About that Mongol horde...

During my recent trip to Alaska I needed reading material for the various flights and dull moments. I had already read James Michener's "Alaska" (and see that a few Alaska themed books a friend had given me are still sitting where I put them about 8 months ago). Since one reason for the trip is to visit the Russian Orthodox Church in Sitka I decided to read Russka by Edward Rutherfurd. This is a historical novel in the manner of Michener but covering the 2000 years of Russian history (actually the first 1000 are covered quickly) in 945 pages. It was the only book I read during the trip and finished it just last night, a week after the trip was over. Alas, I'm still unclear how the Bolshevik's took over Russia, though I know the Tsar was deposed because of inept handling of WWI. As historical novels go it is pretty good, though not great.

I mention it because of some fortuitous timing. One important aspect of Russian history is the Mongol invasion in the 1200s, which wasn't about domination, but about enforcing peace and profiting from trade routs. Today I saw the movie Mongol, out in limited release, which tells the story of how Genghis Khan got his start. He pulled together bickering clans and established a rudimentary rule of law, a big leap forward for the Mongols. Again, I'd say it is pretty good, but not great. There are a few things that left me wondering. It is definitely rated R due to some violent and blood spattering battle scenes. The movie is interesting on another level -- it was funded by German, Kazak, Russian, Chinese, and Mongolian companies and filmed in Kazakhstan, and China. It was Mongolia's entry for the Oscars. A review on display in the theater says this is the first part of a trilogy.

Biting the outstretched hand

It appears that Obama was asked what biblical passages should be used to guide public policy. Obama replied that there are many instances in which biblical "laws" are way out of step from modern America (ban shellfish?) and that the Sermon on the Mount is "a passage so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."

"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.

Predictably, James Dobson fired away, saying "He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

Which gives a guy named Pastor Dan a delicious opening. Dobson could have said that he agreed with some things Obama said and here are reasons why he disagreed with others. But Dobson didn't.

Pastor Dan says:

You have been had. Punked. Owned. Fooled into showing yourself for the hateful ignoramus you are …

For all this, I am deeply grateful. Every time you open your mouth, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the religion you claim to uphold, and in doing so, you erode a little more of your authority. Thank you for that.

But thank you most of all for spurning the Obama campaign's overture to you, and most violently at that. Because you have absolved them of their supposed duty to reach out to people just like you. Every time you open your stupid gob to complain about the campaign between now and November, Obama's people will say, "Well, we tried."

That means they no longer have to waste money on voters they never would have gotten anyway, and they get to position themselves as the voice of reasonable moderation.

Read the whole thing here.

The players never lose

In December of 2000, when the rest of the country was caught up in the Bush v. Gore mess, Senator Phil Gramm put an amendment in a must-pass budget bill. No lawmakers had time to read it. Nobody understood Gramm's explanations of what it would do. This bill deregulated a particular chunk of the financial market. It gave banks and other financial institutions a gigantic playground hidden from government eyes. The consequence of that bill is the current subprime mortgage disaster. Hard to tell which is worse: Gramm had no idea what the amendment would do or Gramm knew what it would do and did it anyway. So where is the father of millions of foreclosures? Serving as Vice President of a Swiss Bank and as financial advisor of McCain's campaign. If McCain wins, Gramm becomes Secretary of the Treasury. Not a bad payday for screwing the American poor. As McCain's advisor, Gramm has proposed a free-market health care system. Give each person $5000 an tell them to buy their own health insurance on the open market. The magic of capitalism thus fixes our health care mess (see my recent post about the purpose of health insurance is to make money, not keep you well).

The role of Conservatism in all this? We're back to moral hazard, the idea that the victims of the subprime mess have only themselves to blame and shouldn't be bailed out. However, the truly moral hazard is a system in which risk and reward are asymmetrical -- one person gets the reward, the other gets the risk. And if the one who is supposed to get the reward doesn't, well, then bailouts for him are necessary to keep the whole system afloat. Conservatism creates a secret casino. It is always open and the players never lose. As for the rest of us, we get stuck with the bailouts and the damage to our communities.

Some people don't learn

In spite of the Southern Baptist Convention's ability to kick out congregations that don't toe the line on gays and in spite of newspapers full of the Catholic priest pedophile scandal and more than a few bad apples in their own churches, somehow the SBC can't set up a national database on abuses by their own pastors. Their claim is that each church is autonomous and each is responsible for doing its own employee screening, it would not be possible to create a comprehensive list, and there is already a better national database. Perhaps they don't want to see that there is a problem. Or they feel that in their belief system pastors can do no wrong.

Sticking your foot in it

Sigh. Last week an interviewer asked Barack Obama what he thought of the gay marriages taking place in Californian. Alas, our dude stuck his foot in it, saying he has no problem with what California is doing and that gays should have civil unions equal to straights, but the word marriage is for one man and one woman. While gays are well aware that Obama is way better than McCain (McSame is an often repeated nickname) and even a bit better than Hillary, they are voicing their displeasure with Obama across the blogsphere. Here is one of the better written, with about 40 comments.

At an impasse

The Anglican Church meets at their once a decade Lambeth Conference next month. Timothy Kincaid has been writing about religion and gay issues and is now of the opinion (which he says his colleagues may not share) that the Lambeth Conference will signal the split of the Anglican Church. The first sign will be that the conservative parts of the denomination will refuse to show up and take part.

This split is from sharply divergent views of Scripture and Christianity. The West sees it as a guide to know God and how to live, and to find kinship in social justice and humanitarian efforts. The Global South (developing nations) sees Christianity as God's divine commandments for a sinful world. And homosexuality magnifies that difference. The progressive West sees gays as valued children of God to be treated with love and equality. They are not about to apologize for their social justice and compassion. The Global South finds gays to be such sinners that not only must gays be denounced, but also those who accept gays. They refuse to allow Jesus to be just another "wise teacher." The denomination is at an impasse.

The split is being led by Peter Akinola, who is steadfast on Christian teachings about gays, but completely misses the point regarding Nigeria's treatment of the poor.

Kincaid thinks the split is best in the long run. The Episcopal and Anglican churches of America, Canada, and Britain will be free to follow their conscience and champion social justice causes, including full equality of gays. Alas, considering history, the bishops of the Global South will likely indulge in rampant corruption and use the power of the church to support some nasty dictatorial regimes throughout Africa. In addition, the full force of the church will fall on those that are gay, democratically inclined, or theologically liberal.

But in that long term there is hope that a freer West can lead the way to a recovery of brotherhood but without a return to legalism and dogmatism.

An ideal health system

Another report from The Washington Spectator (full article for subscribers only). In 1995 Taiwan created a new health care system. Citizens get choice of doctor, no waiting lists, complete prescription-drug coverage, complete dental. Copays are tiny. Bureaucracy is almost non-existent. And they do it for an annual cost of about $600 per person, per year, compared to $5500 in America. The model for this wonderful health system? America's Medicare. The Taiwanese system also gives its citizens medical cards, which provides access to medical records so tests don't have to be duplicated and time isn't wasted during an emergency. Patients can even see a specialist when they want, though copays are nominally higher if they don't get a referral. So why does America pay so much more for worse care which leaves so many without care? We put our care in the hands of the health insurance industry. Their job isn't to keep you healthy. Their job is to make money. They do that by refusing customers, by denying claims, by wrangling reduced doctor fees, and by paying out the absolute minimum to keep you out of a medical facility. Through Medicare 98% of the health system money pays for health. Through the commercially available health insurance it is only 60-70%. The rest of the money goes to bureaucracy and profit. The solution in America is obvious: expand Medicare for all. Yet, both Obama and McCain won't touch that idea. They want to keep the solution in the hands of the people who created the current mess. Too much of their campaign money comes from health insurers, who are desperate to keep their pot of gold.

Pure nod and wink

Intelligent Design is dead. Long live Creationism. The June 1 issue of The Washington Spectator has an article by Lauri Lebo. She is the Dover, PA journalist who covered the ID trial there and has been keeping track of the Creationist crowd. Much of the push for Creationism is from the Discovery Institute, dedicated to defeating "scientific materialism" (huh?) and promoting "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

In the same book that criticized the Dover ruling that banned Intelligent Design the Discovery Institute documents their next tactic. That is a push for "academic freedom" using a two pronged approach. The first was the theatrical movie Expelled, through which DI "tried to sway public opinion" (the article doesn't say how well they succeeded -- one could research box office take, I suppose -- but apparently not much). The second prong is to lobby state legislatures to pass bills on academic freedom that would "protect public-school educators who offer 'critical analysis' of evolution or teach alternative 'scientific views of biological or chemical evolution'" Chemical? Bills have been introduced in Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan (!), and soon in Texas.

This attempt fits the pattern. With every constitutional defeat the creationism language gets watered down, the assertions become more vague and misleading. Creationism is now reduced to "pure nod and wink." Nowhere do the sample bills supplied by DI use the word "creationism," though that doesn't stop individual state lawmakers from blowing the cover.

The stated goal of the movement is to teach all of evolution, its strengths and weaknesses under the banner of fairness and democratic principles. The implied goals are sinister: promoting the public's right to remain ignorant of science, using fear to attack curiosity and wonderment. A radio interview on a Christian network, the Expelled star Ben Stein made the bizarre link between the Holocaust and science, claiming "Science leads you to killing people." Yet, back in 1987 the US Supreme Court didn't buy the academic freedom argument.

The question for the rest of us is whether to challenge these new laws immediately (none have gotten into law -- yet) and risk a court validating them, or waiting until a teacher takes advantage of their vagueness to promote creationism, allowing a stronger case to be built. You could try to head them off with visits to your state senators and representatives.

Alas, only paid subscribers can read the full article online.

No electric car?

An electric car in your future? A writer makes the claim that the big car companies don't want electric cars because they make so much money from the myriad parts that wear out and require replacement in the typical internal combustion vehicle. It reminds me of the way General Motors bought out the electric streetcars in Detroit to put them out of business so they could sell more cars. Please note that while I used to work for the car business (special early retirement is wonderful) I am not able to tell if this claim holds water. However, I see with this posting that there is vigorous debate over the suitability of the electric car but little over the claim of profit motive being the reason why we can't buy one.

Whether or not an electric car is viable, a robust public transportation system beats it hands down, no matter how nasty the emissions from the bus.

Pittsburgh!

Cool! Pittsburgh now has a Domestic Partner Registry! 'Tain't marriage, but it is a wonderful step in Ricky Santorum's home state.

Finding a spiritual home

A sweet My Turn essay in Newsweek about a Catholic gay man who finds a spiritual home in the Episcopal Church. He wishes that he wasn't so hungry for God or perhaps be satisfied with being "spiritual, but not religious." Since "Christian" has such a bad reputation among gays, he would have preferred a Druid spiritual awakening. But he has found a church home and feels blessed that on the day he became a member Bishop Gene Robinson was in attendance.

Negotiate v. Appease

With the GOP eagerly tossing around the idea that negotiating with terrorist or dictators is the same as appeasement, here is a thoughtful Newsweek article by Evan Thomas about the history of this rhetorical grenade. In 1938 Neville Chamberlain went to Munich struck a deal with Hitler that Germany would be allowed to take over Czechoslovakia with no objection and would then leave Britain alone. Hitler took over Czechoslovakia and a couple years later went after Britain. Chamberlain's blunder has echoed through American politics since then with mixed results. The good results were the Cuban Missile Crisis (in which Kennedy successfully followed "Munich" in public and negotiated in secret), and Reagan's success in negotiating arms reductions with the USSR. The bad results were wars in Korea, Vietnam, and the Bay of Pigs. After we were bogged down in Vietnam it served as a balance to Munich. The lesson is that global situations rarely neatly fit the mold of Munich or Vietnam and that negotiation is not always appeasement.

In a companion piece, Christopher Hitchens takes a look at the recent book "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War" by Pat Buchanan (yes, the occasional candidate for prez. on the GOP side). Buchanan did get a few things right -- the abysmal bungling of French and British attempts at diplomacy is one bright spot in the book. But the rest includes a lot of ignoring or misinterpreting of facts to allow Buchanan to fit his view of the war into the thesis he is trying to prove. While Hitchens does a good job of ripping the book to shreds, he doesn't answer my burning question. To what end is Buchanan reinterpreting history? Who gains? What political or cultural idea is he trying to promote? The book doesn't seem to serve the idea that America is a Christian nation, the goal of lots of other historical revisionism. Nor does he seem to be promoting Bush's reasons for going to war, because his idea is that even WWII wasn't worth it. So what is it?

The Bigot Toolbox

Over and over bigots resort to the same set of tools to advance their goals. This Bigot Toolbox contains these tried and true (only because they keep getting used) methods of discrimination:

* Religion -- my Bible tells me to hate your people.

* Tradition -- but Blacks have always sat at the back of the bus.

* Public Opinion -- I'm really with you, but there just isn't enough support. We have an embarrassing history of approving tyranny of the majority.

* Patriotism -- you're destroying America!

* Science -- I can prove that Blacks have smaller craniums and therefore aren't as smart.

* Law -- But we've got to uphold the law! (especially church law)

* Lies -- Gays want special rights.

And when we get to lies -- which are now in abundance around gays and marriage -- your cause of defeating discrimination is getting close to winning.

Global Warming may not be so global

This is June, isn't it? At the solstice, no less? According to my super-duper indoor/outdoor thermometer, which tracks highs and lows, after a cool spring the temperature in the Detroit area got up to 98 while I was in Alaska. But the night before last the temp got down to 55 and my furnace came on.

My morning routine is hard enough

Eggs or oatmeal? Jeans or khakis? Gay or straight? What, isn't choosing your sexual orientation part of your morning routine? Mayor Larry Langford of Birmingham, Alabama denied a permit for his city's Pride Parade because he says being gay is a choice. That brought a response from Kyle Whitmire, who closes with this offer: Well, mayor, if orientation is a choice, why don't you prove it by choosing to be gay for a day and giving me a kiss?

How to apologize

A lot of public figures caught saying or doing nasty things offer the "non-apology" -- I'm sorry if I offended anyone." Here are some rules for apologies: It must contain admission of error and regret for the action. Use of a modifier (as in the example above) is not an apology. Use of an excuse to redirect or limit the scope is not an apology. Pointing out offenses of others invalidates an apology. Claims of benign intent are irrelevant. Apologize for the action, not the consequence. Apologize directly to the offended parties in private. Only later apologize in public -- and if the two don't match it isn't an apology. These rules are explained in more detail here.

Congress 2.0

"Franking" is the term used originally to describe the free (snail) mail privileges that a member of Congress gets so that he can tell his constituents what he is doing. But the Franking Rules, last updated in 1998, also have strict guidelines on what can be done and what can't so that members avoid appearing to use such privileges for campaign purposes. That's necessary because your average American doesn't want to see his taxes used to help incumbents over the challenger who doesn't have such privileges.

But those rules were set near the dawn of the internet age and they prevent members of Congress from fully participating in the interactive medium that today's young (under 30) expect. A member can't post a bill on a website and invite comment and dialog. He's stuck with a form on a webpage that invites constituent feedback in which response is a paper letter posted a month later. No page on social network sites. Some members truly don't understand the power of the internet, but most have young staffers who do. It is time to change the Franking Rules to get Congress into the 21st Century and take advantage of transparent and participatory government.

You don't think they would rather work in secret, do you?

More short notes

I'm way behind on my reading, so here are a few things that came across my radar today. Perhaps I'll comment on the news of the last 3 weeks as I catch up.

Obama decided to forego the $80M of public financing for the fall campaign. He says it isn't because he doesn't believe in clean financing (he does) or because he can raise more than that on his own (likely he can), but because the public financing system is broken, rigged to help lobbyists and special interest groups give unlimited funds to McCain.

The debate of the cause of homosexuality is shifting away from saying it is caused by genetics to exploring how the hormones of the womb interact with the fetus. And that implies that it may be possible to "correct" those hormones so that no baby is born gay. Offended? Sorry, you won't be in the room when the decision is made. Parents already screen for and abort the "wrong" gender. You think parents won't screen for the "wrong" orientation?

Why is it some Fundies are so rigid about the definition of marriage and God's supposed view of gays, yet they find all kinds of wiggle room when discussion torture? That puts them somewhere between hypocrite and heathen.

A laugh: Jon Stewart and the start of gay marriages in California. It is all in about the first 10 minutes.

Advertising with a twist: Mayonnaise so good it is like having a deli in your kitchen. And this is a New York deli.

Watch your irony meter on this one: Why I'm voting Republican.

A question for today

During our stop in Ketchikan during the Alaskan Cruise I went on a bike tour. It was pleasant, but not as scenic as I expected, which is why it isn't in my list of highlights. All 11 of us on the tour decided for the more strenuous 11.6 mile route that included a scenic overlook. I am pleased that I was sufficiently in shape that I was more in the middle of the pack instead up bringing up the rear. I suppose it didn't hurt that most of the participants were my age or older.

The trip included a couple from England. I rode beside the man for a while and we got to talking about the differences in our political systems. He commented on a recent story in which congressional district boundaries were blatantly set to favor one party just enough to essentially disenfranchise the rest. Alas, by "recent" he could have meant years and I don't remember the state. However, I can relate because I live in such a district, carefully constructed to be 55% GOP, though it doesn't blatantly meander across the countryside and wasn't the reason for a lawsuit. This kind of behavior is unknown in Great Britain because such things are decided by a scrupulously non-partisan election commission.

And that leads to my question: Is it possible to make our election process non (or even less) political in an era when one party has anti-democracy goals? If so, how do we get there?

I'm Back!

My trip to Alaska with my parents was a success. While life on a big cruise ship was enjoyable (one does not go hungry) and comfortable, such a life doesn't suit me well -- too much emphasis on glitz and grubbing for money.

Highlights of the trip:

Visiting Mendenhall Glacier outside of Juneau (though the Visitor Center is in serious need of a snack bar or restaurant).

The bus ride from Skagway to Carcross, Yukon and the White Pass and Yukon train from Frasier back to Skagway. We even saw bears and caribou along the way.

The glaciers of Glacier Bay and College Fjord.

The train ride from Whittier to Denali Park. Denali showed itself when we were in prime viewing location. Alas, the trip is 10 hours.

The Husky Homestead visit to the kennels of Jeff King. He has run the Iditerod 18 times and won it 4 times.

The Wilderness Tour in Denali Park. They only allow bus tours in the park. Though Denali remained hidden, we did see caribou, mountain sheep, moose, bears, several ptarmigan, and a lynx.

A day in Sitka with a chance to see the Russian Orthodox Church there.

The Science Fiction Museum in Seattle. The gift shop was way too small and I would have appreciated a larger museum. It is in a Frank Gehry building.

A chance to visit with my brother and his family (including a niece in Shanghai through Google-Talk) and another niece and her family, both in the Seattle area.

Yes, I took lots of pictures -- about 250. I won't be posting them because they are on film and I don't have a scanner. I'll be picking them up from the developer tomorrow.