Backpedaling John Paul II
Following are excerpts from words of the late Pope John Paul II that were recently described by Cardinal Schonborn, archbishop of Vienna, as “vague and unimportant:” “we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science” “I am pleased with the first theme you [Pontifical Academy of Sciences] have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church” “research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance.” “In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact.” “my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith” “It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences” “new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.” “A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts” “Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.”
Do these messages strike you as “vague and unimportant?”
07.09.05 @ 09:21 PM EDT [link]

Feature of the Week
The London bombings would seem to hit close to home, considering my daily commute to NYC via trains and subways. In addition, the company I work for has especially close ties between the NY and London offices, such that members of my immediate work group are London-based. While one might think this would make me skittish, the opposite is true. The reason can be found in a journal entry from almost two years ago: October 9, 2003 My War on “War”.
07.08.05 @ 10:33 PM EDT [link]

DC Irony Eruption!
I seem to have a hyperactive sensitivity to irony. I’m not sure whether I was born with it or acquired it via professional experience. It is true that I’m in one of those professions where tiny inconsistencies can blow up into painful fiascoes, and what is irony if not sensitivity to inconsistency? This is the reason that irony deficiency is a native characteristic of right-wingers. If they had any sensitivity to inconsistency at all, they couldn’t be who they are! The big question is whether people drift off into the right wing because they have a natural inability to recognize inconsistency and thus have nothing to arrest a human being’s natural attraction to simplistic solutions, or do they become hardened to inconsistency having first reached simplicity? A point to ponder. In any case, we also have to recognize that there’s a bit more to irony than mere inconsistency. Irony has a certain artistic or poetic quality to it. The best ironies are those that are just too amazing to be believed, Murphy’s Law materialized into the real world for all to see. A perfect case in point is the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Everything about this episode screams irony! She’s going to jail to protect Bush Administration lowlifes who likely won’t be going to jail. The case involves protection of confidential sources, a legal privilege provided by the overwhelming majority of states but not the federal government. The unmasked CIA operative was at the end of her covert career and was operating at that point virtually identically to the tens of thousands of DC-based CIA employees that show up at the Langley headquarters every workday. The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, already has access to ample alternative sources. Then consider that she never even wrote a story on it! Even in the face of all of this, the prosecutor seems obsessed with jailing Miller. For example, he expressed a strong preference for the overcrowded DC jail rather than the Danbury federal facility, saying “Certainly one who can cover the desert in wartime is far better equipped than the average person jailed in a federal facility.” In other words, she deserves tougher treatment because she’s shown willingness, in volunteering to cover the war in Iraq, to subject herself to hardship for her profession. Now that’s irony! In any case, let me express my personal admiration to Ms. Miller for the tremendous example she is setting by adhering to principle even in the face of the enormous irony of the situation. It reminds me of a story that Douglas MacArthur told of his West Point career. As a plebe he was physically hazed to the point of collapse. The Tactical Department demanded the names of the offenders, names MacArthur refused to divulge on principle. This brings up the final and most glaring irony of all, that Miller’s willingness to forfeit her freedom on a matter of principle has been just about the only principled act to be found in the news so far this year!
07.07.05 @ 08:06 PM EDT [link]

Ben Gets Grilled
News item: Conservative advocacy group Progress for America has posted an internet ad with a fake newscast saying that Democrats would oppose a Bush nominee for Supreme Court even if it he named Benjamin Franklin. Setting: Senate hearing room. “This hearing is called to order. Today questioning of the nominee, Mr. Franklin, will be conducted by the majority senators from this committee. The chair recognizes the Senior Senator from Mississippi.” “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Franklin, I understand that you write under a pseudonym, ‘Poor Richard.’ Is this some kind of comment on class warfare?” “The poor have little, Beggars none; The rich too much, Enough not one.” “I’ll take that as a yes. Tell me, Mr. Franklin, what are your views on the Patriot Act?” “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” “That’s a pretty strong statement! Do you have similar concerns for the War in Iraq?” “There was never a good war or a bad peace.” Surely there must be some topic on which you agree with the President. Environmental policy perhaps? “When the well's dry, we know the worth of water.” “Apparently not. OK, let’s try something else. Don’t you think there’s been too much focus on supposed ethics violations and campaign spending limits?” “He that lieth down with Dogs, shall rise up with Fleas.” “How about a stronger role in government for religion?” “What is serving God? Tis doing Good to Man.” “So you don’t believe in the importance of promoting right values?” “To be proud of virtue, is to poison yourself with the Antidote.” “We seem to have some real differences on the importance of cultural values. Tell me, what is your position on substance abuse?” “Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” “Mr. Franklin, never in my experience has a nominee expressed ideals so opposed to the traditional values on which this country was founded!” “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.” “Mr. Franklin, you are trying the patience of this Committee. I’ll ask one final question that takes us to the heart of the issue at hand. Do you believe that the Constitution is a fixed document that must always be strictly interpreted according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers? “Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in the world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.”
07.06.05 @ 08:11 PM EDT [link]

First Con’s New Private Accounts
GOP legislators have come up with a highly creative way to offer private social security requirement accounts while managing to avoid at least the appearance of touching the “third rail” issues of Social Security, i.e., 1) cutting benefits or 2) “carving out” money being paid to current retirees. The proposed accounts are funded not from new taxes or new borrowing (as would have been required under previous proposals) but by re-raiding the temporary surplus in payments to the Social Security Trust Fund. Re-raiding is the correct term because these payments are already being raided to fund current government operations, thereby making the deficit look hundreds of millions less than it really is. The new plan calls for payment into these accounts to stop once this surplus ceases, creating a weird and historically unique retirement funding mechanism. Presumably the GOP hopes to create enough momentum to ensure that owners of the stalled private accounts demand some kind of permanent funding mechanism. Remembering that financial institutions (and not just governments) provide for retirement benefits, what would it look like if a bank offered an account like this? Scene: A private banking account manager is speaking with one of his high net worth couples. “Thanks for coming by, Dick and Lynne. I’m pleased that you’re the first to hear about First Consolidated Bank’s new retirement account for our preferred private banking customers. First Con is always looking for ways to reward people like you; we think of our private banking clients as the foundation, indeed the very Base of our enterprise. Anyway, the geniuses in Product Development have come up with something that you’re going to love. The new accounts are funded from payroll contributions that would normally be paid to customers who will be retiring before you. I know it doesn’t sound kosher but Legal came up with a creative way to make it work. It involves borrowing against money that is already being borrowed against to run the bank. You don’t want to know the details! The bottom line is that when all that borrowing comes due - after the current bank management, including moi, is outtahere - our preferred customers with the private accounts will be locked in for their money, while the rest of the schmucks will be standing in line. So whadya think?” “Sounds like a no-brainer. Sign us up!” “I knew you guys would get the picture! Think of it as just one more way that First Con looks out for its special people!”
07.05.05 @ 08:14 PM EDT [link]

George’s New Ride
(Scene: Karl’s Used Cars, Fall 2001) “Yo, Car-Karl! How they hanging?” “Hello, George. Good to see you back on the lot. You lookin’ for a new vehicle?” “Ubetcha, old buddy.” “Anything wrong with the last vehicle I sold you, George? It was a Uniter, right?” “Well, Karl, the Uniter was a fine vehicle. It certainly got me where I wanted to go last year, but times have changed. I need something more powerful, something I can ride longer, say four more years. I’ve got some big plans that require a vehicle that lets me roll over any obstacle.” “Sounds like you need some kind of All Terrain Vehicle, George. What sort of plans, if you don’t mind me asking?” “Well, Karl, I’ve got some unfinished family business to take care of, back from when Dad was in charge. I’ll need something that will get me into the desert. Also, I’m a little PO’d about what the competition is saying about me. I want a ride that’s so intimidating it’ll really shut them up! It has to be so formidable that when customers see me doing some hard driving, they’ll just have to say ‘He da man!’ and sign up to be serviced for years to come.” “What price range are you thinking about, George.” “The sky’s the limit, Karl! I’ve lined up an unlimited line of credit with First Bank of China, and I’ve got some friends with very deep pockets, so I’m ready to spend whatever it takes to keep the franchise going!” “George, you’re in luck! I’ve got just the vehicle for you. It’s the new 9/11 from Hummer. Here it is over here.” “Whoa, Karl, that’s one amazing vehicle! Something like this sure doesn’t come around very often!” “Actually, George, we think the 9/11 is a truly unique vehicle, the very first in its class. It will give you options that no other vehicle has ever provided. Note the special bumpers. They’ll let you crash through barriers that stop cold vehicles like, say, your Dad’s. The marketing guys call it ‘convention breaking.’ Even if you take a route that’s real torture, you’ll ride in comfort high above it all. Look at these windows. They’re made of a special rose-tinted glass. Wherever you travel, they filter out distracting perspectives. It’ll look like everyone you’re driving by is cheering. It’ll be great for helping to stay the course no matter how rocky the road is! Lots of cargo space for those pet projects of yours, George. I heard you’ve been working with Doc Frist to get First Evangelical’s Ten Commandments monument over to the courthouse where more people can see it. The 9/11 is just the vehicle for the job. Ten tons in the bed won’t even slow it down!” “Sounds great, Karl. What colors does it come in?” “Red, white, blue, or three-tone.” “Definitely the three tone, Car-Karl. I want to be as visible with my 9/11 as possible. With any luck, it’ll still be wowing them in 2005!”
07.04.05 @ 07:50 PM EDT [link]

Doonesbury Celebrates Barriers to Entry!
Garry Trudeau is apparently worried about losing mindshare to bloggers, if today’s Doonesbury is any indication. He characterizes bloggers as cat food eaters (huh?) who are “angry, semi-employed losers who are too untalented or too lazy to get real jobs in journalism.” Like all of the entrenched interests throughout history who have taken swipes at upstarts, he’s probably thinking his paycheck will take a hit if the new channel for opinion and entertainment that is blogging should gain too much popularity. I have a somewhat different take on this issue, as you might imagine. Up until now the only sources for opinions on politics were from politicians, journalists, and comedians. Of these three professions, the most credible - judged by book sales and media visibility - are apparently the comedians! For example, the two best-selling political books over the last year were by Jon Stewart and Al Franken. In addition, Jon Stewart was named as one of Time’s 100 most influential people, and Al Franken has become a fixture on news programs. And Doonesbury, as a comic feature, is clearly more rooted in the “comedy” camp than the “journalism” camp. So how well does being a comedian qualify one to be a credible source on politics in comparison to having some other background, say mine? The issue is how a blogger kind of person’s random experience (with me representing our glorious ilk) compares to the comedian kind of random experience. Let’s look at some of the issues in the news: war, cooked intelligence, and retirement planning (AKA social security). What is my background with each of these? I was an Army Captain during wartime. I was a company commander of a combat engineer Army outfit. I worked for America’s most powerful intelligence organization. I’ve overseen the development of large retirement programs in corporate and government settings. I thus have something of substance to say on these topics. And by contrast, how is a comedian (a cartoonist, for example?) specially qualified to speak to these issues? Well...? Maybe because he has more time to read the papers? Heretofore, the only way for me to add to the national dialogue was to run for office or work my way up through the stand-up ranks. Or, as Trudeau suggests, working my way up as a reporter by covering “Salsa Night in Flemington,” an article in today’s local paper. These are the only ways to be paid for one’s opinion, Trudeau’s indispensable test of credibility. I find none of these jobs particularly appealing or relevant in comparison to the career I’ve actually had. But thanks to the miracle of TCP/IP and the Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) I have the opportunity to express an informed opinion even if it doesn’t, for the first time in history, enrich the coffers of a media mogul. Maybe the web really does change everything!
07.03.05 @ 09:00 PM EDT [link]