May 2004 Archives

Last week, the Libertarian Party announced that Michael Badnarik, a computer programmer from Texas, will be their 2004 Presidential candidate. "If I can win the nomination, there's no reason I can't win this election," said Badnarkik, obviously unaware of the LP’s track record in Presidential races.

While I personally admire Badnarik's clueless optimism, other bloggers aren’t as impressed. Jon Henke from QandO is particularly disappointed with the choice (“Badnarik is exactly the sort of person that gives Libertarians a reputation as fringe-dwelling nuts.") and Captain Ed argues that the LP has proven that it won’t be posing a threat to the two-party system anytime soon.

While I respect their opinions, I think they’re being too harsh. The LP has some well argued policy positions that are worthy of a closer look. Take, for example, Badnarik position on the “War on Drugs":

In 1915, a Canadian medical officer named John McCrae published what is probably the single best-known and popular poem from the First World War, “In Flanders Fields":

Note: More information about The Pop Culture Literacy Project can be found on the Introduction page.

Please list the terms that you feel should be included along with any commentary that you wish to add. If you prefer to offer a definition or explanation for what is significant about the item, you can write about it on your own blog and submit the link to me either in the comments or by email. I’ll include your link under both the main body of the category and in the main dictionary page.

The general pop culture categories are:

Cartoons/Comic Strips

Celebrities

Commercials

Children’s Culture

Computer/Video Games

Fashion/Style

Genre Fiction

Graphic Novels/Comics

Hip-Hop Culture

Magazines and 'Zines

Miscellaneous

Movies

Music

Role-Playing Games

Sports

Slang/Terminology

Television

Urban Legends

Websites & Internet Related Topics

Definitions from each category can also be found on the Main Dictionary page.

What knowledge does the average American need in order to effectively interact with their culture? Which idioms, allusions, and references are necessary in order to understand and communicate with each other? Those are questions English professor E.D. Hirsch examined in his controversial and influential book Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Included with his argument for why “cultural literacy" was necessary, Hirsch presented a list of 5000 items which included such items as phrases (“Go West, young man."), historical references (the Alamo), and literary allusions (The Emperor’s New Clothes).

Hirsch’s list and subsequent Dictionary of Cultural Literacy are invaluable tools for developing a framework of references for understanding Western culture. But while Hirsch includes items from pop culture, the list tends to favor anachronistic and dated references that are already rather common (i.e., Santa Claus). Such terms are often so widely shared that their definition and connotation are easily discerned. What is needed today, however, is a list that includes material from popular culture that is more relevant and for whose meanings are harder to find.

Perhaps you overhear the slang terms “whips" and “ice" in a rap song. Where do you turn to find a relevant definition? Unless you are familiar with hip-hop terminology, how will you know the terms are references to “cars“ and “diamonds?" Where would you go to find out about references to the Soup Nazi, the comics of Alan Moore, Kevin Smith films, or the allusions in a Radiohead song?

At a minimum, developing pop cultural literacy requires knowing what references a person should be familiar with. But that requires knowing what should be known. The Pop Culture Literacy Project is a modest attempt at compiling jsut such a list of items. While there’s no Platonic list that includes all the allusions needed to understand culture, I believe there are common references that would be required for a person to be reasonably fluent in the language of pop culture.

By tapping into the collective wisdom of the blogosphere, a useful list of terms and definitions can be compiled. That's why I need your help in answering the question, "What references are essential for pop culture literacy?" The comments section in each category will be open for suggestions and recommendations on how that question should be answered. Feel free to list the terms that you feel should be included along with any commentary that you wish to add.

If you prefer to offer a definition or explanation for what is significant about the item, you can write about it on your own blog and submit the link to me either in the comments or by email. I’ll include your link under both the main body of the category and in the main dictionary page.

Please submit the entries under the appropriate category. The comments section of this post will be reserved for comments and suggestions on the project itself.

The Ugly Duckling of Reality TV One of my favorite bloggers, John Coleman, has a new article on Tech Central Station in which he makes “The Conservative Case for the Swan."

Top Ten UK blogger Adrian Warnock has generously included me in his list of “Top Ten Bloggers." He adds, “If you like this idea, then why not create your own top ten list- after all there are no right or wrong answers!" Good idea, though I don’t know how I could narrow it down to ten. Anyone else have a list of favorites?

Flip-Flops and the French Ad #1: John Kerry + Dancing Baby body + “Flipper theme song" = An amusingly disturbing campaign ad. Ad#2: “Like Ted Kennedy, only thinner." The French support their favorite candidate. (Links via: Slate.com)

Hacking on to Death Row Economist Steven E. Landsburg offers some compelling economic justification for Steven E. Landsburg giving people who create computer viruses the death penalty.

War on WASPs Captain Ed has a report on the Iranians who intend to attack and destroy “Anglo-Saxon civilization." Whatever the Iranians may have against preppies, Episcopalians, and girls named Buffy, I don’t think they warrant their own Jihad.

Smells Like Teen Spirit Rusty Lopez notes the trend to bump mascots from the “spirit sides" of class rings in favor of “lifestyle symbols" (“zodiac and peace signs, skateboarders, ethnic flags, rock climbers and figure skaters").

A Coke By Any Other Name... Here in Texas it’s not uncommon to hear the following exchange: “Wanna Coke?" “Yeah, I’ll take a Dr.Pepper." Yankees are often perplexed, not realizing that in Texas “Coke" is to “soft drink" as “Kleenex" is to “tissue", a brand name that covers all members of a category. QD from Southern Appeal has found a map that shows, by county, whether people call their carbonated beverages "pop", "soda", or "coke."

Just in case you were planning to send official diplomatic correspondence to Iraq, you might want to be aware that they've changed the country’s official name. Nathan Brown, a Middle East expert at George Washington University, writes on Juan Cole’s blog:

The country's official name in 1920 was the "State of Iraq." Following the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958, the name was changed to the "Republic of Iraq" (or, more literally, the "Iraqi Republic.")

At some point last year, the older name--the "State of Iraq"--was restored. I do not know precisely who did this and why, but it seems to have been done by the CPA some time last year. CPA legal documents are now issued for the "State of Iraq." UN Security Council Resolution 1511 (passed last October) uses the restored term, and the transitional Administrative Law--signed in March 2004 but named (as far as I know) for the first time in November 2003--is formally the "Law of Administration of the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period." (However, some internal Iraqi documents still refer to it as a republic.)

I’m just glad they only went back to 1920. Imagine if they had gone back further into the country’s history and named the country Babylonia. Can you imagine what that would do to our pre-mill fundie brethren? They would be going nuts. Hal Lindsey would be able to sell another 28 million copies of the “The Late, Great Planet Earth."*

*Note: For those not familiar with the arcane of ‘70’s American Fundamentalism, you can use these links to learn more about the book and End Times speculation.

(Hat tip: Robert Tagorda)

Political parties always dream about having a “balanced ticket” that will appeal to a wide swath of the electorate. Still, there’s something rather sad (but very, very amusing) about the Democrats preferring to balance their ticket by pairing John Kerry with a Republican. The pool of candidates for President was already fairly shallow and uninspiring, so it shouldn't be surprising that no Democrat stands out as the obvious choice for the number two spot. Still, what does it say about the Democrats (and, for that matter, the GOP) that the mere mention of adding Republican Senator John McCain is enough to give Kerry a double digit increase in the polls over Bush and Cheney.

McCain himself sparked the intriguing idea back in April when he said he'd consider an offer from Kerry. Since then, however, he’s backed off from the statement, repeatedly claiming that he supports Bush's re-election and doesn’t want to be anyone's vice president. That’s a shame. By adding McCain, the Democrats would turn this election into one of the most exciting in the past thirty years.

It won’t happen, of course. The Democrat’s may tease us with the idea but they are far too politically savvy to actually let Kerry choose McCain. And McCain has emphatically stated that he wouldn't accept the offer. Still, it’s fun to imagine what would happen and to speculate why the Arizona veteran is considered a prime candidate.

MTV Networks has announced plans to launch a new entertainment cable channel called LOGO that will cater to gay and lesbian viewers. The channel, which is expected to launch in February, will be on basic cable and reach between 10 -14 million homes. MTV president Judy McGrath told reporters that she wants the channel “to be the first stop for gay and lesbian people."

LOGO should have an eager audience since there are currently no “gay themed" televisions show on the air (except for It’s All Relative, Boy Meets Boy, Straight Plan for the Gay Man, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Will & Grace, Queer As Folk, The L Word, Playing It Straight, and Seriously Dude, I’m Gay) or shows with gay characters (unless you count Playmakers, The Amazing Race 4, Survivor 8, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Sex in the City, Six Feet Under, ER, The Real World, Wonderfalls, All My Children, NYPD Blue, The Simpsons, or South Park). This will be a real breakthrough for the gay community.

Next thing you know, we'll be hearing that MTV plans to start a channel dedicated to music.

(Hat tip: Josh Claybourn)

For a person to be considered truly educated requires familiarity with three great works of Western culture: the Bible, Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and the 1987 movie The Princess Bride. While all three masterworks are essential for understanding man and his place in the world, “The Princess Bride” provides a particularly fitting metaphor for a common liberal fallacy.

In one of the most famous scenes in the movie, a not-as-smart-as-he-thinks-he-is kidnapper named Vizzini is attempting to make a getaway by boat. Vizzini is joined by a Spaniard named Inigo Montoya and a giant named Fezzik. The Dread Pirate Roberts, meanwhile, is attempting to rescue the damsel-in-distress:

Inigo Montoya: You are sure nobody's follow' us?
Vizzini: As I told you, it would be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable. No one in Guilder knows what we've done, and no one in Florin could have gotten here so fast. - Out of curiosity, why do you ask?
Inigo Montoya: No reason. It's only... I just happened to look behind us and something is there.
Vizzini: What? Probably some local fisherman, out for a pleasure cruise, at night... in... eel-infested waters...

Vizzini looks back to see the Dread Pirate Roberts swimming toward them.

Vizzini: INCONCEIVABLE.

Once they reach the shore, Vizzini and his cohorts climb a rope attached to a cliff in order to escape. When the Dread Pirate Roberts attempts to climb the same rope, Vizzini cuts it. Roberts, however, continues to climb. “HE DIDN'T FALL?” cries Vinzzini in astonishment, “INCONCEIVABLE.”

”You keep using that word,” says the stoic Spaniard. “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

I'm reminded of this scene everytime I hear President Bush's liberal critics claim that he's “dishonest.” But, like Vizzini, they aren't quite as smart as they think they are. They keep using that word. But I do not think that word means what they think it means.

In an excellent semi-fisking of Al Gore’s latest speech, John “HindRocket" Hinderaker from Powerline concludes by saying:

I could go on, but I'll stop for now. There is simply too much falsehood and confusion in Gore's speech for any one person to deconstruct. We should perhaps divide his tirade by paragraphs and parcel out to websites in the blogosphere--the Northern Alliance, for example, with help from others, since the job is so vast--the task of refuting Gore's misrepresentations and libels, one by one.

I’d like to add my small contribution to this worthy project by clearing up a bit of confusion that I found while reading Captain Ed’s take on the speech:

“And the worst still lies ahead. General Joseph Hoar, the former head of the Marine Corps, said "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss."

When a senior, respected military leader like Joe Hoar uses the word
"abyss," then the rest of us damn well better listen.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps is the title for the person who would be considered the “head of the Marine Corps." General Hoar has held many positions of distinction within the military but he was never the Commandant. (Hoar, like Gen. Zinni, is a former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command.)

Such a slip up might be excusable from an ordinary politician. But if it weren’t for a handful of voters in Florida, Al Gore would be the current Commander in Chief of the U.S. military. The fact that he confuses the CENTCOM CinC for the Commandant of the Marine Corps shows that he is completely clueless about military affairs. While Gore was Vice President, Hoar served as one of the most powerful command positions in the military. Yet it appears that Gore didn't even know who Hoar was before one of his speechwriters provided him with the General's quote. Such ineptitude is downright frightning.

Perhaps its all a clever ploy. Maybe having Gore speech in public is a strategy conceived by the Democrats to boost John Kerry's image. After all, when compared to the blundering incompetent Al Gore, Kerry comes off as an adroit elder statesman.

Someone needs to coin a term for spotting blogging trends that really aren’t trends at all. The old-school media, trying to appear hip and relevant, invariably trots out one of these faux trends as a way of showing they are ahead of the curve. One of the most popular of these non-trend trends is the myth of the “Discovered Blogger."

The concept behind the myth is not only plausible, it's almost inevitable. With over a million blogs on the Internet there has to be a least a handful of undiscovered writers and thinkers of distinction. If the Next Big Pop Star can be found through a never-ending television talent show, how likely is it that quality writers will remain unherald?

So when Daniel Radosh of The New Yorker latched onto the idea for an article on bloggers who are publishing books, it must have seemed like a sure thing:

As the only two certainties in life, we shouldn't be surprised to find that both death and taxes share a mutual connection: Sin. While death usually make for more interesting reading, Paul Caron from TaxProf Blog has found an instructive article by Fr. Robert Sirico, president and co-founder of the The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, examining the economic and moral considerations of “sin taxes.”

There has been a great deal of speculation that John Kerry is considering retired Marine General Anthony Zinni as a potential vice presidential running mate. Zinni is the former Commander and Chief of U.S. Central Command and was responsible for military operation in an area that stretched from the Horn of Africa, across the Arabian Penisula, to South and Central Asia. The General is a man of unquestioned integrity and a respected military commander and would lend such much needed gravitas to the Democratic ticket.

But to be a success leader in the executive branch requires more than just an impeccable character. It also requires sound policy ideas. In this respect, the General falls short.

Take, for example, his views on the Iraq war. Steve Bainbridge points out a recent speech by in which Zinni lists 10 mistakes made by the administration. Bainbridge, a conservative Republican, calls the article “quite damning."

Before we examine the list of mistakes, though, we should look at another speech that the General gave for the Center for Defense Information (CDI) prior to the war. In October 2002, Zinni offered a list of 10 conditions that must be met for the Iraq war to turn out in the “best possible way":

Two weeks ago we had German peacekeeping troops hiding “like frightened rabbits” to avoid rioting in Kosovo. At the time, I wondered if the UN Peacekeeping forces could be any more worthless.

The answer is "yes, they can":

Teenage rape victims fleeing war in the Democratic Republic of Congo are being sexually exploited by the United Nations peace-keeping troops sent to the stop their suffering.

The Independent has found that mothers as young as 13 - the victims of multiple rape by militiamen - can only secure enough food to survive in the sprawling refugee camp by routinely sleeping with UN peace-keepers.

Testimony from girls and aid workers in the Internally Displaced People (IDP) camp in Bunia, in the north-east corner of Congo, claims that every night teenage girls crawl through a wire fence to an adjoining UN compound to sell their bodies to Moroccan and Uruguayan soldiers.

The trade, which according to one victim results in a banana or a cake to feed to her infant son, is taking place despite a pledge by the UN to adopt a "zero tolerance" attitude to cases of sexual misconduct by those representing the organisation.

The UN promises to apply "all available sanctions" against those responsible. In other words, the criminals involved will never be brought to justice.

Remind me again why we support the UN? I’m sure we once had a reason. I’m sure the United Nations once served a purpose. For the life of me, though, I can’t remember what it was.

Update: Captain Ed has more thoughts on the matter.

Several days ago Josh Claybourn asked why some Christians find Aristotle's philosophy more welcoming than Plato's. I gave the off-the-cuff response that it was because Platonic idealism cannot be reconciled with Biblical Christianity. When those with more knowledge and credentials than I possess expressed their skepticism, I was tempted to back down from that statement.

My understanding of both Scripture and Platonic philosophy is far too limited to provide a sufficient response. Still, I stand by my claim that the two philosophies are ultimately irreconcilable and so feel obligated to at least make an attempt to defend my answer.

In response to a question posed by Josh Claybourn, I made the offhand remark that Platonic idealism cannot be reconciled with Biblical Christianity and then promised to elaborate further in the future. This caught the attention of Jeremy Pierce, a PhD candidate in philosophy at Syracuse, who noted in the comments:

“I can’t think of any reason why Platonic idealism, once understood properly (properly for the Christian, anyway, with God as the Good), has any more trouble fitting with Christianity than Berkeley's idealism, which was thoroughly Christian from the get-go.”

And if that wasn’t enough to make me second-guess my opinion, I found that Dr. John Mark Reynolds, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Biola University, has written on his own blog:

“I eagerly await this argument. This seems unlikely on its face. I suspect we are about to get a misunderstanding of Plato, but I hope not since I like these guys a great deal.”

Not only does Dr. Reynolds teach at one of the most respected evangelical universities in the world, he has two of my intellectual heroes – Philip Johnson and J.P. Moreland – as references.

No pressure there, eh?

For a philosophy geek like me this is akin to being a high school basketball player and having two NBA stars looking over your shoulder saying, “I don’t think the kid can sink that jumpshot…”

Naturally, they’re probably right. Still, you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take. At least maybe I can hope to hit the rim…

As RobbL from Infinite Monkeys points out, today (Monday) was a slow news period(“…a little sodomy, some killing, bicycle-related accidents…"). While we’re waiting for fresh blog material, he’s provided five "questions we never ask" about the Iraq war to keep us busy.

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

How old should a person be before it becomes acceptable to treat them as an object? Where do we draw the line of demarcation between the age when you are treated as a human and the age it becomes acceptable to treat you as an object? Most people set the standard at eighteen, the magical age when a person can register to vote and buy lottery tickets. Other people, though, would choose to set the age lower. Much, much lower. Naturally, some of these people can be found at Hooters.

Hooters is a quintessentially American restaurant, the epitome of middle-class degeneracy. The chain of restaurants caters to one of the primal needs of modern manhood: the desire to eat horrible food served by skimpily clad women. Taking its place alongside Maxim magazine and The Man Show, Hooters stands as one of the symbols of our post-emasculated culture. Few sights are as pitiably ferine as watching men licking chicken grease off their fingers while leering at the silicon enhanced mammary glands of post-pubescent girls. It would be cause for outrage if it wasn't so completly pathetic. This new era is even worse -- if that's even possible -- than the days when Alan Alda and Phil Donahue were our country's standards of masculinity. (Come back, Robert Bly! Come back you sissified, drum-beating, Iron John-types! All is forgiven!)

Hooters, however, was apparently unsatisfied with being merely loathsome and decided to veer off into the realm of the downright creepy. How else to explain holding a "Little Miss Hooters" contest for girls five and under? The contest, which required the infants to dress in little orange spandex shorts and a tied up Hooters t-shirt, was to be held at a location in Florida. Whether the pageant was intended as a homage to the children’s favorite skanky waitresses or was a marketing ploy to attract the elusive pedophilic chicken wing-eating demographic remains to be seen.

The Wages of Sin Stephen McCaskil from ChristWeb points out a German study that provides one more reason to avoid adultery -- unfaithful men are more likely to die during sex than their loyal counterparts. (Perhaps they were just following the commandment, “Thou Shalt Commit Adultery" found in the typo-ridden Bibles that Bene blogged about.)

Which One‘s a Dud? Scott Ritter was a former UN weapons inspector who claimed that Saddam still had WMD. Once a friend of the tyrant gave him $400,000, though, Ritter changed his tune and claimed that Iraq was no longer a threat. Apparently, he's still receiving royalties for singing the same song because he now has an article in the Christian Science Monitor claiming that the sarin filled artillery shell was one of “tens of thousands of these "duds" were scattered across the desert terrain."

I know just enough about artillery to know something wasn’t right with the story, but not nearly enough to give it a proper fisking. That’s why I handed it off to Donald Sensing, uber-blogger and former Army artillery officer, who tears holes in Ritter’s theory so large you could shoot a "base-bleed projectile" thru them. Be sure to check out Sensing’s takedown. With enough exposure this story will be squashed before Ritter even has time to cash his next payoff check.

Plato vs. Aristotle Josh Claybourn (guest-blogging for Paul Musgrave) uses one of my favorite paintings (Raphael’s The School of Athens) to launch into a discussion of why Christian philosophers tend to align more with Aristotle than with Plato. My short answer (which will require further elaboration in the near future) has two parts, the Catholic reason and the evangelical reason. The Catholic reason: Because Thomas Aquinas preferred Aristotle and Catholic philosophers prefer Aquinas. The Evangelical reason: Because Platonic idealism cannot be reconciled with Biblical Christianity.

The Chalabi Conspiracy Tim Berglund thinks he has the Ahmed Chalabi situation all figured out. If he’s serious (and I don’t really think he is) he’s wrong. Still, he presents the theory is a more coherent manner than anyone on the Left will be able to do. Perhaps the Democratic Underground should get Tim to polish up some of their conspiracy theories for them sometime.

Choosing a Bible Jeremy Pierce of Parablemania has a useful review of bible translations. For those of you wondering the answers to your questions are: “Yes, it does matter (some are more accurate than others).", “Yes, you need more than one translation.", and “No, Jesus did not speak in King James English (so you don’t have to either)."

Then again, I could be wrong… You'd be amazed to find how often people disagree with me (I know I was). And I’m not just talking about the raving loons thoughtful gentlemen who add their voices to my comments section, either. I’m talking about intelligent, thoughtful Christian people. Some of them are even Republicans. That’s why I take their opinions seriously enough to point out where they disagree with me:

On Gay Marriage-- Rusty Lopez takes issue with my contention that gay marriage isn’t that serious a threat to hetero marriage (see here for more).

On Defining Religion --Joel Fuhrmann thinks I'm wrong about Unitarianism being a "religion." Jeffrey Collins also wonders the same thing. Macht from prosthesis adds some qualifications to my definition of religion. Gerry Spence agrees with Macht and adds more qualifications to the definition.

These are the only examples I’ve found where people have openly disagreed with my on their blogs. I assume that since no one else has spoken up, everyone else is in complete agreement with everything I've written this week. Silence, after all, implies agreement. At least that is the rule my wife has in our house (which may explain why she only ask me my opinion when I’m sleeping).

Georgia Senator Zell Miller is not only my favorite Democrat but a model for the lost art of Southern oratory. Take, for instance, his latest comments on events in Iraq:

"Those who are wringing their hands and shouting so loudly for 'heads to roll' over [the abuse] seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that someone's head has rolled ¯ that of another innocent American brutally murdered by terrorists," said Sen. Zell Miller, Georgia Democrat. "Why is it that there's more indignation over a photo of a prisoner with underwear on his head than over the video of a young American with no head at all?"

There is no question that Abu Ghraib prison abuses were inexcusable acts that deserve the utmost condemnation and punishment. But as Zell rightly points out, we have to have to place the event in its proper perspective.

[Note: For another example of Zell’s rhetorical skill, check out his comments on “crotch-grabbing rappers and bony-butted rock stars".]

(Hat tip: David Horowitz’s blog)

[Note: The increasing volume of news stories has made it impossible to keep up with all the significant events going on in our world. Oftentimes we fail to notice the significance of a breaking story and only begin to pay attention after the issue has evolved into an important issue.

When the UNSCAM story first came to my attention (via Glenn Reynolds) I failed to realize it relevance. Since I’ve had to catch up on the intricacies of the story I thought I would pass along what I've found.

The following should be considered new analysis and is based on the work done by others. A list of the articles used for this summary can be found at the end of the post.]

Bestiality. Prostitution. Adultery. Incest. Slate legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick isn’t convinced, “Anyone else bored to tears with the "slippery slope" arguments against gay marriage?" she laments in her latest article. While I think most of us are more frustrated by the refusal of same-sex marriage proponents to address these arguments, she does have a point.

Gay marriage isn’t going to lead to legitimizing incest or prostitution nor will heterosexual marriage fall apart because Adam and Steve got hitched. I also don’t expect anyone (other than Peter Singer perhaps) to be in a rush to marry their goat.

There is, however, one landing pad at the end of the slippery slope that gay rights supporters can’t ignore – polygamy. The ink on the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling allowing homosexual couples to marry wasn't even dry when the polyamourous groups took their place in the “Right to Marry" crusade.

Since the polygamy issue can't be brushed off, Lithwick decides to outline the case against it:

Jeffrey Collins points out that I never answered the question posed in the title of my post “Is Unitarianism a Religion?". Instead, I simply assumed that Unitarianism is a “real religion" and went from there. Jeffrey, though, isn’t so sure:

I think we can all agree that belief in a deity is prima facia evidence of the presence of religious beliefs. (But not always evidence of an organized religion.)

Does it follow, however, that the absence of a requirement to believe in a deity is evidence that a religion does not exist? I'm uncertain on this issue; however I must say that my gut feeling on the issue is to say yes.

So, here's my question: If you don't have to believe in a deity to be a religion, what, if anything, do you have to believe in?

In my post I claimed that Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn’s "God, gods or supreme being" test, was too stringent and stacks the deck in favor of theistic religions. But that leaves us with Jeffrey’s question: if a person’s belief doesn’t include some concept of a deity, what makes it a religious belief?

Before we get to that question, though, we should answer another one first: what is the purpose of religion?

Like many evolutionary biologists, Greg Graffin began his career in science as the lead singer of a punk rock band. Long before he received his Ph.D in evolutionary biology from Cornell, Graffin was the vocalist for Bad Religion, one of Southern California’s most influential punk groups. Now, however, he can claim the distinction of being not only one of the five leading bone tissue paleontologists in the world but also one of the "founding fathers" of American punk rock (could Steven Jay Gould have topped that?).

When he’s not recording and touring with his band or working as a teaching assistant, Graffin can be found heading the Cornell Evolution Project, a study to determine the degree to which the world's leading evolutionary biologists believe in traditional religion, naturalism, and the philosophical implications of their science. The project is a continuation of his doctoral dissertation, "Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist World-View: Perspectives from Evolutionary Biology," in which he concluded that there's "no conflict between evolutionary theory and religion on the one important condition that religion is essentially atheistic."

Graffin’s explanation for the project is worth quoting in full:

For all those who would downplay this finding, I offer the following lesson in “terror math":

It takes 1 drop (100 mg) of sarin to kill an average person.

The artillery shell that was found contained 3 to 4 liters of sarin.

1 drop (mg) equals 0.0001 liters (1/10000 of a liter).

3-4 liters equates to roughly 50,000 drops, enough sarin to kill 50 thousand people.

Obviously, it would be impossible to distribute 50,000 drops of sarin in an effective enough manner to kill tens of thousands of people. But consider this:

The artillery shell that was found contained enough sarin that it could be divided up into 16 separate doses.

Each dose could kill 3,000 Americans, the number that died on 9/11.

From that single artillery shell, 16 "new 9/11s" could be attempted.

Many, if not most, would likely fail. But how many would succeed? How many American deaths lay waiting in that one “WMD?" One shell, sixteen “9/11s". Now ask yourself how many more deaths are waiting in shells that were “overlooked" or “misplaced?"

The terrorists don’t need “stockpiles of WMDs." To accomplish their goals, a handful of artillery shells is all that is required. For, unlike critics of the war, the terrorists know how to do the math.

[Note: My original calculations were based on a 1mg dose rather than the 100mg dose which is the required toxicity to cause death. Mike's corrections to my calculations helped me bring them into the proper order of magnitude.]

“A cult,” says novelist Tom Wolfe, “is a religion with no political power.” By that standard, the Unitarian Universalists, a 200-year-old denomination that included presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams as members, has moved from an old religion to Texas’ newest cult.

Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn ruled that a Unitarian church in North Texas is not a religious organization since it "does not have one system of belief." According to an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

While I admit that having President Bush apologize for the events at Abu Ghraib prison may be having a beneficial effect (at least on the Arab media), this proposal is going a bit too far:

President Bush should kneel before Pope John Paul and ask for forgiveness for abuses committed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says.

In his latest jibe against the U.S. leader, the outspoken left-wing Venezuelan president urged Bush to use his planned visit to the Vatican on June 4 to announce the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

"Even though he's not a Catholic ... he should ask God's forgiveness at the Vatican ... go down on his knees in front of the Pope and ask for the forgiveness of the world, not just the Iraqi people," Chavez told a news conference Friday in Caracas.

That whirring sound coming from Wittenberg, Germany is Martin Luther spinning in his grave.

The debate over whether Iraq had WMDs should have officially ended with the recent explosion of an artillery shell containing sarin nerve agent. This finding isn't exactly surprising since the existence of WMDs has long been a moot point. The only remaining question is how we will find the remaining weapons. Will they be discovered in large stockpiles or will they be found one at a time -- as they are used against us in terrorist attacks.

The critics of the preemptive war in Iraq will no doubt attempt to downplay this incident and this latest finding is unlikely to persuade the of the seriousness of the missing WMDs. If the story receives any degree of media attention at all it will likely only to dismiss its significance. As Hugh Hewitt proposed earlier today, “Let's run a contest to find the first "it doesn't matter" story quote or op-ed."

Hugh didn’t have to wait long. The first quote comes from none other than David Kay, the former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq. In an interview with the Associated Press, Kay said,

When President Bush apologized for the events at Abu Ghraib prison I thought it was a mistake. At the time I believed that the apology would send the wrong message to the Arab street and be perceived as a sign of weakness. I felt it would imply that both the military and the Administration were not only responsible for the atrocities but culpable for the actions of a few criminals.

I was wrong.

Blackfive posts an email from a Marine Colonel in Iraq who claims the apology had a surprising effect:

Last week King of Fools noted that, “It would seem the new standard in blogging success has been established: being invited as a guest on a radio program." If that’s the standard then the boys from the Northern Alliance have reached the penultimate level of success: they actually have their own radio program.*

The Northern Alliance Radio Network (NARN) is composed of various bloggers in the St. Paul/Minneapolis area: the blogosphere's favorite columnist James Lileks; the ridiculously smart thinkers from Power Line; the watchdogs of academia at SCSU Scholars; the eclectic duo from Spitbull; the rising star of political bloggers, Ed Morrissey from Captains Quarters; the clown princes of Minnesota at Fraters Libertas; and the NA ringleader, the multi-talented Mitch Berg from Shot in the Dark. Each of them were already succesful as bloggers; the addition of the radio show simply extends their alternative media micro-empire.

While the lists of hosts is impressive, the same can't always be said for the guests. This fact became rather obvious when the NA invited me to come on their show yesterday to discuss the Abu Ghraib scandal and women in the military. The four hosts this week, Mitch Berg from Shot in the Dark, Captain Ed from Captain’s Quarters, and Saint Paul and the Elder from Fraters Libertas, were all eerily smooth and professional. It was like having Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Hugh Hewitt on one august all-star team.

Unfortunately, though, I wasn't quite as polished. Since I was to be the only guest for the entire last half hour, I spent several hours of research in preparation for the show. Sadly, none of this prepwork was evident in my delivery. In fact, at one point I became so nervous that I hyperventilated and fainted, dropping the phone and leaving me unable to speak for almost a full minute (fortunately this occurred during a commercial break so I don’t think anyone noticed).

There are many news articles about Nick Berg, the young American contractor who was beheaded by terrorists, but this story in the St. Petersburg Times has the most peculiar opening paragraph I’ve seen in some time:

On a warm evening in Baghdad's old Jewish quarter last month, I was taking photos in a crumbling building when I was literally pushed toward a Westerner with ivory skin and a red beard. He was lifting weights inside the Arnold Classic Gym. He wore black steel-toed boots as he grunted out exercises beneath dozens of portraits of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

First of all, I never even knew Baghdad had Jewish residents much less an old Jewish quarter. And an Arnold Classic Gym? Not only is it odd that the Iraqis have a gym dedicated to the governor of California but they put in in the Jewish part of town (perhaps the Iraqis think Schwarzenegger is an ancient Hebrew name).

Baghdad is one strange town.

(Hat tip:Wizbang)

Update: Alert reader David Marcoe points out an fascinating article on the "Arnold Classic Gym" and the man who founded it. He also found a website dedicated to "Babylonian Jewry."

The Art of Demotivation Feeling overly motivated at work? Is life just going your way? Read these humurous "demotivators" to regain some perspective: Persistence, Flattery, Potential, Motivation, and Indifference. (Hat tip: Army of One)

Buddhists and Boogers Some Buddhists priests in Japan are upset about a new candy called, “Snot from the nose of the Great Buddha". (And I thought the “Jesus Is My Homeboy” fad was disrespectful…)

Our Own Worst Enemy Victor Davis Hanson has a must read post on American Cannabalism.

A Vade Mecum for Ted Kennedy Hugh Hewitt provides a lesson in “Thinking like an Islamist propagandist.”

Onward, Christian Soldiers La Shawn Barber has a post specifically directed to Christians who are theologically opposed to warfare:

Some commenters on this blog have either implied or said straight out that because Christ told us to love our enemies, it is inconsistent with His teachings for Christians to support the war in Iraq (or war in general). This may have been true before the Fall, but as I stated before, war is a consequence of sin. If you want to get rid of war and "give peace a chance", you have to rid the world of sin.

To determine whether Jesus' teachings are inconsistent with war, we must let the Bible speak for itself. Philosophical arguments and Scripture stripped from its context do not get to the heart of the matter.

An Experiment in Social Engineering Social engineering is the science of using psychology to influence the actions of others, particularly without their knowing. Israel from Lineman.net describes a unique experiment that allowed him to walk out of a store with $4000 worth of computer equipment. (Note: If you are criminally inclined, do not read this article.) (Hat tip: Vox Day)

As could be expected, my recent post on capital punishment has been met with a great deal of dissent. One of the most vehement disagreements has been with Richard M., who feels that I’m clinging to an interpretation of an Old Testament passage at the expense of Christ’s teachings. Richard raises some interesting points that are worthy of closer examination. Since his views are probably representative of many of the counter-arguments to my claim, I’ll use a portion of his comments as a starting point:

Jesus clearly laid to rest the righteousness of the Old Testament "eye for an eye" style of justice. I think we can all agree that Jesus rebuked this concept over and over again. Every child, even non-Christian children, knows this and knows the parables which Jesus used to make his points. If Joe wants to phrase the issue in terms of whether Jesus' teachings trump some vaguely worded verse in Genesis, then I'll take Jesus any day of week. Jesus never said that the verse in Genesis which Joe cites means that God MANDATES that governments must execute murderers or God will be unhappy. One could just as easily argue that the verse in Genesis means only that those who make war are likely to be killed in war.

In order to give Richard’s argument the attention it deserves, I’ll take the this issues one at a time:

Two days before the Continental Congress established the greatest fighting force in history, they authorized franking privileges to its members as a means of informing their constituents. Since then the laws of franking (a term used for the right of sending letters or postal packages free of charge) have been “broadened and limited depending on the mood of the country.” (The privilege was even abolished for a short time during the 19th century.) The reason for both the popularity and controversy of franking is obvious: it provides Congressional incumbents a means of taxpayer sponsored advertising.

As every politician knows, establishing name recognition is a significant part of successful campaigning. Every election season, millions of dollars is spent on yardsigns and billboards for the sole purpose of getting the public familiar with a candidate's name. Few methods, however, are more effective or cost efficient than sending mailings to constituents explaining how much you’ve done for them (read: letting them know what "pork projects" you’ve brought back home).

For much of our country’s history, mailings may have been one of the few means of mass communication available to members of Congress. But with the advent of technology, legislators now have a new means keeping their constituents informed that is cheaper, fairer, and more effective: starting a blog.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recently remarked that 'this country would be much better off if we did not have capital punishment," and claimed that while he believed the death penalty is constitutional it’s 'an unfortunate part of our judicial system." The comment sparked Joshua Davey to reconsider his own feelings on the matter:

I don’t believe either of the commonly asserted justifications for criminal punishment supports the use of the death penalty. To take the utilitarian view first, I would argue that capital punishment is an ineffective deterrent. I don’t have specific numbers to back this contention; in any case I doubt statistics on this issue will ever be conclusive. Secondly, I don’t think capital punishment is necessary to segregate wrongdoers and thereby protect society. A prison and a life sentence can take care of that. Third, I think the prospects for rehabilitation of capital offenders are rather slim, and in any case, capital punishment certainly forecloses whatever possibilities there might otherwise be. Indeed, the utilitarian theory of punishment would seem to suggest that capital punishment is a bad idea. It is more costly than lifelong incarceration (so I’ve heard, again I don’t have stats, so someone can correct me if I’m wrong). It consumes valuable judicial resources. The risk of error is unacceptably high, and disproportionately shouldered by certain groups.

I don’t believe that the retributive rationale for punishment necessitates the death penalty either. I don’t disagree with the retributivists—I do believe we should punish capital offenders severely, not just because it is good for society, but because what they have done is wrong. But why is the death penalty necessary to accomplish this? It seems to me that life imprisonment is sufficient punishment.

Davey does a fair job of laying out the three primary justifications given for the death penalty -- deterrence, protection of society, and retribution. While he doesn’t go into details, he’s intelligent and thoughtful enough that I have no doubt he could make a damning case against each of these reasons. On the whole, I have to agree with his assessment, though I’d add a few points of clarification.

The brutal execution of Nick Berg has raised the question of whether the media, particularly CBS News, is partially culpable for his death. Numerous critics, including Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly, believe the prison abuse story could have been covered without releasing the photos of the prisoners. Jonah Goldberg even goes so far as to claim, “The revelation of those humiliating pictures and the political opportunities they created lead to Berg's beheading.”

Although CBS News was the first to break the story and show the photos, the network made the surprising decision not to air the video of Berg’s death.* The official explanation given by corporate officials for not broadcasting the clip in its entirety was that it would violate FCC regulations against indecency. But this excuse rings hollow considering what CBS has shown in the past.

As RatherBiased points out, CBS News already has a precedent of showing such images. During the Vietnam War, the network aired graphic pictures of a U.S. allied South Vietnamese soldier shooting a Vietcong officer in the head. The report even included a play-by-play narration by one of its correspondents.

CBS News hesitancy to air the footage is also peculiar considering they would likely not have had the same qualms about videotaping the incident.

Last Sunday, Arizona Senator John McCain appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss the Iraqi prison abuse scandal. Sen. McCain rightly pointed out that it was the Senate’s responsibility “to find out what happened, to examine this whole process that led us to this shameful moment in America's history, and to make sure that actions are taken quickly so that we can move forward…” Unfortunately, though, his next statement would makes a mockery of the very responsibility he claimed:

Look, one thing I know about scandals: They go on and on and on until the American people feel they have a full and complete picture of what happened. And to hold back these pictures, or to hold back the videos and only show them to members of Congress or something like that, first, is foolish, because they'll leak out, but second of all, it is sending the wrong signal.

For now let’s set aside the shockingly ridiculous notion that since classified information will eventually “leak out” Congress should just make it public. Instead, let's focus on the main question this statement raises: What is the “wrong signal” that McCain thinks we are sending by not making the photos public? That we respect prisoner’s rights? That we understand Muslim culture? That we value not only the letter of the law but also the spirit of the Geneva Convention Rules?

As a former prisoner of war himself, McCain should be thoroughly familiar with the Geneva Convention. Yet by calling for the release of the photos and videos he shows a blatant disregard for the document. McCain should reread the last section of Article 13:

Looking for the revolutionaries in the Bush Administration? Forget Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz. The real radicals nowadays aren’t the “neoconservatives” but the obscure economists Slate writer Daniel Altman calls the “neoconomists”:

The neoconomists have one goal: to increase the rate at which the economy grows by changing how the nation uses its resources. It is a worthy goal, too. Following such as path could lead to a period of untold prosperity, with living standards rising faster than ever before. Or it might not. But even if the plan works, it might just lead to the collapse of the capitalist system.

While that last sentence is a bit of overheated hyperbole, Altman presents an interesting article on the ideas of two “neoconomists” -- R. Glenn Hubbard (former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers) and Lawrence B. Lindsey (former chairman of the National Economic Council).

According to Altman, Hubbard and Lindsey’s main contention is that income from savings and wealth is not only taxed too much but that reducing this burden will lead to faster economic growth. Since the rate of technological change is dependant on the available pool of capital, the more investors save the faster innovations can occur. The idea gained empirical credence in the 1990s as technology brought not only increases in productivity but a large expansion in the overall economy.

The policy implications for this model is that it will lead to the following chain reaction:

Education is often claimed to be a top priority of our country. There is no shortage of politicians, policy wonks, and NEA lobbyists who are more than willing to share the secret on how to “save our schools.” Yet no matter what methods are tried or which policies are implemented, our children fall further behind the rest of the developed world. What can we do to turn the tide of decline?

The answer may come from a surprising location:

Imagine an educational system where children do not start school until they are 7, where spending is a paltry $5,000 a year per student, where there are no gifted programs and class sizes often approach 30. A prescription for failure, no doubt, in the eyes of many experts, but in this case a description of Finnish schools, which were recently ranked the world's best.

What accounts for the success of Finland’s school system?

If one trait sets Finland apart from many other countries, it is the quality and social standing of its teachers, said Barry Macgaw, the director for education at the O.E.C.D.

All teachers in Finland must have at least a master's degree, and while they are no better paid than teachers in other countries, the profession is highly respected. Many more people want to become teachers after graduating from upper schools than universities can actually handle, so the vast majority are turned down.[emphasis added]

Consider for a moment what would happen if American universities had to turn away education majors. Imagine the changes that would occur in our society if the supply of high-caliber teachers exceeded the demand. The increase in the quality of education would likely spark a new American Renaissance.

The formula for success seems not only straightforward and simple but also easily obtained. All that we would need is to raise the prestige of the teaching profession, right?

Well, not exactly.

In 1940, the German military caused a global outrage by invading France. Sixty-four years later, the international community is once again scandalized by the actions of German troops. This time, though, it’s because the Germans are acting like Frenchmen:

German troops serving with the Kfor international peacekeeping contingent in Kosovo have been accused of hiding in barracks "like frightened rabbits" during the inter-ethnic rioting that erupted in the province in March.

A hard-hitting German police report sent to the Berlin government last week criticises the troops for cowardice and for their failure to quell the rioting in which 19 people died and about 900 others were injured.

What would cause the once militaristic Germans to cower in their barracks? Maybe it’s a symptom of over forty years of European appeasement. Perhaps the acts of cowardice are a result of the moral relativism or the existential angst on the Continent. Or, maybe they just stayed in the kaserne because they were busy with, er, other things.

'Imagination," said the French critic Jules de Gaultier, 'is the one weapon in the war against reality." But what about when was is your reality? Then, I believe, imaginative literature becomes the one best weapon. That is why I’ve decided to compile a reading list of books to take as I equip to go to Iraq.

My greatest fear as I prepare to deploy is not the rocket attacks or convoy ambushes. Whether due to trust in divine providence or, more likely, a Panglossian naiveté, my biggest worry is simply that I'll be incessantly bored. That may change, of course, when my newbie enthusiasm is doused by the cold waters of experience. Whatever the circumstances, boredom will no doubt be a problem, so I plan to prepare the best I can.

I’ve decided to catch up on my reading of the 'classics', particularly works of imaginative literature. Like Robert Tagorda, I tend to be drawn toward nonfiction, especially works of philosophy. Such tomes, however, are often as dry and dusty as the Iraqi desert. Under the circumstances, philosophy is not the most ideal choice. Besides, there’s something slightly romantic, slightly Kiplingesque about reading great works of fiction while just a stone’s throw (or at least an artillery strike) from the Euphrates river. It also doesn’t hurt that the books are often cheap, easy to find, and can fit easily into my seabag.

The only problem is deciding which to choose from. While there are numerous lists and canons, I thought a good starting point would be this meme that has been floating around the blogosphere of a 101 literary classics [the books that I‘ve read are in bold]: