As the day approaches, John Miller has a righteous rant against the stupidity that is Daylight “Saving” Time.
“I Want My Hour Back”
As the day approaches, John Miller has a righteous rant against the stupidity that is Daylight “Saving” Time.
“I Want My Hour Back”
As the day approaches, John Miller has a righteous rant against the stupidity that is Daylight “Saving” Time.
Where’s The Outrage?
So, Sandy Berger cops a plea. At least there will be no more of this nonsense about how this was “inadvertent.” However, his defenders (both literal, and in the ally sense) continue to use language to downplay what happened, just as they always did when caught with their hands in the cookie jar:
Lanny Breuer, Berger’s attorney, said in a statement: “Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near. He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives.”
Lanny Breuer.
Sigh. I thought we’d heard the last of names like that, but the Clinton administration is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Well, I guess I should be grateful that it’s at least in the active voice. Usually when one of the Clinton administration members did something like this, the phraseology was passive–“mistakes were made”–as though they just appeared out of the aether, unbidden.
But sorry, no. Forgetting to pick up the dry cleaning is a mistake. Turning on the wrong burner on the range is a mistake. Even getting distracted, and forgetting to put a document away and properly checking it back in is a mistake.
For someone with a high security clearance, one supposedly who has had extensive briefings in the proper handling of classified materials, taking documents classified at some of the highest possible levels, slipping them into your clothing, sneaking past the guards at the National Archives with them, taking them back to your office, and deliberately cutting them up in the dark of night with a pair of scissors isn’t a “mistake.” I don’t know if we yet know what it is, but mistake it wasn’t.
If this were a Republican campaign advisor and former Republican administration official destroying documents that reflected poorly on that same former Republican administration, we know that the outrage, from the Democrats and the Washington press corps, would be heard all the way out beyond the Beltway. The decibel level of the self-righteous howls would fell large trees all the way up to Bethesda. There would be cries of coverup, and demands for years of prison time (instead of a mere ten grand fine), and a permanent revocation of his security clearance (rather than the laughable three years) and for a deeper investigation of all of the other former Republican administration and campaign officials who were (obviously) involved, and for a full confession, Soviet style, with a statement of motive.
But he’s a Clinton administration official, part of “the most ethical administration in history,” and so he gets a slap on the wrist, and it probably won’t even be a topic of discussion on Sunday morning, let alone a heated one. After all, it’s an old story, and the election’s over, and he surely meant well, and isn’t it time for us to just bind up our national wounds and “move on”?
The late Mrs. Schiavo, and those evil Republican theocrats who were trying to thwart her “right to die,” will no doubt continue to be Topic A, not the fecklessness and duplicity of the administration that for eight years fiddled (and diddled) while Al Qaeda plotted, and then tried to destroy the evidence while blaming George Bush.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Jim Geraghty is more pithy than me:
Do any Democrats want to confront the unpleasant truths of how the Clinton White House handled terrorism?
Because there were some facts out there that were so damning, Sandy Berger was willing to break the law to make sure the public never saw them.
[Update at 9:45 AM EST]
INDC Journal isn’t happy, either.
Where’s The Outrage?
So, Sandy Berger cops a plea. At least there will be no more of this nonsense about how this was “inadvertent.” However, his defenders (both literal, and in the ally sense) continue to use language to downplay what happened, just as they always did when caught with their hands in the cookie jar:
Lanny Breuer, Berger’s attorney, said in a statement: “Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near. He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives.”
Lanny Breuer.
Sigh. I thought we’d heard the last of names like that, but the Clinton administration is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Well, I guess I should be grateful that it’s at least in the active voice. Usually when one of the Clinton administration members did something like this, the phraseology was passive–“mistakes were made”–as though they just appeared out of the aether, unbidden.
But sorry, no. Forgetting to pick up the dry cleaning is a mistake. Turning on the wrong burner on the range is a mistake. Even getting distracted, and forgetting to put a document away and properly checking it back in is a mistake.
For someone with a high security clearance, one supposedly who has had extensive briefings in the proper handling of classified materials, taking documents classified at some of the highest possible levels, slipping them into your clothing, sneaking past the guards at the National Archives with them, taking them back to your office, and deliberately cutting them up in the dark of night with a pair of scissors isn’t a “mistake.” I don’t know if we yet know what it is, but mistake it wasn’t.
If this were a Republican campaign advisor and former Republican administration official destroying documents that reflected poorly on that same former Republican administration, we know that the outrage, from the Democrats and the Washington press corps, would be heard all the way out beyond the Beltway. The decibel level of the self-righteous howls would fell large trees all the way up to Bethesda. There would be cries of coverup, and demands for years of prison time (instead of a mere ten grand fine), and a permanent revocation of his security clearance (rather than the laughable three years) and for a deeper investigation of all of the other former Republican administration and campaign officials who were (obviously) involved, and for a full confession, Soviet style, with a statement of motive.
But he’s a Clinton administration official, part of “the most ethical administration in history,” and so he gets a slap on the wrist, and it probably won’t even be a topic of discussion on Sunday morning, let alone a heated one. After all, it’s an old story, and the election’s over, and he surely meant well, and isn’t it time for us to just bind up our national wounds and “move on”?
The late Mrs. Schiavo, and those evil Republican theocrats who were trying to thwart her “right to die,” will no doubt continue to be Topic A, not the fecklessness and duplicity of the administration that for eight years fiddled (and diddled) while Al Qaeda plotted, and then tried to destroy the evidence while blaming George Bush.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Jim Geraghty is more pithy than me:
Do any Democrats want to confront the unpleasant truths of how the Clinton White House handled terrorism?
Because there were some facts out there that were so damning, Sandy Berger was willing to break the law to make sure the public never saw them.
[Update at 9:45 AM EST]
INDC Journal isn’t happy, either.
Where’s The Outrage?
So, Sandy Berger cops a plea. At least there will be no more of this nonsense about how this was “inadvertent.” However, his defenders (both literal, and in the ally sense) continue to use language to downplay what happened, just as they always did when caught with their hands in the cookie jar:
Lanny Breuer, Berger’s attorney, said in a statement: “Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near. He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives.”
Lanny Breuer.
Sigh. I thought we’d heard the last of names like that, but the Clinton administration is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Well, I guess I should be grateful that it’s at least in the active voice. Usually when one of the Clinton administration members did something like this, the phraseology was passive–“mistakes were made”–as though they just appeared out of the aether, unbidden.
But sorry, no. Forgetting to pick up the dry cleaning is a mistake. Turning on the wrong burner on the range is a mistake. Even getting distracted, and forgetting to put a document away and properly checking it back in is a mistake.
For someone with a high security clearance, one supposedly who has had extensive briefings in the proper handling of classified materials, taking documents classified at some of the highest possible levels, slipping them into your clothing, sneaking past the guards at the National Archives with them, taking them back to your office, and deliberately cutting them up in the dark of night with a pair of scissors isn’t a “mistake.” I don’t know if we yet know what it is, but mistake it wasn’t.
If this were a Republican campaign advisor and former Republican administration official destroying documents that reflected poorly on that same former Republican administration, we know that the outrage, from the Democrats and the Washington press corps, would be heard all the way out beyond the Beltway. The decibel level of the self-righteous howls would fell large trees all the way up to Bethesda. There would be cries of coverup, and demands for years of prison time (instead of a mere ten grand fine), and a permanent revocation of his security clearance (rather than the laughable three years) and for a deeper investigation of all of the other former Republican administration and campaign officials who were (obviously) involved, and for a full confession, Soviet style, with a statement of motive.
But he’s a Clinton administration official, part of “the most ethical administration in history,” and so he gets a slap on the wrist, and it probably won’t even be a topic of discussion on Sunday morning, let alone a heated one. After all, it’s an old story, and the election’s over, and he surely meant well, and isn’t it time for us to just bind up our national wounds and “move on”?
The late Mrs. Schiavo, and those evil Republican theocrats who were trying to thwart her “right to die,” will no doubt continue to be Topic A, not the fecklessness and duplicity of the administration that for eight years fiddled (and diddled) while Al Qaeda plotted, and then tried to destroy the evidence while blaming George Bush.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Jim Geraghty is more pithy than me:
Do any Democrats want to confront the unpleasant truths of how the Clinton White House handled terrorism?
Because there were some facts out there that were so damning, Sandy Berger was willing to break the law to make sure the public never saw them.
[Update at 9:45 AM EST]
INDC Journal isn’t happy, either.
Dog-Faced Girl
It used to be that you had to go to the carnival to see freak shows. Now all you have to do is follow college professors around. [Note: some of this stuff is quite disturbing]
An Alternate Columbia Theory?
There’s a guy out there who thinks he has one. He claims that it wasn’t tile damage that destroyed the vehicle, but what he thinks is proof that it entered sideways.
Without even bothering to examine his fuzzy pictures that supposedly constitute his “proof,” I have to say, sorry, it doesn’t hold any water. Even ignoring his implausible theories about sensor failures and software glitches, the entry g-loads are such that a sideways entry would be immediately noticed by the crew, as would the direction of the earth motion, particularly for an experienced crew (there were several veterans on this flight). The seats aren’t designed to take loads in that direction at those levels. But the cockpit chatter indicates nothing abnormal until just shortly before breakup.
A New Thought Experiment
Along the lines of my previous post, I’m still trying to get my head around when Terri Schiavo’s soul departed her body, and am still trying to understand the thoughts of those who believe in souls.
Hans Moravec has postulated a thought experiment in which his brain is gradually replaced by a mechanical de-vice, one subunit at a time. After each component replacement, he’s asked if he still feels like himself. Presumably, if the answer is yes (and an assumption is made that he’s being truthful), then the next component is replaced, ad semi-infinitum, until there is no longer any meat left in his head, and he’s thinking entirely with hardware. At the end of the process, by definition, he still feels and thinks like Hans Moravec. So is he? Or is he a robot?
Now, this ignores the (perhaps large) degree to which thought processes and feelings are mediated by hormones–it simply assumes that there are some kind of sensors at the interface between the body and the mechanical mind that sense them and get the mind to respond the way the gray matter would have. Of course, one gets the sense that Moravec would prefer to have done with those unmanageable emotions anyway. Which is why he’d probably have replaced his body first, and gotten rid of all those yucky glands, before doing the brain upgrade.
But leaving that aside, the question is, does mechanical Hans still have a soul? Is he still made in God’s image? If not, and assuming that he did prior to the initiation of the procedure, at what point did it leave?
These are not just ethereal philosophical questions. They’re going to become theologically important to some people as technology continues to advance, and we become more cybernetic in the future. We’ve heard about gaining kingdoms at the price of one’s soul. Will there be some unwilling to undergo life-saving medical procedures, fearing such a stiff bill?
OK, now, let’s forget about the gradual replacement scenario. Suppose the functions are simply removed, and not replaced. This is in fact what happened, to some degree that remains in dispute, to Mrs. Schiavo. Getting back to my earlier question, suppose that her cortex was damaged to the point that she no longer had any awareness, of herself or others?
Well, remove it completely, but keep her breathing and her blood circulating. Keep her body healthy.
Now remove other parts of her brain, one by one, but all other organs remain functioning and healthy. Leave in the eyes, and provide nerve impulses to them so that they follow moving objects observed by external cameras, and cause her to emit random sounds with her mouth and lungs of seeming recognition at faces that would have been familiar to her prior to her tragedy. That is, remove the brain entirely, but have her behavior seem exactly the same as it appeared to be in reality.
Is that Terri Schiavo nee Schindler? Does that body still have her soul, or anyone’s? If not, during which excision did it depart for new premises? If so, if it’s a function of physiological functions of respiration and blood circulation, then what does that really mean in terms of today’s technology, that will soon be capable of keeping a brainless body alive, if it isn’t already?
To the degree that I understand the concept of the soul, I can’t believe that it is associated simply with a body, living or breathing. To the degree that I believe in souls, I think of it as a different word for “mind.”
That’s why I think that if I were someone who loved Terri, and I believed in souls, I’d comfort myself with the thought that hers perhaps departed long ago, and was observing in anguish from above throughout the whole circus, and that while effort to hold on to something of her was noble, her ultimate end was foreordained fifteen years ago. And at some level, I’d have to feel relief that the long nightmare was over for everybody.
Encouraging Diet News
At least for me.
It’s long been known that caloric restriction is one means of extending lifespan in lower mammals (e.g., lab rats) and presumably humans as well. It’s a tough diet to maintain, though, since most who try it are perpetually hungry. Now there’s evidence that most of the benefits can be attained by periodic fasting (alternate days), allowing a normal dietary intake, but at more irregular intervals.
It makes sense that, like many features of civilized (in the literal sense, meaning cities and civilization) lifestyles, regular meals are unhealthy for us, since our ancestors were probably more in a “go hungry until you can chase down the next mastodon, then feast” mode, and evolutionarily adapted to it. So we need to consider not just what we eat (more paleolithic foods, like meat, nuts, fruits and berries and less or no grain) but when we eat it as well, if we want to do what our bodies (are still) evolved to do.
This is good news for me because I’ll often go long periods without eating, just because I get busy, and have no need for regularity to my meals. Unfortunately, many (particularly hypoglycemic types) start to feel bad if they go more than a few hours without food. Of course, it’s possible that if they change their diets and habit, that they could get used to it as well.