Those who think that Oregon's May presidential primary will be nothing but a formality should look more closely at the polls. Nobody in either party gets more than about 30% support. With some of the big states abandoning the "winner take all" approach, both nominations may still be in play come May.
In fact, given the chaos on the Republican side, it's conceivable that no one will arrive at their September convention with 51% delegate support. In a brokered convention, it's going to be important what the delegates' second choices are, and that's not going to be on any primary ballot, Oregon's or otherwise. The decision in September may be made by people we have elected for one purpose but about whom we really know nothing.
In parliamentary systems, party leaders are chosen by party activists, not the general electorate. At election time, voters can choose between leaders but they can't pick just anyone. This seems less democratic than the way Americans elect a president, but I'm not so sure.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
War? What War?
We are approaching the fifth anniversary of our invasion of Iraq. We have stationed so many troops there that we have essentially none left in reserve for any other conflict. The cash cost is around $15 billion per month. On an accrual basis, including the veterans benefits that we'll be shelling our for the next five decades, it is much more.
Yet when I check Google News, I see nothing whatsoever today (December 30) about Iraq. Pakistan, yes. The Patriots' perfect season, yes. Thankfully, nothing about Britney Spears today, but also nothing whatsoever about Iraq. We spend about $300,000 every minute. Every six seconds or so, we squander enough to pay four years of college tuition for some deserving young person of limited means. But it isn't news anymore.
Yet when I check Google News, I see nothing whatsoever today (December 30) about Iraq. Pakistan, yes. The Patriots' perfect season, yes. Thankfully, nothing about Britney Spears today, but also nothing whatsoever about Iraq. We spend about $300,000 every minute. Every six seconds or so, we squander enough to pay four years of college tuition for some deserving young person of limited means. But it isn't news anymore.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Nationalism would be a step up for Africa
The election results in Kenya are close and violence is breaking out between the supporters of the two candidates, who come from the Kikuyu and Luo tribes, respectively. Homes are being burned down simply because the owner belongs to the wrong tribe.
The idea of nationalism, particularly in an adjective like "nationalistic," conveys a failure to grasp the universal brotherhood of man and is not much in favor in intellectual circles these days. But it should be remembered that nationalism originated as a form of progress, through which men rose above the narrow focus of tribalism and provincialism. William Pfaff has written extensively on nationalism at the most powerful political force in the world today.
Which explains a lot about the problems of Africa today. Nationalism, or even racism, would be very helpful. Kenya has been independent of Britain for four decades now and it's discouraging how little progress has been made in this regard.
The idea of nationalism, particularly in an adjective like "nationalistic," conveys a failure to grasp the universal brotherhood of man and is not much in favor in intellectual circles these days. But it should be remembered that nationalism originated as a form of progress, through which men rose above the narrow focus of tribalism and provincialism. William Pfaff has written extensively on nationalism at the most powerful political force in the world today.
Which explains a lot about the problems of Africa today. Nationalism, or even racism, would be very helpful. Kenya has been independent of Britain for four decades now and it's discouraging how little progress has been made in this regard.
We should pay close attention to David Hicks
The Australian David Hicks has been released from jail. He was kept for five years at Guantanamo without charges, a fact which should make us all afraid. He was fortunate enough to have the Australian government, tardily and unenthusiastically, pressure the U.S. to do something, which resulted in his pleading guilty to some vague charges of supporting terrorism, followed by a modest term of imprisonment.
However, the evidence is clear that the US sees nothing wrong with establishing a Gulag into which throws people and keeps them for years without charges. Hicks was evidently small potatoes, a confused young man who made a fool of himself. But note that he was not engaged in action against the US government in any meaningful way. He was captured by the Northern Alliance, not US troops. Besides, the US has never declared war on Afghanistan.
Are the others in Guantanamo like Hicks? Is this a camp full of people who are mostly guilty of deeply disliking the US, as well as Christians and Jews perhaps, in a country where this was fairly normal? I'm afraid we rounded up a lot of people on fairly flimsy evidence and now we don't want to admit that. So we're going to keep them there forever, because the "war" on terrorism is scheduled to last until doomsday.
A government that will do that to them today is one that will do it to us in the future.
However, the evidence is clear that the US sees nothing wrong with establishing a Gulag into which throws people and keeps them for years without charges. Hicks was evidently small potatoes, a confused young man who made a fool of himself. But note that he was not engaged in action against the US government in any meaningful way. He was captured by the Northern Alliance, not US troops. Besides, the US has never declared war on Afghanistan.
Are the others in Guantanamo like Hicks? Is this a camp full of people who are mostly guilty of deeply disliking the US, as well as Christians and Jews perhaps, in a country where this was fairly normal? I'm afraid we rounded up a lot of people on fairly flimsy evidence and now we don't want to admit that. So we're going to keep them there forever, because the "war" on terrorism is scheduled to last until doomsday.
A government that will do that to them today is one that will do it to us in the future.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Chaos Theory and the 2008 Campaign
Chaos Theory holds that complex non-linear system can arrive at radically different results after extremely similar initial conditions. I have a feeling that the 2008 campaign will show this principle in action. Candidates surge and then fall back based on small factors. Timing is everything. If you surge just in time to do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, you may carry the day. On the other hand, with "leaders" coming around 30%, some other primary at some other time may change things entirely.
Leading us to wonder, why do we elect the president this way? Why would we allow sentiment attaching to these states as historically early to continue giving them such undue importance? When the result just confirms underlying trends, this isn't necessarily bad, but we're coming into a year when the problems may come into focus.
Suppose, for instance, a candidate does well from January through March and becomes the anticipated nominee. However, round about May, he starts saying really odd things about foreign policy and the party faithful start to have second thoughts. Could the nomination be denied in August?
Thankfully, we have Mike Bloomberg to fall back on.
Leading us to wonder, why do we elect the president this way? Why would we allow sentiment attaching to these states as historically early to continue giving them such undue importance? When the result just confirms underlying trends, this isn't necessarily bad, but we're coming into a year when the problems may come into focus.
Suppose, for instance, a candidate does well from January through March and becomes the anticipated nominee. However, round about May, he starts saying really odd things about foreign policy and the party faithful start to have second thoughts. Could the nomination be denied in August?
Thankfully, we have Mike Bloomberg to fall back on.
What part of "casus belli" doesn't Iraq understand?
Turkey has bombed Kurdish rebels in Iraq and the Iraqi government is in a snit. First off, they maintain that the bombing was futile, that the Turks spent their time bombing unoccupied places. Right. This is a real country, with a modern army and serious weaponry, and they can't hit anybody?
They go on to blither about how Turkey has interfered in Iraq's internal affairs. When people from inside your country attack the military forces of your neighbor, that's one of the standard, legitimate reasons to go to war. Turkey has not interfered, it has invaded, albeit briefly, and with sufficient reason. They are to be applauded for their restraint.
The Iraqis naturally are loath to describe it as an invasion, having been invaded once and after almost five years remaining occupied. But someone needs to explain clearly to the Iraqi Kurds that they get their three provinces, but nothing from Iran, Turkey, or Syria. Them's the breaks.
They go on to blither about how Turkey has interfered in Iraq's internal affairs. When people from inside your country attack the military forces of your neighbor, that's one of the standard, legitimate reasons to go to war. Turkey has not interfered, it has invaded, albeit briefly, and with sufficient reason. They are to be applauded for their restraint.
The Iraqis naturally are loath to describe it as an invasion, having been invaded once and after almost five years remaining occupied. But someone needs to explain clearly to the Iraqi Kurds that they get their three provinces, but nothing from Iran, Turkey, or Syria. Them's the breaks.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
A lot of knowledge is also a dangerous thing
Richard Feynman was known for coming into his classes at Cal Tech and remarking to the students something along the lines, "You know, as I came through the parking lot today, I saw a car with the license plate WBX 828. What are the chances that a car with that license plate would be in the parking lot this morning? Must be a million to one against." He was trying to point out the difference between something that was merely unlikely and something significant.
That distinction has apparently been lost on the FBI, which arrested an entirely innocent man in the "Waddling Bandit" case, and in fact won't apologize because they correctly followed their procedures. The procedure, evidently, was to cast their net very widely, looking for people who roughly matched surveillance tapes and a rough profile.
Now the FBI is planning to develop a huge database of biometric information in order to catch criminals and terrorists. This makes me very nervous. I probably closely resemble some criminal. It seems that the FBI is willing to take its best available match and take action and someday it could be me, rather than Brandon Mayfield or Robert Christie. It could be you.
That distinction has apparently been lost on the FBI, which arrested an entirely innocent man in the "Waddling Bandit" case, and in fact won't apologize because they correctly followed their procedures. The procedure, evidently, was to cast their net very widely, looking for people who roughly matched surveillance tapes and a rough profile.
Now the FBI is planning to develop a huge database of biometric information in order to catch criminals and terrorists. This makes me very nervous. I probably closely resemble some criminal. It seems that the FBI is willing to take its best available match and take action and someday it could be me, rather than Brandon Mayfield or Robert Christie. It could be you.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
You say Romney's Mormon, I say Huckabee's Baptist
Huckabee's inability to formulate a concise political position with respect to Romney's Mormonism seems to be troubling a lot of commentators. Juan Cole seems particularly exercised over this, comparing Huckabee's views on having a Mormon as president with the rule in Iran that only a Shiite can be president.
Such blather! We could solve the problem by requiring candidates for national office to have no religious beliefs whatsoever, but that wouldn't be popular. The compromise has been to allow private religious beliefs on the understanding that they won't interfere with public policies.
However, the minute you allow Huckabee to run and also to be a Southern Baptist, you must allow him to privately belief that Romney is a heretic. He should have been smart enough to adopt an absolute refusal from the first to answer any questions about any other candidate's religion, but no one should have asked him and his answers should have been stricken from the record.
The reverse is also true. Mormons think that mainstream Christians are in deep do-do themselves. Mainstream Christians, pretty much by definition, think that Joseph Smith didn't get a second set of prophecies through a special revelation from an angel in upstate New York. Southern Baptists may call them heretics, but everyone thinks they're nuts.
I've never quite understood how highly religious people can say that they will not let their religious beliefs interfere with their conduct in office. However, there is enough diversity in America that no one can impose religious uniformity, even if they want to. Given that, I don't think anyone--Mormon, Baptist, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, whatever--should discriminate against a political candidate of another faith, merely because he is likely to burn in eternal damnation.
Such blather! We could solve the problem by requiring candidates for national office to have no religious beliefs whatsoever, but that wouldn't be popular. The compromise has been to allow private religious beliefs on the understanding that they won't interfere with public policies.
However, the minute you allow Huckabee to run and also to be a Southern Baptist, you must allow him to privately belief that Romney is a heretic. He should have been smart enough to adopt an absolute refusal from the first to answer any questions about any other candidate's religion, but no one should have asked him and his answers should have been stricken from the record.
The reverse is also true. Mormons think that mainstream Christians are in deep do-do themselves. Mainstream Christians, pretty much by definition, think that Joseph Smith didn't get a second set of prophecies through a special revelation from an angel in upstate New York. Southern Baptists may call them heretics, but everyone thinks they're nuts.
I've never quite understood how highly religious people can say that they will not let their religious beliefs interfere with their conduct in office. However, there is enough diversity in America that no one can impose religious uniformity, even if they want to. Given that, I don't think anyone--Mormon, Baptist, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, whatever--should discriminate against a political candidate of another faith, merely because he is likely to burn in eternal damnation.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Beer and Ethanol
The price of beer is evidently on the rise, due to increases in the cost of materials such as barley. Farmers are using corn to make ethanol, hence using more barley to feed livestock. The total availability of agricultural grains in America is not going to change much. As Economics 101 tells us, when you have a basically fixed supply and you increase demand, you'll increase the price. Nothing surprising here.
The federal government's interest in ethanol shines a bright light on the perverse way in which politics works in America. We will not mandate higher gas taxes, which would shift people to cars that use less fuel. Instead, we mandate the usage of ethanol in the fuel. Being less efficient than gasoline (otherwise, the mandate wouldn't be needed), the ethanol raises the cost of driving, but not very much. Instead, people are permitted to continue driving inefficient vehicles, while passing the cost along to everyone who drinks beer or eats cornflakes.
I predict that Congress will continue the ethanol mandate, especially since they will need to rescue the investors who have started too many ethanol plants. I also predict that they will not do any of the obvious and effective things.
The federal government's interest in ethanol shines a bright light on the perverse way in which politics works in America. We will not mandate higher gas taxes, which would shift people to cars that use less fuel. Instead, we mandate the usage of ethanol in the fuel. Being less efficient than gasoline (otherwise, the mandate wouldn't be needed), the ethanol raises the cost of driving, but not very much. Instead, people are permitted to continue driving inefficient vehicles, while passing the cost along to everyone who drinks beer or eats cornflakes.
I predict that Congress will continue the ethanol mandate, especially since they will need to rescue the investors who have started too many ethanol plants. I also predict that they will not do any of the obvious and effective things.
Hurricane Season 2008
It seems that the Colorado State University experts have put out their predictions for the 2008 hurricane season. It is making headlines. The story also notes that they have been wrong for the past three years. They say there will be seven hurricanes next season. I say there will be six. Why doesn't Reuters come out and interview me?
What we're seeing is that the development of hurricanes depends, as Chaos Theory has shown, on remarkably small variations in conditions that lead to either big storms or fizzles. This is hard to predict at a distance of twelve hours. It is impossible to predict a year in advance. There appear to be some minor correlations with ocean temperatures, which in turn are difficult to predict a year in advance.
The number of tropical storms continues to be above the long term average, which I attribute mostly to better technology. On that basis, we had a slightly more active than usual season in 2007, but as anyone who watched it knows, it was pretty boring. There were in fact far fewer days than normal when there were at least on hurricane active in the North Atlantic.
So to predict a slightly more active than usual season is pretty much to say average with new data gathering. When the weatherman says the chance of rain is 50%, it means he has no clue. Much the same with these "experts."
What we're seeing is that the development of hurricanes depends, as Chaos Theory has shown, on remarkably small variations in conditions that lead to either big storms or fizzles. This is hard to predict at a distance of twelve hours. It is impossible to predict a year in advance. There appear to be some minor correlations with ocean temperatures, which in turn are difficult to predict a year in advance.
The number of tropical storms continues to be above the long term average, which I attribute mostly to better technology. On that basis, we had a slightly more active than usual season in 2007, but as anyone who watched it knows, it was pretty boring. There were in fact far fewer days than normal when there were at least on hurricane active in the North Atlantic.
So to predict a slightly more active than usual season is pretty much to say average with new data gathering. When the weatherman says the chance of rain is 50%, it means he has no clue. Much the same with these "experts."
Monday, December 03, 2007
Lies, damned lies, and AIDS infections
Mark Twain had it right. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. All the more so as statisticians have begun to employ more esoteric calculations to derive results far removed from actual data collection. Controversy surrounding historical global temperatures is due to this.
But I don't understand why today we are having Reuters saying that CDC is not yet saying whether their AIDS infection rate figures will rise, while "activist groups" think there are explosive numbers, "almost 50% higher," that are being held back. The actual numbers are 55K vs 40K, which is 37.5%, but who's counting.
CDC wants to take a long look before releasing the results, since they may have policy impacts. However, those who already know what policy impacts they desire can't wait to see if science supports them. "We hope that this is not yet another instance of the Bush administration's suppression of information that could be damaging to their image, especially in light of the fact that the spike in new infections is, at least in part, likely due to failed policies of the administration, including the promotion of 'abstinence-only' prevention messages and the failure to promote condom use," said Michael Weinstein, president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
This comes under the "have you stopped beating your wife" category. CDC is under attack for not releasing numbers early, and Weinstein already knows not only that the spike is taking place but what is causing it. He weasels in that he hopes it is not so, but clearly his mind is made up.
"Abstinence only" is a policy designed for teenagers. Teenagers are substantially more likely to die in auto accidents than from AIDS and if they are infected, it's extremely unlikely that it's the result of heterosexual sex with peers. When some high school boy and his girl decide to lose their virginity before the prom, it may get her pregnant but it won't give her AIDS. Bush should give up on abstinence only, but for reasons that have nothing to do with AIDS.
But I don't understand why today we are having Reuters saying that CDC is not yet saying whether their AIDS infection rate figures will rise, while "activist groups" think there are explosive numbers, "almost 50% higher," that are being held back. The actual numbers are 55K vs 40K, which is 37.5%, but who's counting.
CDC wants to take a long look before releasing the results, since they may have policy impacts. However, those who already know what policy impacts they desire can't wait to see if science supports them. "We hope that this is not yet another instance of the Bush administration's suppression of information that could be damaging to their image, especially in light of the fact that the spike in new infections is, at least in part, likely due to failed policies of the administration, including the promotion of 'abstinence-only' prevention messages and the failure to promote condom use," said Michael Weinstein, president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
This comes under the "have you stopped beating your wife" category. CDC is under attack for not releasing numbers early, and Weinstein already knows not only that the spike is taking place but what is causing it. He weasels in that he hopes it is not so, but clearly his mind is made up.
"Abstinence only" is a policy designed for teenagers. Teenagers are substantially more likely to die in auto accidents than from AIDS and if they are infected, it's extremely unlikely that it's the result of heterosexual sex with peers. When some high school boy and his girl decide to lose their virginity before the prom, it may get her pregnant but it won't give her AIDS. Bush should give up on abstinence only, but for reasons that have nothing to do with AIDS.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
HIV, Diarrhea, and Trauma in Poor Countries
A group in Eugene recently celebrated another AIDS awareness day, I don't recall for what reason, which included someone singing "Imagine a world without AIDS." Well, I can't, frankly. We have made it possible for HIV carriers to live long lives, during all of which they will be HIV positive and hence disease vectors. Unless we convinced tens of millions of people to have only safe sex and/or only safe intravenous drug use, we will always have new cases.
Meanwhile, I don't recall the last diarrhea awareness day. Roughly two million children under six die from diarrhea annually, which is also roughly the mortality from AIDS across all age groups. Another enormous source of mortality in developing countries is bone breakage, which takes place with disturbing frequency due to increasing auto traffic, bad roads, and inexperienced drivers.
I don't know exactly what the per capita cost of providing clean drinking water would be, but that's a readily available solution to most of the diarrhea epidemic. Kiwanis in the Pacific Northwest supports a program through which severe injuries can be repaired with a steel rod and surgery at a total cost of $100 per patient. These people go on to live productive lives without further cost.
HIV/AIDS is a diagnosis which leads either to death or a lifetime of drug treatment. Expensive drugs, even with subsidies, and the survivor remains a vector. The obvious choice would be to provide palliative care, let them die, and focus on the low-cost and effective use of money for the greatest benefit.
But that would be rational and there's nothing rational about our methods of doing good.
Meanwhile, I don't recall the last diarrhea awareness day. Roughly two million children under six die from diarrhea annually, which is also roughly the mortality from AIDS across all age groups. Another enormous source of mortality in developing countries is bone breakage, which takes place with disturbing frequency due to increasing auto traffic, bad roads, and inexperienced drivers.
I don't know exactly what the per capita cost of providing clean drinking water would be, but that's a readily available solution to most of the diarrhea epidemic. Kiwanis in the Pacific Northwest supports a program through which severe injuries can be repaired with a steel rod and surgery at a total cost of $100 per patient. These people go on to live productive lives without further cost.
HIV/AIDS is a diagnosis which leads either to death or a lifetime of drug treatment. Expensive drugs, even with subsidies, and the survivor remains a vector. The obvious choice would be to provide palliative care, let them die, and focus on the low-cost and effective use of money for the greatest benefit.
But that would be rational and there's nothing rational about our methods of doing good.
Run, run, the seas are rising
Bob Doppelt, a local Eugene environmentalist, wrote in today's Register Guard that global warming will bring incredible pain to Lane County, which we should begin to mitigate now. The odd thing is that his final points, that we cannot cure global warming but there can be no real cure unless we all do our part, is plainly false. Lane County is insignificant in this situation. If we reduced our countial (what's the adjective for county?) carbon footprint to zero, it would have no impact and we'd go right on getting warmer. Conversely, nobody is India or China will change a policy because of what Lane County does, and those folks are actually important.
However, it was amusing as usual to listen to the fright mongering about the rising oceans. Due to the projected 4.6-foot increase, we in Florence should be concerned that the waves will begin washing away our sand.
First, let's take a deep breath and consider the past 20 millenia. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the oceans have risen tremendously. The old seashore lies far beneath the waves. Yet, in case no one has noticed, we have a lot of sand here.
The reason is simply that the Pacific carries a great deal of energy eastward which is dissipates on the coastline. Some of that energy drives sand upwards, against the natural tendency of gravity to send it downward. It isn't a smooth process and stormy seas are net removers, but summer restores sand to the beaches. If you move the beach higher by a foot, the sand will be delivered a foot higher as well.
However, neither the coastline nor the sea level is completely fixed, never has been, never will be, and anyone living next to it deals with that. The rate of change of the ocean is relatively insignificant. The same UN report which underlies the hysteria also provides contradictory graphs of actual history. For instance, in the 60 years after WW II, the oceans rose more quickly for the first 25 years than the next 35. Unfortunately for the climate warmers, the rise was more quickly in the first 25 and during that time, global temperatures fell.
Meanwhile, people along coasts are always insecure about where the ocean meets land, except for a few places where they sit comfortably on basalt. Anyone who builds so close to the shore that a few inches rise will be important during the lifetime of a structure, is nuts. Otherwise, the next builder will start a few inches higher. Hardly the greatest global crisis of the century.
However, it was amusing as usual to listen to the fright mongering about the rising oceans. Due to the projected 4.6-foot increase, we in Florence should be concerned that the waves will begin washing away our sand.
First, let's take a deep breath and consider the past 20 millenia. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the oceans have risen tremendously. The old seashore lies far beneath the waves. Yet, in case no one has noticed, we have a lot of sand here.
The reason is simply that the Pacific carries a great deal of energy eastward which is dissipates on the coastline. Some of that energy drives sand upwards, against the natural tendency of gravity to send it downward. It isn't a smooth process and stormy seas are net removers, but summer restores sand to the beaches. If you move the beach higher by a foot, the sand will be delivered a foot higher as well.
However, neither the coastline nor the sea level is completely fixed, never has been, never will be, and anyone living next to it deals with that. The rate of change of the ocean is relatively insignificant. The same UN report which underlies the hysteria also provides contradictory graphs of actual history. For instance, in the 60 years after WW II, the oceans rose more quickly for the first 25 years than the next 35. Unfortunately for the climate warmers, the rise was more quickly in the first 25 and during that time, global temperatures fell.
Meanwhile, people along coasts are always insecure about where the ocean meets land, except for a few places where they sit comfortably on basalt. Anyone who builds so close to the shore that a few inches rise will be important during the lifetime of a structure, is nuts. Otherwise, the next builder will start a few inches higher. Hardly the greatest global crisis of the century.
America is driven by fear of litigation
America has come to believe that safety is normal and natural, and anything that in retrospect entailed danger and led to a bad outcome, is a tort. Lawyers keep telling us that this makes life better. It doesn't look like it to me.
In our local Kiwanis club, our meetings are held about a mile from the high school, where an affiliated Key Club operates. One of the members of the Key Club wants to come to the meeting this Wednesday. We need to transport her.
But here's the kicker. Kiwanis International advises each Kiwanis Club that at no time should one Kiwanis member be alone with one youth in any activity relating to Kiwanis. The includes bringing someone to a meeting. So we can't just send one member over to the high school to make the trip, for about two minutes in broad daylight. We need to get two people. If we can do it, fine. Otherwise, I guess it won't happen.
Having the two clubs interact is a positive thing, but we are so afraid of litigation that we are raise barriers that will inevitably lead to less of it. If Kiwanis ran a summer camp with a swimming pool, the insurance liability would be enormous, because some kid might be injured. The same kid, not going to camp, might be injured in his backyard pool, but then there would be no one to sue.
Some people, entrusted with the care of youth through churches, nonprofits, and so forth, have used their positions abusively, but they represent a tiny fraction of the total. Most abuse is in the home. When we insist that all organized alternatives to home activities be perfect, we ensure that there will be less of it and that kids will be at greater risk for more hours. For some reason, we can't fix this.
Perhaps it has something to do with the enormous contribution which trial lawyers make to political campaigns.
In our local Kiwanis club, our meetings are held about a mile from the high school, where an affiliated Key Club operates. One of the members of the Key Club wants to come to the meeting this Wednesday. We need to transport her.
But here's the kicker. Kiwanis International advises each Kiwanis Club that at no time should one Kiwanis member be alone with one youth in any activity relating to Kiwanis. The includes bringing someone to a meeting. So we can't just send one member over to the high school to make the trip, for about two minutes in broad daylight. We need to get two people. If we can do it, fine. Otherwise, I guess it won't happen.
Having the two clubs interact is a positive thing, but we are so afraid of litigation that we are raise barriers that will inevitably lead to less of it. If Kiwanis ran a summer camp with a swimming pool, the insurance liability would be enormous, because some kid might be injured. The same kid, not going to camp, might be injured in his backyard pool, but then there would be no one to sue.
Some people, entrusted with the care of youth through churches, nonprofits, and so forth, have used their positions abusively, but they represent a tiny fraction of the total. Most abuse is in the home. When we insist that all organized alternatives to home activities be perfect, we ensure that there will be less of it and that kids will be at greater risk for more hours. For some reason, we can't fix this.
Perhaps it has something to do with the enormous contribution which trial lawyers make to political campaigns.
Can a seven-year-old blaspheme?
From a BBC blog comes this:
Speaking as a father I do not feel this was a well thought out plan by the teacher. However, I feel that she has done nothing wrong. The children themselves should be punished for having chosen the name of our great Prophet for a lowly bear. The teacher was misguided, whereas the children were malicious. They must be brought to answer for their blasphemy.
Abdullah Al-Zawawi, Sudan
and also this:
The children voted as well. They should lock them up too, as a lesson to anybody who insults Prophet Muhammad.
K K Djibouto, Sudan
I don't think you need to be irrationally anti-muslim to point out that there are no other religions on earth where adherents believe that non-believers, acting in private, should be criminalized for words they speak. Or that seven-year-olds should be punished for their inadequate understanding of theology. The first gentleman distances himself from the mob, but both align themselves with the second view. The first gives his full name and evidently doesn't feel embarrassed to tell the entire world.
To repeat an earlier point, Islam is a self-insulting religion. It shouldn't worry about the impact of infidels on Mohammed's good name.
Speaking as a father I do not feel this was a well thought out plan by the teacher. However, I feel that she has done nothing wrong. The children themselves should be punished for having chosen the name of our great Prophet for a lowly bear. The teacher was misguided, whereas the children were malicious. They must be brought to answer for their blasphemy.
Abdullah Al-Zawawi, Sudan
and also this:
The children voted as well. They should lock them up too, as a lesson to anybody who insults Prophet Muhammad.
K K Djibouto, Sudan
I don't think you need to be irrationally anti-muslim to point out that there are no other religions on earth where adherents believe that non-believers, acting in private, should be criminalized for words they speak. Or that seven-year-olds should be punished for their inadequate understanding of theology. The first gentleman distances himself from the mob, but both align themselves with the second view. The first gives his full name and evidently doesn't feel embarrassed to tell the entire world.
To repeat an earlier point, Islam is a self-insulting religion. It shouldn't worry about the impact of infidels on Mohammed's good name.
Muted Muslim Outrage about Mo, The Teddy Bear
We are told that muslim leaders from Britain are trying to win the release of Gillian Gibbons from the Sudanese jail where she has been imprisoned for insulting Islam. A nice gesture, probably as much defensive as anything, since shall we say there hasn't been a lot of support for Sudan in the UK over this. It's making Islam look stupid in civilized countries and British muslims know it.
But where are the voices from Arab countries? Nothing from Egypt, where they are probably afraid of the Islamists in their midst. Nothing from Saudi, where they probably agree. Complete silence from the "secular Shiites" in Iraq, or the Palestinians, or the Syrians, or ...
In fact, the only Muslim voices getting much play in the news are those of Britons. Probably this is because Muslims there think they have no choice, while those elsewhere are afraid of the imams who seriously think Sharia law is appropriate in Sudan and wouldn't mind having it everywhere.
Christianity has had a violent and intolerant past, as has Judaism much farther back, and there are certainly preachers still with us that I wouldn't like to see control the levers of governmental power. There are doubtless tolerant Muslims. In India, the ones I've met seem all to fall in that category. The problem for Westerners is that the ones who aren't control far more of the religious power in Islam than in Christianity and they also control governments, which is not the case with Christians.
That said, Bill O'Reilly and his ilk go far overboard in warning about the threat of militant Islam. There has never been a year when America's toll from Islamic terrorism has come close to the loss of life in auto accidents, and except in 2001, it has never reached the number who die from lightning strikes. The cost of the 9/11 attack is minuscule compared with the expense we've endured since then in response to it.
The lesson of Mo the Teddy should be that while Gilliam Gibbons can soon leave, almost all Sudanese are stuck there. Thankfully, the problems of Islam are almost entirely inflicted on Muslims in Muslim countries. And secondarily, on the rest of us by people who don't understand that.
But where are the voices from Arab countries? Nothing from Egypt, where they are probably afraid of the Islamists in their midst. Nothing from Saudi, where they probably agree. Complete silence from the "secular Shiites" in Iraq, or the Palestinians, or the Syrians, or ...
In fact, the only Muslim voices getting much play in the news are those of Britons. Probably this is because Muslims there think they have no choice, while those elsewhere are afraid of the imams who seriously think Sharia law is appropriate in Sudan and wouldn't mind having it everywhere.
Christianity has had a violent and intolerant past, as has Judaism much farther back, and there are certainly preachers still with us that I wouldn't like to see control the levers of governmental power. There are doubtless tolerant Muslims. In India, the ones I've met seem all to fall in that category. The problem for Westerners is that the ones who aren't control far more of the religious power in Islam than in Christianity and they also control governments, which is not the case with Christians.
That said, Bill O'Reilly and his ilk go far overboard in warning about the threat of militant Islam. There has never been a year when America's toll from Islamic terrorism has come close to the loss of life in auto accidents, and except in 2001, it has never reached the number who die from lightning strikes. The cost of the 9/11 attack is minuscule compared with the expense we've endured since then in response to it.
The lesson of Mo the Teddy should be that while Gilliam Gibbons can soon leave, almost all Sudanese are stuck there. Thankfully, the problems of Islam are almost entirely inflicted on Muslims in Muslim countries. And secondarily, on the rest of us by people who don't understand that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)