In the Roberts confirmation hearings earlier today, Senator Biden and Judge Roberts got into an exchange about a 1982 memo, in which Roberts supposedly said that some sort of gender discrimination should not get "heightened scrutiny". Roberts explained that statutes differentiating on the basis of gender get "intermediate" scrutiny, and said that what the memo meant by "heightened" scrutiny was the more traditional "strict scrutiny", a very tough hurdle to pass. (Intermediate scrutiny requires the showing of an important, but not a "compelling", governmental interest. Also, the statute must be "substantially related" to the governmental interest, whereas in strict scrutiny, the statute must be necessary to serve that interest, and/or there must be no less restrictive means of serving that interest.)
I've been poking around in US Supreme Court precedent from before and a bit after 1982. It looks as if "heightened scrutiny" at least frequently meant "intermediate scrutiny", at least in the context of gender discrimination. See Rostker v. Goldberg et al., 453 U.S. 57, 69-70, 87 (1981); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 238-239 (1982). However, there are cases where my quick and distracted read suggests that "heightened" scrutiny may mean strict scrutiny, or at least isn't clearly limited to "intermediate" scrutiny. See Regents University California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 296 (1978) (where I think the context in which "heightened judicial solicitude" is mentioned suggests strict scrutiny); City of Mobile v. Bolden et al., 446 U.S. 55, dissent fn. 15 (1980) (context is filing fees for voting).
So, I am a bit skeptical about Roberts' explanation, but depending on the context, maybe I shouldn't be....
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Monday, September 12, 2005
what citizens of other countries may not realize
I've read about the shocked reactions of citizens of various foreign countries to the post-Katrina tragedies in New Orleans, Mississippi, etc. What they're seeing looks as if it belongs in a third world country, not in the modern, powerful United States.
I don't know enough about the media in other countries to really know what I'm talking about... but here goes anyway.
In some countries, the press is largely or entirely government-controlled. Disasters in those countries would be minimized, particularly if to show them in more detail would suggest failures in government's response. Citizens of those countries may assume that for these TV images to be broadcast, things must have fallen apart so much that government censorship can't function or can't keep up.
In Europe, it's possible that viewers don't realize how much of the mainstream U.S. media is intent on trashing the U.S. in general and anything conceivably related to the Bush administration in particular. They may thus lack the information to perceive and adjust for the media's emphasis on, and in some cases exaggeration of, the death toll, the chaos, the suffering, and its failure to cover the extent to which the relief effort was unprecedented in its scope and perhaps even in its successes.
I don't know enough about the media in other countries to really know what I'm talking about... but here goes anyway.
In some countries, the press is largely or entirely government-controlled. Disasters in those countries would be minimized, particularly if to show them in more detail would suggest failures in government's response. Citizens of those countries may assume that for these TV images to be broadcast, things must have fallen apart so much that government censorship can't function or can't keep up.
In Europe, it's possible that viewers don't realize how much of the mainstream U.S. media is intent on trashing the U.S. in general and anything conceivably related to the Bush administration in particular. They may thus lack the information to perceive and adjust for the media's emphasis on, and in some cases exaggeration of, the death toll, the chaos, the suffering, and its failure to cover the extent to which the relief effort was unprecedented in its scope and perhaps even in its successes.
teenagers and adventure
A young teen of my acquaintance (going on 14) doesn't like the sound of a nearby train. It sounds to her as if the universe was rushing at us to consume us (or something of that sort -- I forget the exact phrasing). I tell her that to me, a train is the sound of heading off to adventure. She exclaims most earnestly: "I don't want any adventures! I just want to sit in my room and draw!"
This young woman is a highly talented cartoonist, and does indeed like to sit and draw (and instant-message her friends, and listen to loud edgy rock music on itunes) for hours on end. She thoroughly enjoys friends and any outings with them. Is she skipping any desirable phase of growing up by brushing aside any desire for adventure, for the big and disruptive and unexpected? (That sounds more like an earthquake -- which I guess is what many adventures feel like at the time....)
This young woman is a highly talented cartoonist, and does indeed like to sit and draw (and instant-message her friends, and listen to loud edgy rock music on itunes) for hours on end. She thoroughly enjoys friends and any outings with them. Is she skipping any desirable phase of growing up by brushing aside any desire for adventure, for the big and disruptive and unexpected? (That sounds more like an earthquake -- which I guess is what many adventures feel like at the time....)
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
relying on Toby Keith's sense of humor
I've liked Toby Keith's country music for years. I didn't, at first, register his name as I enjoyed his songs. It wasn't until "How Do You Like Me Now" that I made that connection. The song is a taunting missive to the once-popular girl back home, from a now-popular country singer. (It's "taunting" quite literally -- toward the end, there's an instrumental of the familiar playground "naaah-naaah-na-naaah-naaah" tune.) (Does anyone know whether that tune is whined at kids in other countries? In non-English-speaking ones?) Whether there's any resemblance between Mr. Keith and the song's narrator (if that's the word), I of course couldn't say.
Anyhow, I liked the song while finding the narrator's attitude somewhat annoying. He writes a "good girl's" phone number on the football field with "Call for a good time", and he's miffed that she doesn't fall for him?!?...
So I wrote a response from that girl, or by that point woman, set to the tune of the original. I'm not anywhere near as good at writing lyrics as Toby Keith, but I had fun. Though the girl/woman doesn't show much of a sense of humor. And she probably could have been nicer to the boy in high school....
I've continued to like Toby Keith's songs -- with varying attitudes to the personas adopted therein.
And here, for the brief bloglike version of posterity, all rights reserved, with apologies and thanks to Mr. Keith, is the response I wrote. I tried to post it side by side with the original, but couldn't make the formatting work -- so I'll put a verse of the original followed by a verse of the response.
Original:
I was always the crazy one
I broke into the stadium
and I wrote your number on the 50-yard line
You were always the perfect one
And the valedictorian
So under your number, I wrote "call for a good time"
I only wanted to get your attention
But you overlooked me somehow
Besides, you had too many boyfriends to mention
and I played my guitar too loud
How do you like me now?
Response:
The night we got the first lewd call,
I heard my ma cry down the hall--
she didn't think it was much of a joke.
I told her not to worry much,
it was just some jackass with a grudge --
I guess those words were the truest I've spoke.
Maybe you wanted to get my attention,
but boy, what it showed about you --
You had no clue what a girl could've cared for --
So what if your dream came true?
Why should I like you now?
Original chorus:
How do you like me now,
Now that I'm on my way?
Do you still think I'm crazy,
standing here today?
I couldn't make you love me, but I always dreamed about
Singing on your radio --
How do you like me now?
Reply chorus:
Why should I like you now,
just 'cause you think you're hot?
With everything you are, think of
everything you're not!
Making it to the big time
was never what it's about.
You may win a Grammy, but
why should I like you now?
Original, next verse:
When I took off to Tennessee,
I heard that you made fun of me --
Never imagined I'd make it this far
Then you married into money, girl --
Ain't it a cruel and funny world
He took your dreams and he tore them apart
He never comes home and you're always alone
and your kids hear you crying down the hall
Alarm clock starts ringing, who could that be singing
It's me, baby, with your wake-up call
How do you like me now?
Response, next verse:
I've made mistakes and I have paid,
but it's not just mistakes I've made --
I have my kids, and
I'm glad they're not yours!
If you want someone who's in awe
of every voice on the radio,
I'm sure you'll find some on
all of your tours!
I'm often alone and yes, I do get lonely --
but boy, it would never have worked.
It's not just that you played your guitar too loud, boy --
it's that you were always a jerk!
Why should I like you now?
Anyhow, I liked the song while finding the narrator's attitude somewhat annoying. He writes a "good girl's" phone number on the football field with "Call for a good time", and he's miffed that she doesn't fall for him?!?...
So I wrote a response from that girl, or by that point woman, set to the tune of the original. I'm not anywhere near as good at writing lyrics as Toby Keith, but I had fun. Though the girl/woman doesn't show much of a sense of humor. And she probably could have been nicer to the boy in high school....
I've continued to like Toby Keith's songs -- with varying attitudes to the personas adopted therein.
And here, for the brief bloglike version of posterity, all rights reserved, with apologies and thanks to Mr. Keith, is the response I wrote. I tried to post it side by side with the original, but couldn't make the formatting work -- so I'll put a verse of the original followed by a verse of the response.
Original:
I was always the crazy one
I broke into the stadium
and I wrote your number on the 50-yard line
You were always the perfect one
And the valedictorian
So under your number, I wrote "call for a good time"
I only wanted to get your attention
But you overlooked me somehow
Besides, you had too many boyfriends to mention
and I played my guitar too loud
How do you like me now?
Response:
The night we got the first lewd call,
I heard my ma cry down the hall--
she didn't think it was much of a joke.
I told her not to worry much,
it was just some jackass with a grudge --
I guess those words were the truest I've spoke.
Maybe you wanted to get my attention,
but boy, what it showed about you --
You had no clue what a girl could've cared for --
So what if your dream came true?
Why should I like you now?
Original chorus:
How do you like me now,
Now that I'm on my way?
Do you still think I'm crazy,
standing here today?
I couldn't make you love me, but I always dreamed about
Singing on your radio --
How do you like me now?
Reply chorus:
Why should I like you now,
just 'cause you think you're hot?
With everything you are, think of
everything you're not!
Making it to the big time
was never what it's about.
You may win a Grammy, but
why should I like you now?
Original, next verse:
When I took off to Tennessee,
I heard that you made fun of me --
Never imagined I'd make it this far
Then you married into money, girl --
Ain't it a cruel and funny world
He took your dreams and he tore them apart
He never comes home and you're always alone
and your kids hear you crying down the hall
Alarm clock starts ringing, who could that be singing
It's me, baby, with your wake-up call
How do you like me now?
Response, next verse:
I've made mistakes and I have paid,
but it's not just mistakes I've made --
I have my kids, and
I'm glad they're not yours!
If you want someone who's in awe
of every voice on the radio,
I'm sure you'll find some on
all of your tours!
I'm often alone and yes, I do get lonely --
but boy, it would never have worked.
It's not just that you played your guitar too loud, boy --
it's that you were always a jerk!
Why should I like you now?
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Why "Yo Mama" Isn't Slander
This morning, I was musing about whether insults of the "your mother [insert obscene activity here]" variety would constitute slander. Slander is a verbal false statement made to someone other than the subject of the statement -- and by definition, "your mother [etc]" statements are made to someone other than the mother. And it would be quite a coincidence, in most cases, if they were anything but false. I wondered whether the fact that such statements were meant to insult, rather than to persuade -- that the content was understood by all concerned to be false -- would keep the statement from being slanderous.
A little homework reminded me that to be slanderous, the statement must be one that would harm the reputation of the subject. If it's not meant to be believed literally, and would not be believed, then no harm, no foul (except possibly the language used), no slander.
A little homework reminded me that to be slanderous, the statement must be one that would harm the reputation of the subject. If it's not meant to be believed literally, and would not be believed, then no harm, no foul (except possibly the language used), no slander.
Malevolent Design
At breakfast with friends this morning, someone mentioned that Daniel Schorr had asked whether Hurricane Katrina could be considered consistent with the notion of "intelligent design". Someone else mentioned the tsetse fly as incompatible with the idea of a loving designer-creator. However, there's nothing about the intelligent design hypothesis that requires the Designer to be benevolent. How about teaching Malevolent Design as an alternative explanation in biology classes? Will someone, pretty please, propose this to the Kansas Board of Education?
Crying Wolf about Supreme Court
Justice Rehnquist's death at this time will, I think, show the down side of the decision by opponents of the Bush administration to gear up against the Roberts nomination.
Roberts is superbly qualified to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. His records suggests that he will not be reckless in approaching precedent, and will justify any decisions with painstaking and scholarly reference to the Constitution and prior USSC cases. He is less predictably conservative than many other basically-qualified candidates Bush could have picked to replace Justice O'Connor. Yet because Bush picked him, and because he is likely to ally with conservatives in some case somewhen, the opposition has rather visibly strained to find credible reasons to oppose his nomination.
Now that Bush has a chance to replace Rehnquist, he is likely to pick someone more obviously conservative, as Rehnquist was more obviously conservative than O'Connor. Yet for most observers not already members of the choir, the likely objections to the new candidate will sound like somewhat dubious echoes of the less well-founded objections raised to Roberts. Crying wolf is a very short-sighted strategy.
UPDATE: Obviously, I didn't predict what actually happened. Given O'Connor's promise to stay until her replacement was confirmed, it made eminent sense for Bush to move Roberts over to the Chief Justice vacancy. Bush may or may not go for a tough conservative the next time around. If he doesn't pick someone glaringly controversial, the cry-wolf analysis still makes sense to me.
Roberts is superbly qualified to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. His records suggests that he will not be reckless in approaching precedent, and will justify any decisions with painstaking and scholarly reference to the Constitution and prior USSC cases. He is less predictably conservative than many other basically-qualified candidates Bush could have picked to replace Justice O'Connor. Yet because Bush picked him, and because he is likely to ally with conservatives in some case somewhen, the opposition has rather visibly strained to find credible reasons to oppose his nomination.
Now that Bush has a chance to replace Rehnquist, he is likely to pick someone more obviously conservative, as Rehnquist was more obviously conservative than O'Connor. Yet for most observers not already members of the choir, the likely objections to the new candidate will sound like somewhat dubious echoes of the less well-founded objections raised to Roberts. Crying wolf is a very short-sighted strategy.
UPDATE: Obviously, I didn't predict what actually happened. Given O'Connor's promise to stay until her replacement was confirmed, it made eminent sense for Bush to move Roberts over to the Chief Justice vacancy. Bush may or may not go for a tough conservative the next time around. If he doesn't pick someone glaringly controversial, the cry-wolf analysis still makes sense to me.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
In trying to find out whether the New Orleans schools had started before Katrina, I did a Google search to find out what county New Orleans was in. I found a site that is gruesomely out of date: all about New Orleans real estate, real estate values, realtors.... Links included "View New Orleans Homes for Sale" and, even worse, "What's My Home Worth?"...
I also found a long, long list of schools in New Orleans. When, if ever, will those schools have students again? How many of the students who should have gone there this fall will return someday?
I finally found the info I was looking for. Schools in New Orleans started on August 18th. An article described the school system as in "turmoil" -- because of deteriorating buildings and budgetary and administrative messes. What's a strong enough word now for what has happened to New Orleans schools?
What made me start searching was a thought that sickened my heart, for the who's-counting time today. I thought of kids starting school not long before the storm hit, some in new schools or in school for the first time, meeting their teachers, and some of them coming home in happy relief that they liked their classrooms, their teacher was nice, their best friend was in the same class....
Damn, damn, damn.
I also found a long, long list of schools in New Orleans. When, if ever, will those schools have students again? How many of the students who should have gone there this fall will return someday?
I finally found the info I was looking for. Schools in New Orleans started on August 18th. An article described the school system as in "turmoil" -- because of deteriorating buildings and budgetary and administrative messes. What's a strong enough word now for what has happened to New Orleans schools?
What made me start searching was a thought that sickened my heart, for the who's-counting time today. I thought of kids starting school not long before the storm hit, some in new schools or in school for the first time, meeting their teachers, and some of them coming home in happy relief that they liked their classrooms, their teacher was nice, their best friend was in the same class....
Damn, damn, damn.
Sinking In, so to speak
My reaction to the horrible situation in New Orleans, Biloxi, etc. is very like my reaction to 9-11 in one respect: it took a while for me to realize how many people were trapped in the disaster. When I first saw one of the towers collapse, I hadn't yet had a chance to find out whether the towers had been evacuated. I hoped they were nearly empty. When I found out otherwise, I had a weird, hollow, disoriented feeling at having seen something whose tragic dimensions I hadn't understood.
I had been reading Glenn Reynolds' urgings that people evacuate, days before Katrina hit. I didn't know how many were left in New Orleans, hadn't known where else the storm would hit. I hadn't comprehended how logistics and lack of resources would make it hard or impossible for many people to leave. I'm only now understanding how many.
I had been reading Glenn Reynolds' urgings that people evacuate, days before Katrina hit. I didn't know how many were left in New Orleans, hadn't known where else the storm would hit. I hadn't comprehended how logistics and lack of resources would make it hard or impossible for many people to leave. I'm only now understanding how many.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
another place to donate for New Orleans
If people are looking for yet another way to help New Orleans, Direct Relief International -- name notwithstanding -- is offering to "replenish medical inventories or provide emergency medical material". Hopefully they'll be able to get these supplies to wherever the refugees are going, as well as any remaining hospitals/clinics still open in the city.
Only wrinkle: their website, as I write this, doesn't have a way to designate donations for Katrina relief. However, there is a place for comments. Enough comments might spur them to set things up for specific Katrina relief donations.
Only wrinkle: their website, as I write this, doesn't have a way to designate donations for Katrina relief. However, there is a place for comments. Enough comments might spur them to set things up for specific Katrina relief donations.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Leaving out the good parts
For some reason, the partial text of the proposed Iraqi constitution that was published in the NY Times and many other media outlets left out some pretty reassuring provisions re the role and treatment of women. That's assuming that the complete version I found at what looks like the Sacramento Bee's website is accurate. It's not an elaborate joke a la Snappleface, is it? If it is, then a big "Never mind...." (NOTE/UPDATE: while I was looking for this text and before I found it, I found the text of the interim constitution -- the one that's been in effect for a while -- and thought that was the new draft's text. I posted a comment on Ambivablog, quoting the interim constitution as though it were the new draft. That comment got quoted in an Ambivablog "Update". So I feel foolish now. I believe the author of Ambivablog will be re-updating sometime soon to note my error, or something.)
Of interest on the women's rights issue:
--The preamble notes that "men and women, young and old" went to the ballot box on January 30, 2005.--The preamble also states that "We the people of Iraq, newly arisen from our disasters and looking with confidence to the future through a democratic, federal, republican system, are determined - men and women, old and young - to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism."
--The much discussed provision which the NY Times translation gives as "No law may contradict Islamic standards" is translated in this full Associated Press version as "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Pretty interesting adjective! Any Arabic speakers who can tell us whether this means that no one who counts disputes the truths of Islam, or instead that only the undisputed rules are binding?
--Now here's a nice one: "Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of sex, ..." Similarly, Article 16 guarantees "equal opportunity" to "all Iraqis". Without Article 14, I might worry that this didn't include women, but....
--"Article (20): Citizens, male and female, have the right to participate in public matters and enjoy political rights, including the right to vote and run as candidates."
--Two excerpts from Article 29:"The state shall guarantee the protection of motherhood, childhood and old age and shall take care of juveniles and youths and provide them with agreeable conditions to develop their capabilities." and: "Violence and abuse in the family, school and society shall be forbidden." The first could be read to suggest a protective condescension towards mothers if not for the other provisions I've mentioned. Article 30 also groups women with children as getting special protection re "social and health insurance."
Now, there are some other aspects that could concern civil libertarians, such as freedom of expression if and only if it doesn't violate "public order and morality" (Article 36) -- but that may not differ much from our obscenity laws and our time-place-and-manner restrictions on various protest activities.
Article 45 is a nice catch-all precaution: "Restricting or limiting any of the freedoms and liberties stated in this constitution may only happen by, or according to, law and as long as this restriction or limitation does not undermine the essence of the right or freedom."
I've become gradually convinced that most MSM, including the New York Times, cherry-picks the news out of Iraq to create a discouraging picture. This is another example -- but it's so obvious that I wonder if I'm missing something.
Of interest on the women's rights issue:
--The preamble notes that "men and women, young and old" went to the ballot box on January 30, 2005.--The preamble also states that "We the people of Iraq, newly arisen from our disasters and looking with confidence to the future through a democratic, federal, republican system, are determined - men and women, old and young - to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism."
--The much discussed provision which the NY Times translation gives as "No law may contradict Islamic standards" is translated in this full Associated Press version as "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Pretty interesting adjective! Any Arabic speakers who can tell us whether this means that no one who counts disputes the truths of Islam, or instead that only the undisputed rules are binding?
--Now here's a nice one: "Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of sex, ..." Similarly, Article 16 guarantees "equal opportunity" to "all Iraqis". Without Article 14, I might worry that this didn't include women, but....
--"Article (20): Citizens, male and female, have the right to participate in public matters and enjoy political rights, including the right to vote and run as candidates."
--Two excerpts from Article 29:"The state shall guarantee the protection of motherhood, childhood and old age and shall take care of juveniles and youths and provide them with agreeable conditions to develop their capabilities." and: "Violence and abuse in the family, school and society shall be forbidden." The first could be read to suggest a protective condescension towards mothers if not for the other provisions I've mentioned. Article 30 also groups women with children as getting special protection re "social and health insurance."
Now, there are some other aspects that could concern civil libertarians, such as freedom of expression if and only if it doesn't violate "public order and morality" (Article 36) -- but that may not differ much from our obscenity laws and our time-place-and-manner restrictions on various protest activities.
Article 45 is a nice catch-all precaution: "Restricting or limiting any of the freedoms and liberties stated in this constitution may only happen by, or according to, law and as long as this restriction or limitation does not undermine the essence of the right or freedom."
I've become gradually convinced that most MSM, including the New York Times, cherry-picks the news out of Iraq to create a discouraging picture. This is another example -- but it's so obvious that I wonder if I'm missing something.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Shuttle Foam -- Try the Original Drawing on the Board
I just read an AP story about the problem with foam on the space shuttle, titled "Nasa Stumped by Shuttle Foam Loss". The article ended with a list of "long-term options". Those options didn't include returning to the original foam formula (unless that was the meaning behind the somewhat cryptic "adding fiber to the foam to make it adhere better"). As I understand it, the original foam formula was abandoned because it included flourocarbons, and fluorocarbons are thought to cause some damage to the ozone layer. I don't know whether this is firmly substantiated -- far from a certainty where claims of environmental damage are concerned -- nor what level of damage we're talking about from what amount of use. But I seriously doubt that the amount of fluorocarbons involved in space shuttle foam is significant enough to justify using a substitute foam that won't stick to the shuttle.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
a magical meme for Harry Potter fans
OK, I've got a meme to propose.
I attended a Harry Potter birthday party yesterday. While most of the guests were adults, there was a table full of craft materials, including glitter-glue bottles and index cards. These inspired me to start making business cards for various business establishments in the Harry Potter universe. Which was fun. Here are the names/slogans I came up with (some of which won't make much sense or have much point unless you're familiar with the books):
--Free Elves Clothing Emporium
--Ministry Censor's Office -- "Better Not to Know"
--Whoosh! Floo Powder Wholesalers
--All Hollow Inn -- Hearty Fare for Hungry Wayfarers
--Wanting Wizard Pawn Shop -- "Knutts for your Knick-Knacks"
--Chocolate Menagerie -- "Frogs are Not Enough"
--Red's Rubbish Removal -- "With Red, It Stays Dead"
--The Waffling Quaffle Tote Shop
So there's the meme: names/slogans for businesses in the Harry Potter magical community.
Anyone want to play?
I attended a Harry Potter birthday party yesterday. While most of the guests were adults, there was a table full of craft materials, including glitter-glue bottles and index cards. These inspired me to start making business cards for various business establishments in the Harry Potter universe. Which was fun. Here are the names/slogans I came up with (some of which won't make much sense or have much point unless you're familiar with the books):
--Free Elves Clothing Emporium
--Ministry Censor's Office -- "Better Not to Know"
--Whoosh! Floo Powder Wholesalers
--All Hollow Inn -- Hearty Fare for Hungry Wayfarers
--Wanting Wizard Pawn Shop -- "Knutts for your Knick-Knacks"
--Chocolate Menagerie -- "Frogs are Not Enough"
--Red's Rubbish Removal -- "With Red, It Stays Dead"
--The Waffling Quaffle Tote Shop
So there's the meme: names/slogans for businesses in the Harry Potter magical community.
Anyone want to play?
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Fifty
I've been thinking of myself as almost-50 for years now. So I thought I'd make the transition to actually-50 with little trouble. I'm finding it a bit troubling, nonetheless. I'm counting down the days in which I can still say I'm in my 40's, with a somewhat sinking feeling. It is some comfort that my husband, in whom boyish qualities are very much alive, is several years into his 50's -- except that I still have trouble believing that, and it's a bit depressing in its turn. Apparently a good mutual friend of ours, a friend of my husband for several decades, is close to 60. That's positively scary. (I assume I will look back at these complaints some day in a spirit akin to some Supreme Court Justice -- I'm embarrassed to have forgotten which -- who, in his 90's, looked at a girl walk past and sighed, "Oh, to be 70 again....")
Learned the Hard Way
I was driving around today, erranding, and listening to the soundtrack of Somewhere in Time, which I consider rather beautiful and very romantic. Which made me think how much my brother, who was one of the most romantic souls ever, would have loved it. I doubt he ever heard it, and I never thought to play it for him. He died on June 1st of this year.
I didn't have very much contact with my brother in the last 15 years or so of his life, after I moved to Indiana (he lived in Southern and then Northern California). He had chronic fatigue syndrome most of that time, and didn't answer the phone much, let alone make trips across country -- though he did manage to come once, early on. I visited my parents in L.A. once or twice a year, but it never seemed like the time to go visit him instead, or in addition.
I'm sure that one reason I didn't try harder to stay in touch was that I have tended to suppress some sides of myself that were much like him -- sentimental, easily moved, easily agitated, embarrassingly open. When we spoke, we usually had a warm and loving exchange. But I was always on guard against our contact somehow becoming invasive, threatening my boundaries or my way of coping with the world. I was not entirely content with this delicate balance -- but I didn't know there was any urgency about changing it. His chronic fatigue syndrome symptoms masked the earlier stages of small cell lung cancer. He lived less than three months after he was diagnosed.
So I drive around town, trying not to cry too much for safety (there's a phrase with two meanings...), wishing I'd been able to share this music with him -- and inviting him, if he somehow can, to listen to it with me now.
I didn't have very much contact with my brother in the last 15 years or so of his life, after I moved to Indiana (he lived in Southern and then Northern California). He had chronic fatigue syndrome most of that time, and didn't answer the phone much, let alone make trips across country -- though he did manage to come once, early on. I visited my parents in L.A. once or twice a year, but it never seemed like the time to go visit him instead, or in addition.
I'm sure that one reason I didn't try harder to stay in touch was that I have tended to suppress some sides of myself that were much like him -- sentimental, easily moved, easily agitated, embarrassingly open. When we spoke, we usually had a warm and loving exchange. But I was always on guard against our contact somehow becoming invasive, threatening my boundaries or my way of coping with the world. I was not entirely content with this delicate balance -- but I didn't know there was any urgency about changing it. His chronic fatigue syndrome symptoms masked the earlier stages of small cell lung cancer. He lived less than three months after he was diagnosed.
So I drive around town, trying not to cry too much for safety (there's a phrase with two meanings...), wishing I'd been able to share this music with him -- and inviting him, if he somehow can, to listen to it with me now.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Religion in Schools - another possible outcome
I'd like to suggest that those who want more religious observance -- prayers, etc. -- in the public schools consider how that idea can turn out. In Bloomington (Indiana), we have quite a lot of religious diversity (including a Buddhist community), and some fairly fervent devotion to protecting that diversity. The surrounding county is more religiously and politically conservative. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the county who would like every school day to start with a Christian prayer. However, if the voters or officials in Bloomington proper ended up with much say, I can easily imagine a rather different outcome, if the prohibition against school-sponsored prayer were somehow removed. How would all our evangelical Christians feel about a mandate that every month, all month long, a prayer from a different religion would start the school day? Buddhist one month, Moslem the next, then Jewish, Bahai after that -- and we actually have quite a few pagans living hereabouts....
Friday, July 22, 2005
Justice Roberts and containing Kelo
I haven't studied Judge Roberts' opinions -- I've only picked up, secondhand at best, the idea that he may believe in paying some attention to what the Commerce Clause was meant to mean. Which doesn't bear directly on the Kelo decision and eminent domain -- but to me it suggests that if he is confirmed, and some case comes up which offers the opportunity to confine Kelo to relative irrelevancy, he may come through. Here's hoping.
A Reply to Anti-American American Liberals
I sometimes imagine conversations, and tonight I was imagining a reply, verging on a rant, to certain liberal acquaintances of mine who confess to feeling rather anti-American at present. It went something like this:
We are facing some extremely difficult dilemmas, having to do with how to fight a vicious and fanatical enemy while maintaining our grasp on generally decent, and specifically American, values. If the problem were an easy one, we would not have bone-deep civil libertarians like Alan Dershowitz tossing around ideas like torture warrants. It is not just evil right-wing evangelical corrupt corporate puppets who consider countenancing some dubious tactics.
Why do you leave out of the equation the fact that this country sometimes promotes, and even supports, democratic ideals and democratic reform movements? I have little confidence in my historical knowledge on this point, and I welcome corrections (if supported with specific and reliable citations) -- but haven't we pushed democracy more, maybe a lot more, than any of the other major democracies out there? The sins we've committed against that ideal -- the backroom deals, the blind eyes, the hypocrisies, the betrayals -- we share with our European counterparts, but how often have they put cynicism and pessimism aside to urge democracy on? At least we've talked the talk -- and lately, we've been doing a little better at walking the walk.
So give us some g-----n credit!
We are facing some extremely difficult dilemmas, having to do with how to fight a vicious and fanatical enemy while maintaining our grasp on generally decent, and specifically American, values. If the problem were an easy one, we would not have bone-deep civil libertarians like Alan Dershowitz tossing around ideas like torture warrants. It is not just evil right-wing evangelical corrupt corporate puppets who consider countenancing some dubious tactics.
Why do you leave out of the equation the fact that this country sometimes promotes, and even supports, democratic ideals and democratic reform movements? I have little confidence in my historical knowledge on this point, and I welcome corrections (if supported with specific and reliable citations) -- but haven't we pushed democracy more, maybe a lot more, than any of the other major democracies out there? The sins we've committed against that ideal -- the backroom deals, the blind eyes, the hypocrisies, the betrayals -- we share with our European counterparts, but how often have they put cynicism and pessimism aside to urge democracy on? At least we've talked the talk -- and lately, we've been doing a little better at walking the walk.
So give us some g-----n credit!
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Fireworks Fans Against Eastern Daylight Time
Through a series of contentious and to me annoying political events, we are likely to be stuck with Eastern Daylight Time next April. Until these events took place, most of Indiana has ignored the whole Daylight Savings Time exercise. I am highly skeptical that said exercise serves any very useful purpose. Since serious accidents apparently increase annually during the time people are adjusting to Daylight Time (not sure about re-adjusting to Standard), you'd think all the Safety Uber Alles folks would be clamoring to dump it. Most of Indiana belongs, geographically speaking, in the Central Time Zone -- so we will be seriously out of whack during the DST part of the year.
Particularly galling is what it will do to Independence Day fireworks. It's been bad enough when the fireworks started at 9 p.m. Now they'll START at 10 p.m. and end near 11 p.m. I doubt all the other holiday events will start an hour later -- the day will be interminable and even more exhausting than previously.
We still have a couple of surviving drive-in theaters hereabouts, which will probably crater when shows all have to start late. (I'm not sure of the logistics of drive-ins showing Adult movies, which could be an option, though not one that appeals to me....)
The legislature could still abort this scheme next March, but I'm not very hopeful. What gets me stirred up seldom stirs large enough crowds to reverse political inertia.
My husband, Hoosier Gadfly, recommends that we all go to Greenwich Mean Time, aka Universal Time, and schedule events at whatever hour is workable. He walks the walk -- his watch and computer are both on GMT.
Particularly galling is what it will do to Independence Day fireworks. It's been bad enough when the fireworks started at 9 p.m. Now they'll START at 10 p.m. and end near 11 p.m. I doubt all the other holiday events will start an hour later -- the day will be interminable and even more exhausting than previously.
We still have a couple of surviving drive-in theaters hereabouts, which will probably crater when shows all have to start late. (I'm not sure of the logistics of drive-ins showing Adult movies, which could be an option, though not one that appeals to me....)
The legislature could still abort this scheme next March, but I'm not very hopeful. What gets me stirred up seldom stirs large enough crowds to reverse political inertia.
My husband, Hoosier Gadfly, recommends that we all go to Greenwich Mean Time, aka Universal Time, and schedule events at whatever hour is workable. He walks the walk -- his watch and computer are both on GMT.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Omniscience and Quantum Uncertainty
(Yes, I do tend to use titles with "and". Doesn't seem worth refraining, if it comes naturally.)
My husband, Hoosier Gadfly, has said on occasion that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (and possibly other credible theories of quantum physics) precludes divine omniscience. I'm not convinced.
As I understand it -- though perhaps I don't -- Heisenberg's Etc. is essentially about measurement. Measurement may yield the most accurate knowledge, but if one is predicting the result of a very thoroughly controlled future event, one could be said to "know" that result. If, for example, one rolls a ball of a certain mass, whose surface has a known degree of friction, down a surface with a known incline, on a path from which no deviation is possible, for a fixed number of seconds -- and yet, for any reason, one is unable to perceive and measure the result -- one could calculate in advance where the ball would end up. That information would be essentially known, though not perceived at the time of the event.
If one postulates a Creator capable of thoroughly calculating in advance (or in some timeless manner) all the interacting events that would make up a universe and its history, that Creator would essentially know what would happen in that universe, even if unable to observe those events unfolding.
I should not attempt this sort of discussion when underslept and racing the clock to minimize tomorrow's undersleptness....
My husband, Hoosier Gadfly, has said on occasion that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (and possibly other credible theories of quantum physics) precludes divine omniscience. I'm not convinced.
As I understand it -- though perhaps I don't -- Heisenberg's Etc. is essentially about measurement. Measurement may yield the most accurate knowledge, but if one is predicting the result of a very thoroughly controlled future event, one could be said to "know" that result. If, for example, one rolls a ball of a certain mass, whose surface has a known degree of friction, down a surface with a known incline, on a path from which no deviation is possible, for a fixed number of seconds -- and yet, for any reason, one is unable to perceive and measure the result -- one could calculate in advance where the ball would end up. That information would be essentially known, though not perceived at the time of the event.
If one postulates a Creator capable of thoroughly calculating in advance (or in some timeless manner) all the interacting events that would make up a universe and its history, that Creator would essentially know what would happen in that universe, even if unable to observe those events unfolding.
I should not attempt this sort of discussion when underslept and racing the clock to minimize tomorrow's undersleptness....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)