updated since its original copyright in 2001, it does not deal with issues related to the post-Sept. 11, 2001 world. He also does not adequately deal with issues of the 1980s and 1990s such as the riots following the Rodney King verdict or the trial of O.J. Simpson for murder. In future editions, if there are any, discussions of these topics would strengthen American Crucible and make it more valuable for understanding issues of “racial nationalism” in the current time.
The August 6th version of the President's Daily Brief seems to have contained some rather specific warnings that al-Qaeda planned to hijack aircraft in the United States. Combined with previously available information (including that the use of aircraft as weapons was taken seriously enough to deploy AAA around Genoa during the G8 summit in 2001), it is obvious that the Bush Administration sat on its hands regarding terrorism, especially given the testimony of Dr. Rice and Richard Clarke.
Don't let Dr. Rice or the White House trick you into believing that they were doing everything they could, or that it was an earlier President's fault. Although previous Administrations didn't do enough, they had plans and committment to the issue of terrorism. The Bush White House junked existing plans, ignored their experts, and then sat on the ideas they did develop in favor of "sexier" pet projects like Missile Defense -- a topic Dr. RIce was going to address on Sept. 11th, but didn't due to the attacks.
This is a really cool way to support our troops. Remember, opposition to this war, does not mean I that our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen don's deserve our support.
-------
To get other addresses, go to http://booksforsoldiers.com and click on the big ENTER button in the middle of the page. You will see all five military branches listed. Click on the name of a branch, like ARMY. You will then see a long list of requests. Click on a request and the address will come up.
And my deepest thanks for your service to our country.
Storm Williams Founder BFS
Here's a complete transcript of National Seecurity Advisor COndoleeza Rice's testimony yesterday. I've also included a link an analysis that illustrates half-truths, deceptions and lies in her testimony.
The commission investigating the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon is finally disputing the White House's claims that commission members weren't interested in Condoleeza Rice's testimony because only five of them showed up. The commission's spokesman noted that the White House had publicly stated that only three commission members would be allowed to hear Dr. Rice.
In addition to this being untrue -- it was reported in the media that the White House was limiting the number of people allowed to question at the time, but the White House is using the tactic they like to accuse others of -- writing revisionist history. What's really happening is that the Bush Administration is trying to make it appear as if the 9/11 commision is being unreasonable and hoping the the public and the media will forget the history behind these events.
Thiis is their standard tactic -- trying to re-write events in the most favorable light with the expectation that no one will call them on it. And it usually works.
A loophole in Bioethics rules created by Congress in 1996, will allow EMT's to give you fake blood products without your consent if you are randomly chosen for a research program involving Biopure's PolyHeme blood alternative which is nearing the end of FDA trials.
That's right, people who are in serious accidents are receive aid from EMTs and paramedics working with hospitals like Denver health could be performing an expeirment on you without you even knowing it. The problems with this are mind-boggling and have little to do with the efficacy of PolyHeme, which is derived from hemoglobin.
PolyHeme, to be sure, does have admirable traits: it can be used regardless of blood type, it has a long shelf-life, it won't transmit disease, and it's easy to use. All of these are great advances. It can also be used by Jehova's Witnesses, since their church has decided that it isn't really blood. That's the good side.
The bad side is that human beings, people, will be expiremented on without their knowledge or consent. That's ethically wrong, at the very least, and makes me wonder about Biopure's committment to ethical business practices. this also makes me wonder about their dedication to quality control. If they can't be bothered with informed consent, what else are they willing to skimp on?
At a larger level this particular case is about researchers and physicians who don;t agree that the patient has the ultimate right to participate in their own care and make decisions about their own health. In this respect they set themselves up as God, making your life choices for you.
My wife and I recently had personal experiences with informed consent issues and physicians when she was in the hospital. Her case was minor compared to the idea of receiving experimental artificial blood products without consent. Her doctors merely scheduled x-rays, cat scans, PIC lines, other tests and standard medications without consulting with us first. Little of this would have the serious medical complications that a problem with PolyHeme could in an an emergency situation for a patient who is bleeding.
PolyHeme potentially is a giant step forward for medicine, and it should be widely tested. But it must be done with the knowledge and consent of those who receive it until it is approved by the FDA. Even then, it should be used with the knowledge of the patients with the exception of emergencies. Under no circumstances should PolyHeme, or other experimental treatments, be used on people without their consent.
This is a little late, but it goes hand-in-hand with my earlier comments on wanting a reason to vote for a candidate, rather than against one.
Kerry's plan includes a reduction of corporate income taxes and close loopholes that make offshoring a viable option for companies looking for temporary increases in the bottom line.
My main reason for posting this now is that one of my co-workers mentioned that he hadn't seen any of Kerry's proposals, just attacks on the President and accounts that say he's two-faced. I personally blame both the television news media for not reporting all of the news and his piss-poor news gathering habits...
Check out these two stories from Wired discussing potential problems with electronic voting systems, particularly the touch screen models, which don't provide any audit trail for vote verification.
The problems here should be immediately obvious. If there's no paper trail, how do you do a recount? How do you check the validity of your voting data? How can voters be sure that their vote is properly recorded? The answer is that you can't.
Other issues include security and source code validation. Since the manufacturers won't even let the states examine the internals of the machines, there is still no way to verify that the machines do what they claim. Given past problems with e-voting, this isn't mere paranoia.