Apparently the BFL recruiters have been allowed onto campuses across the state and have signed up lots of new folks.
Perhaps there's a reader of the Bear Flag League who has not already read the Captain's Quarters. Yeah. The Captain reports on a story that was inevitable. The Italian journalist LIED about what happened when they hit the American checkpoint. Now I am sure we have to examine our own behavior to see what we did that caused her to lie.
Carpe Bonum reports on Operation Thank You. I agree we should try this more often.
Flap is more of a sophomore member but he deserves the highlight of the new members post. I like posts like this one which tracks news coverage of Arnold's remarks in support of the Minutemen.
My Pet Jawa has an excellent summary of his argument that we are winning the war on terrorism.
Three Bad Fingers has been around for a month and has garnered a lot of attention. We're just piling on.
Finally, for those keeping score at home, Nice Jewish Boy is available.
I expect another New Member post soon. There seem to be a lot "in progress" which I think is code for people haven't responded to Kasey's initial email.
Need the blogosphere to help me out on this one.
Who is real author of this week's Time column on mad chessman Bobby Fischer?
Is it Joe Klein? (Thanks to xrlq for the spell check on Joe's last name.)
Or is it Charles Krauthhammer?
Click on both links and give me your theory as to what is behind this royal publishing screw-up at Time.com (or is it a not too clever attempt at plagarism by one of these columnists? Your consipracy theories are all welcome!)
You will notice that even the article numbers in the competing URL's are exactly the same:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1054411,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1054411,00.html
Weird...
I used to be a film critic for a local newspaper in a previous life. Like most film critics, I tackled the works of director Ridley Scott. His early works of The Duelists, Alien and especially Blade Runner remain classics. His later works are still interesting visually, but have often suffered in terms of script and story despite a few reasonably strong works that manage to percolate up in his career.
I have no doubt that his forthcoming Kingdom of Heaven will be just as visually spectacular as his previous Gladiator. However, if the advanced word is correct about this film, then it will confirm all of my worst fears since first hearing about this production - and I'm not talking about it's aesthetic qualities.
Fictional films have almost always been a poor medium to spur historical discussions. But with so much ignorance floating around about the origins of the Crusades, Kingdom of Heaven promises to do particularly acute damage.
At least in terms of
high school level academics (and even undergraduate college courses to some extent), history classes have proven to be of limited worth. The primary reason is that most instructors (like the public) either don't know, or are unable to explain, the very complex factors that create major historical events.
How well does our education system teach the real reasons behind the Great Depression? The start of World War I & II? The 7-Years War? The 100-Years War? The Cold War and the so-called "Red Scare"? Vietnam?
Most history instructors are unable to teach these subjects well because the actual reasons are far usually more complex than either class time or the educational level of the students (and instructors) actually allows.
The result is simplify and dumb down history to the point that it actually distorts it, rather than shedding light on it. History is dumbed down to television-style sound bytes, with certain actors or concepts being blown out of proportion in order to fill-in the gaps of ignorance.
This has certainly been the case regarding the reasons behind the Iraq War. Yet many aspects of the culture seem instant in describing the reason for this war as being "weapons of mass destruction". The bumb it down to: "Bush thought Iraq had WMD's, but it turns out they didn't, so the U.S. made a mistake that puts a black mark on the war and its place in history..."
Of course, the high school historians and left-leaning college professors don't want to teach about the larger context of 9/11, how it led to seismic shift in how foreign policy is conducted, the history of Middle Eastern diplomacy, the theory of how democratic processes can alter societies and how that can shape the future towards U.S. interests, Saddam's active support of terrorism outside of the Al-Qaeda faction and his tacit/indirect support of Al-Qaeda itself.
Even this list above vastly simplifies things, so you can see the challenge poised to teachers of history. A truly insightful teaching of history is probably beyond the ability of a high school curriculum, but high school history can still have some benefits provided that the instructors are aware of the inherent limitations of the textbooks and always tries to convey that fact to the students.
Despite all of the simplistic distortions over subjects such as the Great Depression and the current war against terrorism, there is probably no single subject that has been subjected to more distortions than the Crusades.
The conventional wisdom (even among the college educated) is that the Crusades were a product of Western/Christian prejudices wherein Christian fanatics spread out around the world to kill or convert anyone who wasn't Christian because all non-Christians were worthy of being killed simply because they didn't share Christian beliefs. The implicit argument in this line of thinking is that the Crusades were an aggressive war launched by Western civilization against non-aggressive cultures that lived outside of Western modes of thinking.
This of course is pure nonsense. But reason behind this flawed conventional wisdom is the utter failure of historical teaching.
And that is why the Kingdom of Heaven is poised to do a particularly virulent strain of damage to historical debate. As could easily be predicted, Hollywood has shied away from portraying Islamists as aggressive fanatics. That role is left to the Christians. Islamists are portrayed as "tolerant" while the Christians are ready to slay anyone who even dares question their beliefs.
Admittedly, I haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven yet, but I'm basing all of this analysis based on the advance word of the film.
But let's back up for a bit and try to give people a deeper and more nuanced understanding to what the Crusades were really about.
Of course to summarize an event marked by centuries in a single blog post risks being guilty of the same failings that I am now railing about. But these readings at least give a more accurate jumping off point towards a more accurate generalization of the events known as the Crusades and will hopefully be the catalyst for further inquiry undistorted by political correctness.
This current profile of the film demonstrates the problem with passages such as this:
From 638 AD, when Muslims first occupied Jerusalem, both Christians and Jews were permitted to visit their holy sites. Then, in 1095, responding to an appeal from the Byzantine Christian Church in Constantinople, Pope Urban II organized the First Crusade to liberate Jerusalem. Four years later, those crusaders seized the city, massacring almost all its inhabitants in a bloodbath invoked to this day.
Seven more crusades were waged, bringing European monarchs, lords, knights and their armies of devout followers to fight — and settle — in an area stretching between what is today Syria and Egypt. The Muslims responded with their own sporadic jihads until finally, by 1291, the Christians had been driven out.
Let's break this passage down. The Muslims apparently didn't first wage an offensive war in 638AD to take over Palestine, thereby killing untold number of non-Muslims in the process. According to the Telegraph newspaper, they merely "occupied Jerusalem" without any back-story necessary. (For instance, how did Muslims manage to "occupy" Jerusalem in the first place? Did they simply win converts by peaceful preaching? Or did they take over the holy city through religiously inspired wars?)
It's only when the Christians finally responded in defensive action that a "massacre" and "bloodbath" occurred. The Telegraph paper in India would have us believe that Muslims peacefully marched into Jerusalem with people no-doubt tossing flowers at them to greet the "liberators" of religious tolerance.
The second paragraph of India's Telegraph passage conveys the same lie - making it seem that the Christian armies struck first. The truth has always been that the Crusades were a defensive reaction to centuries of aggressive Islamic expansionism. (I suppose you could also describe the Crusades as a "counter-offensive" reaction rather than being purely "defensive" - but in the context of this debate, that is a distinction without a difference.)
Mohammed conquered by the sword. Any reasonable scholar will confirm this. But to the Telegraph (which no doubt represents the conventional thinking on this complex issue), it is the Christians who were the aggressors due to their inherent intolerance (thus not-so-subtly suggesting that the same dynamic exists today between "the religious right" and the more "tolerant" people who practice Islam).
The fact that the Crusades produced carnage and killing of many people (including Jews and other non-Christians) at the hands of Christian missionaries does nothing to wipe out the reality of forces that first motivated them. Others point to the historical fact that Jews were generally better off at the time under their (still oppressive) Islamic conquerors than either their previous Christian rulers or what followed during the Crusades. Fair enough. But that is ultimately a red herring to the bigger issues being discussed here.
The issue at hand isn’t about which minority groups suffered more at which time, or who can point to the most horrific instances of isolated killings in a game of one-upmanship for those trying to don the mantle of being the most historically oppressed. The issue is one of broader historical motivations. Were the Crusades started because Christianity was inherently less tolerant than any other religions and couldn’t bare the notion of any non-Christians existing on this Earth? Or was it a case of religious armies counter-attacking other religious armies after being pushed out of territories that they previously had hegemony over?
Historical truths cannot easily be dissected into artificially constructed "eras" that academics find necessary to construct in order to more efficiently organize thoughts and discussions on matters. History is like a river. You can never really analyze its contents without looking at what came before it. And the time before that. And the time before that, etc. History is in a sense one big causal chain. Any dissection of it into single parts will cause inherent distortions in its structure.
To begin a discussion of the history of the Crusades by starting with the Crusades themselves is to set yourself up for distorted ignorance from the start. You must ask, what are the forces and events that led up to them? These questions are answered in centuries, not days. It's not because of a single speech from a pope and it certainly can't be summed up as result of simple religious prejudices on the part of Christians.
Lest anyone misunderstand – I am not a historian. I am hardly an expert on The Crusades. I have never written any dissertation or taken higher education courses focusing on these events. I’m just a guy who reads a lot, sees a lot of films, and chooses to make what are (in my mind) obvious deductions from the knowledge that I have been exposed to. I don’t know enough to fully educate others on the Crusades. I just know enough to conclude that this upcoming film will largely be historical bunk.
But the reason that a truthful discussion about the Crusades is so crucial is because it has become a proxy for current debates regarding today’s Religious Right in America, militant Islam, the Middle East and the war on terror. And such crucial debates are now being guided by gross historical simplifications that ultimately amount to flat out lies.
When distortions become so vast that they become indistinguishable from lies, then any ensuing debate will be filled by charlatans looking to capitalize on ignorance. While I will reserve ultimate judgment until I see the film, it seems as though director Ridley Scott has now joined the ranks of the snake-oil salesmen.
The fact that a sue-happy, terror-apologist group like CAIR actually put its seal of approval on the film should be quite damning. (Do you suppose that the filmmakers bothered to show Christian/Catholic leaders an advance screening of the film to get their input and seal of approval? Not likely. That should speak volumes about the cynical nature of this film.)
Kingdom of Heaven will no doubt be visually spectacular in typical Ridley Scott fashion. But as a catalyst for debating history (and, by extension, current events) the Kingdom of Heaven will prove to be a disastrous moral outrage foisted upon us by the filmmakers.
They will take advantage in the public's gaps of historical knowledge, and use those gaps to market their film in order to create "buzz" and discussion about it.
Ridley Scott and the Hollywood PR-machine will be able to employ the usual industry double-speak on this issue. They will cynically use the pop-culture misunderstanding of the Crusades to help market Kingdom of Heaven – pointing out how its message is “relevant to today’s world” and should serve as a cautionary tale to promote tolerance. But if someone should be brave enough to point out that it whitewashes the bloodshed of Islam (both historically, and today through its metaphorical extensions), then the filmmakers will resort to the usual lines of “Well, it’s just a movie, not a history book,” or “It’s really not about the Crusades, it about people and individual dilemmas.” Oliver Stone used this two-step double-speak when pinned down on the factual errors of JFK. Look for the same dynamic to play out here.
Meanwhile, Scott silently will hope for controversy on this subject in order to boost the visibility of his flick (which in turn translates into more box office $). Utterly contemptible…
The writer of the film boasts Kingdom of Heaven as the first screenplay of his career. He has now gone on to write the script for Jurassic Park IV. While it may be unfair to put any direct blame on the shoulders of a film screenwriter, the fact of the matter is that the author of Jurassic Park IV will likely be setting the pace for historical discussion on the Crusades in the next year. (Ugh!)
You have been duly warned...Education and a willingness to speak up will be the only shield against this propagandist work of moral relativism.
The California Republican Lawyers Association has made its recommendations for the Board of Governors. Here in District 7, they stand behind Adam Abrahms and Jennifer Kim. I worked with Adam in Wisconsin. He's smart and cool in a crisis.
I'll share the other recommendations when they pass my desk.
First the social, with the caveat that I am not very social. Baldilocks and I grabbed a couch and waited for people to find us. For the most part, that worked. Calblog husband joined us, then Justin, then Flap and finally SoCalPundit. Patterico, RogerLSimon, and Cathy Seipp stopped by. ((Most folks dropped by to see Baldilocks). We had chatted with BoifromTroy earlier and met new to me bloggers, Gay Patriot and Rene. The downside is that I got increasingly tense messages from home and I had to leave before talking much with SoCalPundit.
Someone did not get the memo last night. Clearly if Bob Sipchen, editor of the LA Times, was specially appearing with Outside the Tent writers, there was an expectation that they'd all get along. The gloves were off.
Hugh Hewitt has reproduced his remarks. There was mention of the Titanic and the GM ad pullout. Bob Sipchen replied that they were not the Titanic, but a battleship. I'm not sure how he described bloggers but Patterico later responded that bloggers were not floppy fish, but bombs. Sipchen insisted GM pulled out in an effort to sway Times' coverage and he was sure that bloggers would have changed their wording. Not likely. Sipchen also compared their news coverage to bloggers who merely read Google. Sigh. It's only a matter of time before we have not only access but given the emergence of the blog, probably better access.
I wish I could tell you what Mickey Kaus said. I can't recall. I can only recall my reaction that there was no sugarcoating whatsoever. As I collect reports of the night, perhaps it'll come out. UPDATE: Calblog husband recalls him saying that he thought it would be a tragedy if newspapers went out of business but not if the LA Times went out of business. LAObserved, below, confirmed this.
Other thoughts:
Patterico
Rene's Ramblings
LAObserved
LAVoice
Flap
SoCalPundit
Gay Patriot
We rolled in late last night after attending last night's LA Press Club event. We told Maddy we saw Hugh Hewitt speak. She exclaimed "oh, I know him. He's a blogger."
How apropos. Hugh had spoken about how blogs were the future. Perhaps the next generation won't even pick up a newspaper. Here was Maddy, the tail end of that next generation and the start of the one after that. She had no idea about Hugh's books (Blog sits on the coffee table), radio show (does he play music?), or his writings for the Weekly Standard (which comes every week and does occasionally cross her radar screen). She knew he was a blogger. That's her number one source of news.
More on the event later. Flap and SoCalPundit will have pictures.
T is for The Rest of the Group
Three Knockdown Rule has coined a new term: RUNCS. It may not catch on so check it out while you have the chance.
If you think you have heard it all, go read Tonecluster's description of a, um, "conversation" with the non-thinking fringe. You can't make this stuff up. Well, maybe you can, but still.
Window Manager weathers a layoff with remarkable ease.
This morning I was reading the LA Times headlines in the email. There appeared to be an editorial in favor of ditching the filibuster. I was sure that was not possible. However, I had already checked the article about Justice Janice Rogers Brown and that was my daily quota of the LA Times. Fortunately, Xrlq took the time to read it and explain it. His post is rated R for mature language but if you can sit through filibuster discussion, you can handle it.
Yippee-Ki-Yay makes promises he can't keep in this comment. Oh wait, we're talking blogs here. Well, remember the old days where we sat around with nothing more than the facts they printed in the newspaper trying to figure out what really happened. McGehee revives that old sport.
Last fall, when we switched Maddy to a new medication, we were on the alert for a curious side effect -- muscle spasms in her face. None occurred. Long after we expected it, the side effect showed up last night. While she was talking to me, her eyes rolled up in her head. It wasn't the usual teenage eye roll. I thought maybe she was looking at something like a cat above my head.
The second time, I knew what we were dealing with. Unfortunately, Madeleine didn't and when, in response to my question, she realized she wasn't able to control her eye muscles, panic set in. Nothing more unmanageable than a 13-year-old girl not in control of her facial muscles headed into a full panic.
I found the emergency medicine -- surprisingly, the ubiquitous Benedryl manages the problem in the short term -- and called the doctor for the long term plan. With the variety of contingency plans I have to remember, I have given up recalling what the long term plans are. That's the doctor's job. A hour or so later, muscles were under control but it took a little longer to calm her down. Now she's crashed out sleeping off the Benedryl.
I tell you all this because I think Madeleine could use a little moral support. She posts her views on her blog.
Two great quotes from two great articles from two heavy hitters:
Thomas Macaulay told us copyright law is a tax on readers for the benefit of writers, a tax that shouldn’t last a day longer than necessary. What do we do? We extend the copyright term repeatedly on both sides of the Atlantic. The US goes from fourteen years to the author’s life plus seventy years. We extend protection retrospectively to dead authors, perhaps in the hope they will write from their tombs.
Since only about 4 per cent of copyrighted works more than 20 years old are commercially available, this locks up 96 per cent of 20th century culture to benefit 4 per cent. The harm to the public is huge, the benefit to authors, tiny. In any other field, the officials responsible would be fired. Not here.
...The idea that greater control, for example, is always better...or the way we only ever internationally harmonize rights upward. Fundamentally, though, the views I have criticised here are not merely stupidity. They constitute an ideology, a worldview, like flat earth-ism. But the world is not flat and the stupidity pact is not what we want to sign.
Professor Lawrence Solum also wieghs in with this gem:
Because of the (Copyright Term Extension Act), virtually no works will pass into the public domain until the year 2019. That’s because when Congress extends copyright terms, it usually does so both prospectively to works not yet created, and retroactively, to works that are already in existence.
...Only a tiny fraction of the works that are covered by the CTEA have any commercial value at all. Almost all of the films, novels, magazines, newspapers, sound recordings, and other works from the 1920s are entirely dormant. Indeed, many of these properties now have fragmented or untraceable ownership. But the CTEA effectively prevents these commercially worthless works from being digitized and stored for posterity...This is a crime against human culture. It is shocking and even evil.
The ever impressive Larry Solum - calling a spade a spade.
I cannot access Nice Jewish Boy or Miller's Time. Other people can. Theories on what the problem might be are gratefully accepted.
T is for This is the The Category
After this, I am disposing of the The Category. I am tired of looking for a member on the blogroll, in frustration, and later finding them categorized under "The". I suppose I could learn to look there, but nah.
The Angle of Repose tells the story of a city in decline. I like cities and I wonder why a place like Richmond can't find another way to turn itself around. It seems to me that people leave and the ones who remain give up. I really dislike the fake little downtowns that are built to turn a city around but they do seem to help.
The Daily Spork reports on a visit to idyllic Walmart. I note that Mahdi always has a lot of comments. How does she do that?
This post on The Fladen Experience has already had an instalanche but it is still worth the extra attention here. Fladen was at the Mackinnon talks at Stanford and issues a firsthand report.
The Interocitor regularly has reports of online news that will affect you. Check out the progress of anti-phishing efforts and the SF Bd of Supervisors catching a clue on bloggers.
The Irish Lass under "T". That really bugs me. Another look at a place I am unlikely to visit myself -- this time it's the California Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
We have a lot of Pope posts but this one from the Lopsided Poopdeck is worth adding onto the stack.
You have children and you start to have really weird conversations that almost seem normal. The Paragraph Farmer has started to recall them enough to transcribe them. A scary moment in parenting.
The Prejudicial Effect takes on tax treatment of blood. Interesting information that you don't need to know but I suspect you will now know forever.
The Right Coast on Ju-Jitsu and other forms of fighting.
The Straight Scoop is apparently also on hiatus. Go comment him out of it.
The End of the The Category.
I received the following e-mail from an Auterrific reader regarding this post:
Since you're not one of the groups being targeted by
Republicans, I'm sure it's easy for you not to see
their evil. I am being targeted, Mark, and I consider
anyone who shiels for them to be my enemy as well. You
think it denigrates the Holocaust? Tough shit, Mark.
They are evil, and you seem happy to apologize for
them. There is no "Left." That's a bogeyman created
by your fascist Republican friends to make themselves
appear to be victims.You're welcome to your viewpoint. I withdraw myself
from the conversation. You see evil and call it
benign. I have nothing else to say.
Who sent it isn't important. But I would suggest to anyone else who is so offended by my stance on this issue that you take a second look at my posts before sending me an e-mail like this. My political and social leanings are quite clearly spelled out in any number of blog posts. My opinion on this issue shouldn't come as any surprise to any of my regular readers. I do not exist to agree with the status quo of any particular group. In turn, I do not expect you to reciprocate. I want to know who you are, what you think, and why you think that way. If I can point out fallacies in your argument, I will. I expect no less of others with me. I am not unwilling to listen to a different point of view, but.....
If we can't agree, LET'S BE CIVIL ABOUT IT.
O is for Oh, I found the OC Blog
True to its name, the OC Blog covers Orange County news. Check out info on what the OC Transit Authority is doing and who may launch a run for State Senate.
S is for Sure is a Big League
Selected Pete has an interesting discussion on those evolution films on IMAX that has spilled over to MSNBC -- the discussion, not the films.
I suppose Shaking Spear would like me to link to some of his great posts but he has a teenage daughter who made a guest appearances and I am still a sucker for blogging teens so head over and read her entry.
Sneakeasy's Joint has an interesting post on trying to be more social. I am always trying to be more social and then backsliding.
SoCal Law Blog has a copy of the amicus brief. Ok, ok. Here's his take on the EFF vs. a SF law firm and it has nothing to do with the Pearcys.
T is for This is Not the The Category
Tan Horizons is a Catholic but has no post on Pope Benedict. And we had such a shortage. He does have an interesting look at religious bigotry.
Q is for Quit Goofing Off
I am all for finding inspiration wherever possible but QandO's comments on the underpass stain are right on.
R is for Rolling Right Along
Raincross Conservative was on semi-hiatus but his was unintended.
There's a funny side to the border problem and Res Ipsa Loquiter has it.
Right on the Left Beach has some great stuff but this IS a Bear Flag League roundup so checkout some BFL pictures.
Bangor Maine has it right and Roscoe's Blog has the tale.
Ryan's Head is also flush with Pope posts. He deserves a quote (the only one in the roundup?):
there are many of us who find Benedict XVI a sign of blessed reassurance that our Church is not about to fold like a hot hershey to the demands of a few reformers.
We interrupt your Bear Flag Roundup to ask this question:
When did PBS get commercials? 7:29, middle of Huell Howser's show, I am watching an Acura commercial.
My tax dollars at work.
P is for Please Don't Make Me Read the LA Times
Patio Pundit is also facing blog burnout but before he took a break, he put up some good thoughts on the UN.
Your Daily Prescott tells us who the real Pope is. Patrick is teasing but there are people who really believe that.
Patterico's Pontifications, not really anonymous, you know, is a gold mone for posts. This week, See Dubya is helping to keep the pot boiling over. He revives the James Wood-9/11 story that I think has never gotten enough attention.
Pearly Gates gets the by-now-traditional bonus points for NFL draft analysis. I also don't understand why the Broncos took Clarrett.
Far too many BFLers are on a break. Clearly we need some morale-boosting. Pink Slip Central is looking for a new home. For just a couple of months. Ugh.
Pirate's Blog piles on re Earth Day. I like the Pirate's style.
Professor Chaos reports, to my great disappointment that vodka does not cure a cold.
L is for Land of the Free
Left Coast Conservative tells us just what he thinks of those fine Senators.
Check out Chris at Legal XXX on the effect of Barbara Boxer's opposition.
How to choose between all the great posts on the Pope at Lex Communis? Well, send everyone to the post on St. Malachy because it's just weird enough to make you wonder.
You can all thank me later for linking to Little Miss Attila.
Local Liberty Blog has a new and different (as in logical!) view of Earth Day.
M is for Mighty Fine Friends
Mad Mikey is also on my list of blogs I should read more often. Here he starts an interesting discussion on those Google satellite photos. Here he shares the journey through dialysis and the search for a kidney. He's in such good humor that for a long time, I thought he was kidding about the kidney.
Master of None supports a logical conclusion: politics should stay out of religion, but religion has every right to get involved in politics.
Molly's blog is broken. I KNEW I had forgotten something. Now I know what I am doing after the roundup. AND I have an excuse to put off my own MT upgrade. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Miller's Time may also be broken. That one is not my fault.
Moxie also takes on Earth Day and the results are remarkably entertaining.
E is for the Eastern Half Of the Western Sandwich
e-Claire is on the story of the Minutemen and the ACLU observers. The Minutemen project is a good idea that I fear is doomed to end badly.
Education Wonks host the Carnival of Education. Thusfar, I have spared you my rants on education and the strain it places on me when the girls have to do a 35 page report on the entire Civil War. Go read intelligent posts instead.
F is for Fun
Faute de Mieux follows stories that the rest of the League doesn't pay that much attention to -- like the EU constitution.
Feste has lost inspiration. Perhaps a few visits and a few comments will help.
I is for Individualism
Like many folks, I ordered a couple of Cardinal Ratzinger's books from Amazon right after he was elected. Infinite Monkeys headed over to Barnes & Noble and found something that surprised me.
J is for Just Missed Him
I was supposed to have lunch with Jeff Doolittle a couple of weeks ago but blew him off to head to SF for a Fox News interview that got cut to about 20 seconds. I should have eaten lunch first. Jeff needs to post more entries like this one on poverty.
C is for California
California Conservatives 4 Truth reports on the growing acceptance of bloggers.
New member California Mafia falls into a moment of panic. It can't be that bad.
At California Republic, Eric Hogue reports on the emptiness of the Democrats' rhetoric on education.
Caltech Girl gets mega-points for mentioning AND analyzing the NFL draft.
Enjoy the pride in Citizen Smash's post about his wife.
Cobb: Head over for conversation, stay for the comics.
Coffee with Cranky Beach has lots of good hiking photos, though they had trouble loading for me. This post is the most interesting observation of the bunch.
D is for Digger Causes Trouble
Da Goddess has a not-for-the-children joke.
David Brown is posting on Daily Pundit. I missed the memo. Show of hands -- how many of you had Dads like this?
You should have seen the email list this week. There was infighting, to put it mildly. On a number of topics. Some of it spilled over into the public eye. By the way, Digger is the cause because he jumped first. He wasn't the only one though. Even yours truly started arguing over who knows what.
Kasey is in charge of adding new League members. If it's been quiet lately, get a look at this list of reasons.
Reminding me that I'm old, Drink This blogs about people I have never heard of until she gets to 1959 and Buddy Holly.
The league is large and doing things like filing an amicus brief (yes, I will keep mentioning it until you have all read it). Who are these league members? For those of you not watching the NFL draft, here's your roundup:
A is for Apple v. Does
Aaron has returned in Aaron's cc: I'll break the rules at the beginning and instead of sending you to one of Aaron's post, take a look at the third, THIRD, year of buy a gun day.
Over at Absinthe & Cookies, Ith is on vacation. You can still get cookies, though. Angela has posted this recipe for Blackberry Jam Bars. She says to cook at 400 degrees and watch for dark edges. I appear to be the only person in the country who cooks by smell. I can tell you if the food smells done, close, or burning and I am generally more accurate than the timer or looking at it.
There are baby pictures at Accidental Verbosity. I love baby pictures.
American Digest is on a ten-day hiatus and has left a list of posts worth reading from his archives. If your new to the League or just new to American Digest, this is a cornucopia of good stuff.
Annika has a good report on Pope Benedict's early burst of ecumenism.
B is for Bear Flag League
Baldilocks commisserates with Condi over her rusty Russian. Rusty Russian or not, it's tough to confuse Da and Nyet. Condi forgot it was a secret. She really is running for President (please, please, please).
Beautiful Atrocities has lots of good stuff. (Note to self. Read Beautiful Atrocities more often.) This post though best fits the blog title.
Beekeeper gets extra points for mentioning the NFL draft. For some of his analysis, though, check out this post on Sacramento Unified School District's latest move.
Below Street Level has been quiet for too long. He sneaks some good stuff in if you go looking.
Ben's Law explains taxes. Someone needs to do it.
Body Parts shares an interesting glimpse into his neighbor's life. There's not enough people-watching left in this world.
BoiFromTroy is my only source for news on the Mayoral election. What is that a picture of?
In what I consider an odd position, Richard Bennett attacks both Patterico and Xrlq.
First, let's note a few facts:
1. Patterico is not anonymous and hasn't been for quite some time.
2. Xrlq isn't terribly anonymous but it takes a bit of looking beyond his blog to figure out who he is. My understanding, although we haven't discussed it in years, is that some people tend to take a lawyer's position as "official" despite any disclaimer and he wants to keep his personal blog separate from any connection with his employer. For his employer's sake, not his.
3. I am very public about my identity. My full name attaches to every post and there's link to my law firm's site just to the right. Yet I have also had people complain about my "anonymity".
As I noted in the recent amicus brief, anonymous writing is nothing new. Thomas Paine's Common Sense was originally published anonymously and became a force in the American Revolution. Certainly, anonymity in the blogosphere is not determinative of the validity of anyone's views.
Why do some bloggers (usually those who have published their names) take issue with anonymity?
The Bear Flag League is about to undergo another growth spurt. Ahead of the curve, I encourage you to check out SoCalPundit.
I rarely listen to talk radio. Yesterday, I recalled why. Driving home from Ontario Airport after a long, unsuccessful day, I listened to their new proposal -- if you're Arab and have access to an airport and are here illegally, that's grounds for immediate deportation. Then one of them added, what if you're here legally? If you come through Saudi Arabia, you shouldn't be allowed to have access to an airport either.
How does this stuff stay on the air?
Some sanity on this issue was given by the Florida Supreme Court today.
But no amount of court decisions by any judicial body will prevent bitter people and unsavory lawyers from
routinely filing frivolous lawsuits based on facially unconstitutional principles.
A lawyer claiming to represent Rosa Parks has apparently settled her 'publicity' claim where he was seeking $5-billion. (Yes...billion, with a "B", a sum that is larger than the entire GDP of nearly 80 countries!!!!)
$5-billion dollars because a band wanting to exercise their Free Speech rights chose to entitle one of their songs "Rosa Parks"....
There are suggestions that Parks (who is elderly and frail), might not have even been aware of the lawsuit on her behalf. If that is the case, the lawyer who brought this frivolous case ought to be severely disciplined by the state bar (even though he managed to extort the band into a settlement involving "educational works" about Parks' history. (And if that is the case, then I also obviously retract my previous claim that Rosa Parks has threatened basic human freedoms - only a scumbag lawyer would be to blame.)
Parks (or the lawyer claiming to represent her) also alleged trademark infringement in the case. But in this current mixed-up world of "intellectual property" extortion, there is no practical difference between the two claims as far as the moral and legal conclusions to be drawn from it.
It is best to end this post with an enlightened comment from Judge P. Boren from the California Court of Appeals who wrote:
"The industry custom of obtaining 'clearance' establishes nothing, other than the unfortunate reality that many filmmakers may deem it wise to pay a small sum up front for a written consent to avoid later having to spend a small fortune to defend unmeritorious lawsuits such as this one."
[Polydoros v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (1997) 67 Cal.App.4th 318]
If only the entertainment industry would grow a spine and help join the fight for free expression instead of constantly paying off extortion-prone bottom feeders...
Today is already feeling like quite a good day. In different articles from the past couple days, I feel quite like I'm in the majority. This is despite some of the usual posts or some of the relative concern that some have that Republicans are pushing for Theocracy. A couple articles as food for thought.
A bipartisan bill supported by Schwarzenegger and sponsored by a Republican and Democrat would require new developments to offer Solar panel on new homes, SB 1. This is an idea I have liked for quite a while, and suggested to some friends at School in response to the original SB 1 which would have required a certain percentage of new homes to have Solar Panels.
In more news, overweight is good for you. This comes as little surprise to me, as I've long thought that a good balance in life is the most healthy course, despite the protests of some Vegan San Franciscans (no offense to Vegan San Franciscans.) So don't feel too guilty, favorite line: "The take-home message from this study, it seems to me, is unambiguous," Dr. Glassner said. "What is officially deemed overweight these days is actually the optimal weight." Great way to sum that up!
In more interesting news, I'm a pretty supportive of free speech, but less so than perhaps the rest of the blogosphere which was quite in a tizzy about the possibility of extending indeceny regulation to cable. However, it appears that the majority of Americans are actually more willing to restrict indeceny 60% of Americans wanted to see indecency regulation extended to cable. They were however wary of extensive government regulation, but wanted to see fines increased.
In any event, this is a good thing to keep in mind the next time you think the blogosphere represents some kind of represenative sample. My experience, social conservatives (regardless of fiscal liberal or conservativeness) are quite underrepresented. These three stories make me feel quite a bit more in the majority, than as of late.
Before his ascension to the position of the Papacy as Benedict XVI, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had ample occasion to share his theological views with the world. I have taken the position, both provately and publicly, that while generally viewed as a conservative, Pope Benedict XVI, has espoused some views that many would consider liberal.
In a private email, one of my Catholic colleagues suggested, correctly, that the Pope's "liberalism" is rooted in his adherence to the precepts of Vatican II.
This post is the first in a series to examine the new Pope's writings to illustrate the interplay of "liberal" and "conservative" ideas therein. Don't take my word for it. I have linked to the original documents -- here a speech on the Ecclesiology of Vatican II and another on the Primacy of the Succession of Peter. Read them and draw your own conclusion.
This is mostly a series of quotes. My conclusion is this: Pope Benedict XVI recognizes the importance of spirit, specifically the individual spirit that sparks in each of us. That recognition, often absent when one talks about organized religion, is often considered liberal, even radical. Yet his tempers that recognition with the directive that the individual spirits, both those inside and outside the Church must be brought into alignment with God through the Mother Church. It is the latter view that upsets those people who consider themselves politically liberal.
On the nature of Church:
[Vatican II] finally recognized and experienced the Church as something within us—not as an institution outside us but something that lives within us.. . .
In the era of liberalism that preceded the First World War, the Catholic Church was looked upon as a fossilized organization, stubbornly opposed to all modern achievements. Theology had so concentrated on the question of the primacy as to make the Church appear to be essentially a centralized organization that one defended staunchly but which somehow one related to from the outside. Once again it became clear that the Church was more than this—she is something we all bring forward in faith in a living way, just as the Church brings us forward.
. . .
Whoever wants to attach himself solely to the literal interpretation of the Scriptures or to the forms of the Church of the Fathers imprisons Christ in "yesterday". The result is either a wholly sterile faith that has nothing to say to our times, or the arrogant assumption of the right to skip over 2,000 years of history, consign them to the dustbin of mistakes, and try to figure out what a Christianity would look like either according to Scripture or according to Jesus. The only possible result will be an artificial creation that we ourselves have made, devoid of any consistency. Genuine identity with the beginning in Christ can only exist where there is a living continuity that has developed the beginning and preserved the beginning precisely through this development.
On the primacy of the Pope:
For Catholics, criticism of the papal primacy by other Christian brothers and sisters is like an earnest request to carry out the Petrine service in a way which is more and more in conformity with Christ. In turn, for non-Catholic Christians, the Roman primacy is a permanent and visible challenge to concrete unity, which is a task of the Church and must be her distinguishing mark before the world.
And his explanation of the failing of liberation theology:
However, commentators very soon completely handed the term "people" in the concept "People of God" to a general political interpretation. Among the proponents of liberation theology it was taken to mean "people" in the Marxist sense, in opposition to the ruling classes, or more generally, it was taken to refer to popular sovereignty at long last being applied to the Church. This led to large-scale debates on Church structures. On occasion the expression was understood in a peculiarly Western sense as "democratization" or more in the sense of the so-called Eastern "People's Republics". Gradually this "verbal fireworks" (N. Lohfink) died down either because the power games ended in exhaustion and gave way to the ordinary work of parish councils, or because solid theological research had irrefutably demonstrated the impossibility of politicizing a concept that had arisen in an entirely different context. Bochum Werner Berg provides an example of the meticulous exegesis that characterized this theological research when he affirmed: "in spite of the small number of passages that mention the 'People of God' (it is a rare expression in the Bible) one common element is immediately apparent: the expression 'People of God' describes the relationship with God, the connection with God, the link between God and those designated as the People of God, it is therefore a 'vertical relationship'. The expression does not lend itself easily to a description of the hierarchical structure of this community, especially if 'People of God' is used in "contrast" to the ministers…" If we begin with the biblical meaning of this expression it can no longer be easily understood as a cry of protest against the ministers: "We are the People of God".
We watched television this morning waiting for the procession in. The Calblog husband can't believe they haven't started yet. He's not Catholic. He underestimates how much prayer and meditation really is necessary. I agree with those who believe that God has already selected the next Pope and it's the Cardinals' job to listen. That said, human thoughts intrude.
Cardinal Ratzinger, a German appointed in 1977 by Paul VI, seems to be the favorite among the American media. He has been the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If you read the news, you'll learn that he is conservative, loyal to John Paul II, and would be a good transitional Pope.
Don't believe it. The last transitional Pope, John XXIII, started Vatican II. I do not think there's a lot of eagerness to try "transitional" again but if there were, Ratzinger would not be theright choice. Although Ratzinger is now considered conservative, he was once considered liberal. Does the name Earl Warren ring a bell? Ratzinger would be a high-risk pick in a low-risk time. His longstanding position in CDF and the influence that he has already had in the Church would allow him to stamp his own imprint onto the Papacy, regardless of what the intention of his election was.
The other likely "transitional" Pope is Dionigi Tettamanzi . Rumored to be campaigning for the job, he is well known in Italy. If it is true, the Cardinals may be willing to tag him for a "transitional" Pope position. His high profile and limited global reach allows the other Cardinals to box him in philosophically.
The other candidates mentioned are from South America and Africa. I do not think the Cardinals are ready to reach outside of Italy again. Pope John Paul II changed the world and the Papacy in many ways. Taking the Church in a new direction now would require retaining the intensity of JP II and convincing the laity to turn in a new direction. That task is far more difficult than it sounds. If they do try to elect a "Third World" Pope, keep your eye on Arinze out of Nigeria. He is very conservative, has been in Italy as part of the inner circle, and his name has dropped down on the likely list in the last ten years. To me, that signals a humility that makes him even more attractive to the electors.
Welcome to Fox News viewers. Much of my time is spent off-blog now, developing the Bear Flag League and contributing to sites like Blogcritics. Please visit the links on the side, especially the work of the other Bear Flag League members.
The League has just filed an amicus brief in Apple v. Does, a case pending in the California Court of Appeal.
This summer, the League will be gathering for its first formal function, with a number of speakers planned.
Please bookmark this site and visit us again. Many fine co-bloggers contribute here regularly.
At first it seemed like a crazy idea, but my friends in the Bear Flag League ran with it and it stopped seeming crazy. Today, the Bear Flag League's brief will reach the appellate court. I'm excited that we did this together. So Cal Law Blog, Ben's Law, and I are on the caption but we got a lot of help from Roscoe's Blog and the Angry Clam, who I think posts at Patterico.
I wrote more about the position on Blogcritics.
I have suggested making this public expression of position a regular activity. That idea seems a little more crazy.
At the beginning of this year I announced that the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America was working on a weblog. I received an e-mail from Lee Green announcing that it is finally open for business. It's called "Snapshots". Check it out. Welcome to the blogosphere, guys.
In a move that will either shake up the blogosphere or fall quietly by the wayside, This Blog is Full of Crap, redid the cotv after Yeah, Whatever did yeah, whatever.
I'm voting for shake it up but then I like to cause trouble.
Kevin Drum, posts about Tax Cut Politics with a direction to post about the AMT. He casually asks why AMT reform is relatively ignored and explains it in terms of the upper middle class having little clout.
There is some truth here, but I think it misses the central reason the AMT does not get discussed more and reform of it will be so difficult. In my tax concentration seminar, on Tuesday of last week, we discussed the AMT, and also the various reasons why long-term reform has been put off. I suggested relatively off the cuff, that AMT reform is politically hard to do because it disproportionately hits Red-People in Blue-States (Republicans in Democrat Strongholds). Then came this article in the New York Times on Sunday. Relevant portion "The A.M.T. is a huge tax increase built into current law," Mr. Burman said. "What the current law assumes is that over time we move to a tax that is much less progressive, that has atrocious marriage penalties and penalizes people with children who live in high-tax states."
Those hardest hit by the AMT are upper-middle income married families in high-tax states. In other words Republicans in Democrat strongholds. This is part of the reason AMT reform will be so difficult. The hardest hit individuals are those with a very hard to be in political situation. It's not that the Upper Middle Class is the weakest politically, it's that it's the weakest politically who are hit by the AMT. The AMT works to encourage these Red-People in Blue States to flee to lower tax states and further cement Republican retrenchment of at least 270 EVs. I'm as Republican as they come, but I look at this, and I can't help but see the affect the AMT will attempt to work.
Avenger linesman Al Lucas died yesterday, apparently on the field, although no one will actually say it that way. He collided with the ball carrier in what did not appear to be a horrific collision, suffered a spinal cord injury and was pronounced dead at the hospital shortly afterwards.
This has never happened before. No NFL player has died from a spinal cord injury. Two college players have but only from complications 18 months and 2 years later, not instantaneously.
Rarely, a high school player seems to suffer this fate, though I haven't been able to confirm that beyond my own memory. I always assumed it was because the equipment isn't as good and the risk slightly elevated. Have you seen an NFL helmet? Each one costs several hundred dollars and is far more complex than expected. I think they are even more protective than the motorcycle helmet that allows you to go headfirst into the 405 and survive.
So you would think this freak accident would garner more attention and questions. Is there even more improvement necessary?
Yet, there's little more than the AP story out there.
Andrew Cochran at "The Counterterrorism Blog" writes about the Patriot Act and urban legends surrounding the complex piece of legislation that has fostered mistrust of the government by many American citizens in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Cochran, who provided counsel to one of the congressional committees involved in the drafting of the Patriot Act, also points us to an interesting column in the National Review Online which helps to debunk some of the myths about the alleged unlimited power bestowed upon government agencies by the act. He takes to task Andrew Napolitano, a "legal expert" for Fox News, for some of the most heinous spinning of the Patriot Act.
I have long suspected that the majority of the act's detractors have supported rather alarmist viewpoints about legislation that was necessary in order to tighten down security here at home. Cochran goes a long way towards helping to sort out myth from fact, and seems to have the experience to back up his presentation.
You can libel a dead person all you want, just don't use their likeness unless you want to pay through the nose.
Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy? (about the second part of the above observation that is....)
This one isn't bad either.
And this and this, in remembrance of Terri.
(Multiple hat tips to McGehee)
In a move that mirrors some of my city council's most absurd antics (and they are legion), the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is proposing legislation that would require S. F.-based bloggers to register with the City's Ethic's Commission and report all blog-related costs exceeding an aggregate of $1000.00.
The proposal skirts the First Amendment in the guise of campaign finance reform, something that seems to be an epidemic. (I should add that it appears that this ordinance applies ONLY to campaign-related blog activity.) My city council enacted a similarly draconian campaign finance reform ordinance last year that made running for office a logistical nightmare. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, as in this case, perhaps) there are always loopholes. In the case of the S. F. Board of Supes' proposed legislation, I would urge every S. F.-based blogger to attend the next meeting of the Board of Supes and state unequivocally that they blog via laptop from the Marin side of the Golden Gate Bridge. Leave it to Sophie Maxwell to prove otherwise.
Update: There seems to be controversy as to whether or not this ordinance includes bloggers. My take, after reading the ordinance, is that it does indeed include bloggers who blog on behalf of candidates for office. Like I said, use the laptop defense, and piss on the S.F. politicos.
Hattip: William T. Quick
Temple puts his thoughts on the imminent passing of the Pope into a post in the Politics category. I rarely think of the Pope's politics. Certainly, I disagreed with him on the Iraq war and other issues.
Catholic teaching teaches that the spirit has a life of his own and certainly, any foray into the Pope's spritual teaching will show that when he prayed and meditated, he experienced the moment of union with God more than the rest of us.
When I hear people focus on the Pope's politics, I am reminded of some of my frustration when I read the writings of the 15th century mystic, St. Teresa of Avila. Her writings on prayer and the spiritual life have not been rivalled in the 500 years since then. Yet, in the midst of a particularly cogent passage, she will lapse back into her ego, which lacked the self-esteem of the 20th and 21st century. At that point, we will fall into several paragraphs of her unworthiness to convey such important concepts and frustration that the priest had instructed her to write such a memoir.
The difference between her own perceived unworthiness and the greatness of her insight into the mystic world is startling. I keep itr in mind when someone (not Temple, but many of the commenters) complains about the limitations of someone who, like Pope John Paul II, is spiritually advanced.
Via Crossing The Rubicon 2 comes an excerpt from "The Case For Democracy", written by Natan Sharansky. The excerpt, run on on the third anniversary of the battle of Jenin, concerns itself with the ensuing lies propagated by the Palestinians about the operation to remove approximately 1000 civilians from that heavily civilian-populated village.
One thing, however, is certain: The operation in Jenin was an expression of an unprecedented commitment to the human rights of a foreign civilian population during wartime. It is actions like this that allow the noted legal expert Alan Dershowitz to state confidently that "no country in history ever complied with a higher standard of human rights."
Indeed.