This Flag Dips to No Earthly King

A few weeks ago I was at a ball game between Edmonton and Sacramento. Two flags flew over the stadium, and two anthems were sung at the beginning of the games. During the singing of the Canadian, several Americans removed their hats, holding them over their hearts for the anthem. I guess I'm a bigot, but it just seemed wrong for Americans to show such a symbol of deference to a foreign flag. Sure, you're supposed to stand at respectful attention, but I was told you don't put your hand over your heart for any flag but your own (when "you" happen to be an American, at least). Removing hats seems like it'd be fine, but I wouldn't have thought it necessary for civilians. I wasn't alone in this feeling, but obviously the refusal to "salute" foreign flags isn't a universal thing.

Tonight I've been researching American "flag arrogance" to see whether this is a cultural "supersition" or a bona fide tradition.

The first instance is the 1908 Olympic games, which inaugurated both the march of flags, and the refusal of Americans to dip their flag for foreign leaders. A number of versions of this story seem to be floating around. In some accounts, it was Martin Sheridan who argued "this flag dips to no earthly king." Other accounts seem to argue that it was Ralph Rose.

Consulting the official flag code, we find that the following standards of respect are due to the flag 36 USC 10 §176:

• the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing
  
• The flag should never be displayed with the union down
  
• The flag should never touch anything beneath it
  
• The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally
  
• The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery
  
• The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way
  
• The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling (whoops!)
  
• The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature
  
• The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything
  
• The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever
  
• No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.
  
• The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning

But no word on how to treat foreign flags there. There are rules for treating the American flag during the playing of the anthem (36 USC I.A.3 §301(b)(1):

• all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart
  
• men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart

So, there's nothing there arguing that one should take one's hat off for a foreign flag...

But there is some argument that these things SHOULD matter. I mean, the Queen of England apparently has never sung a foreign anthem before September 11, 2001. If the NRO is to be believed...

This is a softball site which only stipulates that it is custom to pay the foreign anthem first.

Ironically, I keep googling up CANADIAN protocols regarding placing one's hand over one's heart druing foreign anthems. Finding one that I can trace to the actual US government (rather than possible web propagation) is proving harder.

I have found the following section of the US Code

When not in uniform, men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Aliens should stand at attention.

It doesn't specifically indicate that aliens should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder...

Here's something from the US Army

The organizational Color salutes (dips) in all military ceremonies while the National Anthem, "To the Color," or a foreign national anthem is being played, and when rendering honors to the organizational commander or an individual of higher grade including foreign dignitaries of higher grade, but in no other case.

This is an interesting little Canadian discussion:

That's a thing that's always bugged me though. I don't care if you don't sing to a foreign national anthem, but booing it is the utmost disrespectful thing you could do. In my humble (and slightly intoxicated) opinion. And for the record, there's other national anthems that almost bring me to tears, but I'm not going to tell you any more.

Aha... Here we go...

Q. When do you salute?
A. When the National Anthem, To the Colors, Ruffles and Flourishes, or Hail to the Chief is played; when uncased National Colors or Standards pass by; on ceremonial occasions; in all official greetings; at Reveille (when in sight of the colors or the sound of the music); during the rendering of the honors; when passing uncased colors outside; when reporting to an officer; and when you meet and recognize an officer or warrant officer. Also the National Anthem of other countries and foreign officers are saluted.

Q. What should you do when the National Anthem of a foreign country is played?
A. If outdoors, render the hand salute; indoors, stand at attention.

So, none of this answers the real question. Should a civilian remove one's hat and place one's hand over one's heart during the playing of a foreign national anthem?

The answer appears to be, "if he wants to."

Not, "yes, he should."

But I'm open to more data. I may have taken the wrong tack...

In retrospect, I'm feeling like I probably should have removed my hat...

How cute...

William Safire has an opinion in the NY Times today.

His article is based upon a Financial Times article alleging that Iraq may have been in business with Niger for uranium prior to the discovery of forged documents upon which the Bush Administration based its claim that Iraq was pursuing yellowcake uranium.

The headline asserts: "Intelligence backs claim Iraq tried to buy uranium"

Oddly, both Safire and the headline writer seem to miss that the article's allegation is that: "uranium smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq."

A legalistic quibble? Not when one considers the article's caveat: "the European investigation suggested that it was the smugglers who were actively looking for markets, though it was unclear how far the deals had progressed and whether deliveries of uranium were made."

So, we know that there were uranium smugglers in Niger who were trying to peddle yellowcake to states on the black market. Surprise, surprise, they considered Iraq among the states which might be a potential client. We also don't know whether or not Iraq tried to buy said uranium, and in fact, the article claims that this is NOT known. (One might think all this inconclusiveness might have something to do with Iraqi wariness... after all, if they had done a deal with this group (who we were allegedly watching), wouldn't Iraq have given an instant casus belli to our intelligence services?)

With the kind of scrupulousness one would expect from a person trying to truck in bogus facts, Safire draws the conclusion:

Was Iraq, like Iran and Libya, in the secret market for atomic material? This article does not yet prove it, but neither does the falsity of some of the data prove the opposite. A safe bet for thee and me is to dispense with certitude

In the end, I'd agree with him. The safe bet is to dispense with certitude, and thus adopt the skeptic's standard - until proof is provided that Saddam TRIED TO BUY URANIUM, there is no reason to believe that he did.

Fahrenheit 9/11

I saw Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 last night.

I found myself judging this movie by a very different set of criteria than I would apply to an ordinary movie. In the case of most movies, the pre-eminent question I keep at the top of my mind is "Is it entertaining?" With documentaries, this question is usually still critical, but a second question also gets consideration - "is it informative?"

The criteria I found myself applying to this movie were similar, but the difference strikes me as critical. At almost every frame I found myself wondering, "is this movie persuasive?"

In various quarters, Fahrenheit 9/11 has been described as a piece of pure propaganda. The more accurate term, however, might be "polemic."

This movie is an argument. It doesn't advance any particularly new information, nor does it lapse into the worst kinds of conspiratorialism which mark the famous "paranoiac style" of American politics.

If you don't really share Michael Moore's politics, and I don't, then watching his movies can be a little aggravating. In Bowling for Columbine, Moore played incredibly fast and loose with the facts. The speed of the cinematic form allows him to assert connections between logically incompatible facts which would leap off the written page as egregious erros. And of course, when Moore ambushes Charlton Heston in his own home with the photo of a dead child, he might as well be an abortion protester waving jars of fetus. That kind of argument only works if you already share the preconceptions of moral accountability and causality that Moore holds.

In evaluating Fahrenheit 9/11 as a work of polemic, I need to judge it on two major fronts. First, is it really a message I can endorse? Does it convince me? Secondly, if so, is it a message that I think others would find persuasive?

On the first count, I'd have to give it a limited "yes." Sure, there are moments of the film that are ridiculous. As the war of Iraq is about to begin, Moore provides us with a laughably propagandistic montage of children frolicking in Baghdad, as though the lion were lying with the lamb along the shores of Tigris before Americans brought the poison fruit of war to New Eden. Given the problems of starvation and poverty and violence with which Iraq was already beset, such a portrayal, though not untrue, is obviously selective. I'm sure there are even today still playgrounds used by children in Baghdad. In another moment, Michael Moore heads down to Congress to try and get congresspersons to enlist their sons in the military. At that moment, you might as well be watching Death of a Salesman, as Moore humiliates himself, painfully and apparently obliviously.

Nevertheless, the movie is ultimately rather cautious. Moore presents the history of the last few years through the point of view of the various defense and counterterrorism officials who have fled the Bush Administration in recent years with loud protests about the insanity of its strategic choices. I'm not sure that Mooore sincerely believes that the problem with our invasion of Afghanistan is that it was undermanned and incomplete. But I believe it. Even if his liberal militarism is a little late to find its voice, the argument is persuasive, and happens to coincide with what I have long believed.

There's a lot of discussion of the Bush family's connections with the Bin Laden family and the Saudi Arabian monarchy which... well, it's the classic conspiratorial appetizer of red herring... Yet, I can't state that Moore overplays his hand on this. Was Unocal interested in building a pipeline across Afghanistan? Well, yes... Have they? No. Did Hamid Karzai work for Unocal? Well, yes... but he was also already a prominent Afghani dissident exile, long before he found himself on the payroll of a company interested in doing business in his homeland (not a shock, considering)... Most of the facts laid out in that section struck me as incomplete, but not as specifically misleading. There is room for outrage, I suppose, if one takes the line that people are too stupid to avoid making inferences that should be obviously unsupported by the facts. But I don't take that line. The question I face is not whether a wrong-headed argument might be implied, but whether one is advanced through actual lies or misinformation. I'd have to say that Moore walks this line very closely, and I might be mistaken, but at least on areas with which I'm familiar, he didn't betray the facts.

On the second point, "would I recommend it?", I have to say that the answer is yes. If the movie was flat out deceitful, I'd have to say no. I'm a bit of a political junkie, and I know that most people don't spend so many hours of their day reading news and monitoring statistics. For the most part the movie takes commonly known and non-controversial facts - there was a contested election, and a war in Afghanistan, and then one in Iraq - and weaves a polemical narrative out of them which is at least compelling. The images are compelling and candid, the argument is sincere and comprehensible, and I think the film is likely to change your thinking, even if it doesn't bring you exactly round to Michael Moore's point of view (or even change your position).

I recommend it. If you tend to agree with Moore's point-of-view, or even have any broad critique of Bush's Administration, you'll find new information there to support or challenge your hypothesis. And, if you somehow are both pro-Bush and reading my blog (go figure)... well, any good apologetics has to be rooted in the other side's critique... and Moore's film, though it may not be the most intellectually coherent critique of the Bush administration, is at least one of the more articulate of them...

Patrick

Patrick was an incontestably bright man. Sure, maybe not a Manhattan Project genius. But he was smart enough for his life and smart enough for his job. His brains had brought him easily to the peak of his ambition. He worked in some managerial capacity at a large firm’s headquarters for fifteen years, then worked five more as a quasi-executive. There really was no discontent anywhere with the quality of Patrick’s mind. He was smart enough which is smarter than most will ever be.

OK, maybe the idiots up the org chart weren’t so bright as he. Maybe he wasn’t making himself as clear as he should when advising them of approaching folly. It’s not that the company was rocketing downwards in a free-fall crash. It was simply getting by when it had the means and materials to get ahead. With more years of experience he would make himself clearer and earn a reputation for rightness in hindsight. With growing influence, Patrick would save his company the jostles that his wisdom was ample to avert. Besides, let’s not kid. Self-certainty is a universal trait, and the follies he saw were obscuring the ones of which others were aware. Why force himself too resolutely where his help could just as likely prove a hindrance? Patrick was content with where he was, and prepared to rest awhile in a state of occupational stasis.

At home he’d done a decent job. The kids were grown and out the door, both off enjoying college. He and his wife had kept a home, comfortably and wisely together. They were on friendly terms with their neighbors, active with their church, little leaders in local affairs. The finances were solid, the outlooks were good.

Patrick had reached that phase in a certain class of man’s life, where he realizes he’s done it too soon… accomplished as much as a man can hope for in the fullness of life – a successful career, beautiful adult children, a bountiful home… before even half the decades are necessarily through. This is a strange moment in a man’s life, and it is foolish to guess in advance how any given man might behave within the thick of it.

Patrick ended up in politics.

Now, I confess that this may sound nowhere near as sexy as a Corvette or half so funny as a toupee. But you could just as easily state that Patrick ended “up in politics.” You see, that’s where Patrick ceased to be. Right there, where you see him on the top of this year’s ticket. That Patrick… Patrick Green for President. He’s the one that’s gone.

Oh, now you think I’m crazy. You want to know how some “crazy” guy is going to explain his way from the mid-life crisis of your average suburbanite executive manager to the presence of a zombified corpse of that same man running for President in this year’s election.

What if I said that it involved a hunchbacked prophet sleeping in the back of a bar in Chinatown?

If I had a ghostwriter, I would sell it to Hollywood you cynical fuck!

Excuse me? What’s that? You want to know how it happened? You’re not fucking with me? Because if you’re just going to storm out of here the moment the telling gets strange like this last guy did, then I don’t want to bother at all. I want people to KNOW the truth, not to waste it on the ones with their fingers in their ears.

Weekly Horse Race

According to the gamblers, this hasn't been a good week for George W. Bush's electoral prospects. This isn't because the oddsmakers maps have shifted decisively against him. After a brief flirtation with prices below fifty, Ohio has been trading at the upper range of the weak Bush terrain (59). New Mexico is currently trading at exactly 50, so I've deducted it from either side's tally. The bad news for Bush is that his aggregate rankings have begun to drop. Since I started tracking this stuff over a month ago, his total number of points has tended to hover around 3000 (that's a sum of his percent chance across all 50 states). This number had been remarkably stable, but recently the prices of states across the board have dropped by several points. Several strong southern states (Virginia) are now trading in the 80s and several borderline states (Michigan, et al.) are now trading in the thirties. This would indicate that Kerry may be tightening his grip on Democrat leaning states while Bush is losing his grip on safe Republican states.

Tradesports

Strong Bush (60+%) = 244 Weak Bush (50-60%) = 34
Strong Kerry (40-%) = 217 Weak Kerry (40-50%) = 38

Bush v. Kerry = 278 - 255

According to the polls, it is John Kerry's support which appears to be softening. An interesting development is that the averaged poll results for Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia come out to an exact tie, leaving a chunk of 46 electoral votes up in the air. To reflect this, I've colored in the "obvious states" that haven't been polled yet (Alaska, Hawaii) etc. Intuition would tell me that, of the remaining "soft states" it's Bush's which would seem weaker (New Jersey, New Mexico, Wisconsin) than Kerry's. But of course, this election isn't being fought intuitively. The map below shows a Bush victory, and in order to break that lock, we'd need to see some movement in New Jersey, Wisconsin, or Florida.

Averaged Polls

Strong Bush (+5%) = 199 Weak Bush (<5%) = 80
Strong Kerry (+5%) = 164 Weak Kerry (<5%) = 49
Exactly Even = 46

Bush v. Kerry = 279 - 213

Chaim Rumkowski

I don't have much to say at present. I've been haunted by Chaim Rumkowski ever since I learned of his existence. Below is a transcript of his speech which I have taken from this website. I replicate it here for my own personal reference, and the possible edification of any person who might read it.

September 4, 1942. Lodz, Poland

A grievous blow has struck the ghetto. They are asking us to give up the best we possess - the children and the elderly. I was unworthy of having a child of my own, so I gave the best years of my life to children. I've lived and breathed with children, I never imagined I would be forced to deliver this sacrifice to the altar with my own hands. In my old age, I must stretch out my hands and beg: Brothers and sisters! Hand them over to me! Fathers and mothers: Give me your children!

I had a suspicion something was going to befall us. I anticipated "something" and was always like a watchman: on guard to prevent it. But I was unsuccessful because I did not know what was threatening us. The taking of the sick from the hospitals caught me completely by surprise. And I give you the best proof there is of this: I had my own nearest and dearest among them and I could do nothing for them! I thought that would be the end of it, that after that, they'd leave us in peace, the peace for which I long so much, for which I've always worked, which has been my goal. But something else, it turned out, was destined for us. Such is the fate of the Jews: always more suffering and always worse suffering, especially in times of war.

Yesterday afternoon, they gave me the order to send more than 20,000 Jews out of the ghetto, and if not - "We will do it!". So the question became, 'Should we take it upon ourselves, do it ourselves, or leave it to others to do?". Well, we - that is, I and my closest associates - thought first not about "How many will perish?" but "How many is it possible to save?" And we reached the conclusion that, however hard it would be for us, we should take the implementation of this order into our own hands.

I must perform this difficult and bloody operation - I must cut off limbs in order to save the body itself. I must take children because, if not, others may be taken as well - God forbid.

I have no thought of consoling you today. Nor do I wish to calm you. I must lay bare your full anguish and pain. I come to you like a bandit, to take from you what you treasure most in your hearts! I have tried, using every possible means, to get the order revoked. I tried - when that proved to be impossible - to soften the order. Just yesterday, I ordered a list of children aged 9 - I wanted at least to save this one aged-group: the nine to 10 year olds. But I was not granted this concession. On only one point did I succeed: in saving the 10 year olds and up. Let this be a consolation to our profound grief.

There are, in the ghetto, many patients who can expect to live only a few days more, maybe a few weeks. I don't know if the idea is diabolical or not, but I must say it: "Give me the sick. In their place we can save the healthy."

I know how dear the sick are to any family, and particularly to Jews. However, when cruel demands are made, one has to weigh and measure: who shall, can and may be saved? And common sense dictates that the saved must be those who can be saved and those who have a chance of being rescued, not those who cannot be saved in any case...

We live in the ghetto, mind you. We live with so much restriction that we do not have enough even for the healthy, let alone for the sick. Each of us feeds the sick at the expense of our own health: we give our bread to the sick. We give them our meager ration of sugar, our little piece of meat. And what's the result? Not enough to cure the sick, and we ourselves become ill. Of course, such sacrifices are the most beautiful and noble. But there are times when one has to choose: sacrifice the sick, who haven't the slightest chance of recovery and who also may make others ill, or rescue the healthy.
I could not deliberate over this problem for long; I had to resolve it in favor of the healthy. In this spirit, I gave the appropriate instructions to the doctors, and they will be expected to deliver all incurable patients, so that the healthy, who want and are able to live, will be saved in their place.

I understand you, mothers; I see your tears, alright. I also feel what you feel in your hearts, you fathers who will have to go to work in the morning after your children have been taken from you, when just yesterday you were playing with your dear little ones. All this I know and feel. Since 4 o'clock yesterday, when I first found out about the order, I have been utterly broken. I share your pain. I suffer because of your anguish, and I don't know how I'll survive this - where I'll find the strength to do so.

I must tell you a secret: they requested 24,000 victims, 3000 a day for eight days. I succeeded in reducing the number to 20,000, but only on the condition that these be children under the age of 10. Children 10 and older are safe! Since the children and the aged together equals only some 13,000 souls, the gap will have to be filled with the sick.

I can barely speak. I am exhausted; I only want to tell you what I am asking of you: Help me carry out this action! I am trembling. I am afraid that others, God forbid, will do it themselves .

A broken Jew stands before you. Do not envy me. This is the most difficult of all orders I have ever had to carry out at any time. I reach out to you with my broken, trembling hands and beg: Give into my hands the victims! So that we can avoid having further victims, and a population of 100,000 Jews can be preserved! So, they promised me: If we deliver our victims by ourselves, there will be peace!!!

(shouts from the crowd about other options....some saying "We will not let the children go alone - we will all go!!!" and such).

These are empty phrases!!! I don't have the strength to argue with you! If the authorities were to arrive, none of you would be shouting!

I understand what it means to tear off a part of the body. Yesterday, I begged on my knees, but it did not work. From small villages with Jewish populations of 7000 to 8000, barely 1000 arrived here. So which is better? What do you want? That 80,000 to 90,000 Jews remain, or God forbid, that the whole population be annihilated?

You may judge as you please; my duty is to preserve the Jews who remain. I do not speak to hot-heads! I speak to your reason and conscience. I have done and will continue doing everything possible to keep arms from appearing in the streets and blood from being shed. The order could not be undone; it could only be reduced.

One needs the heart of a bandit to ask from you what I am asking. But put yourself in my place, think logically, and you'll reach the conclusion that I cannot proceed any other way. The part that can be saved is much larger than the part that must be given away!"

Injustice

A mistrial has been declared in the trial of Gwen Araujo's murderers. The jury allegedly deadlocked on the question of whether the defendants were guilty of first-degree murder - "7 to 5 in favor of convicting Magidson of first-degree murder and 10 to 2 in favor of acquitting both Merel and Cazares of first-degree murder."

Let us briefly review the facts of the case. Magidson and Merel, who both had a sexual relationship with Gwen Araujo... a transgendered teenager (living as a woman, biologically male)... began to suspect she might be male. Upon determining that she was in fact a man, they "the men slapped, punched, kicked, kneed, choked and strangled Araujo in the Merel home in Newark in the early morning hours of Oct. 4, 2002... includ[ing] blows by Merel to the victim's head with a can and a skillet." Then, "the men loaded Araujo's body into the bed of Magidson's pickup truck and drove several hours to the Sierra foothills in El Dorado County. They dug a grave and buried the teen's corpse."

That's a mighty elaborate "crime of passion." A gang of four beating a teenager to death, then driving for hours to bury the body...

But that is precisely why the jury hung. Now, I'm not going to defend Arajuo's behavior. Her relationship with these men was clearly based upon a dishonest representation of herself. No matter how fervently she might have wished to be a "natural-born woman" there were biological "facts on the ground" that would have mattered very much to her partners, and it was wrong to withhold that information.

Is it a transgression so grave that it warrants death at the hands of a miniature mob and a shallow grave in the mountains?

Never in a million years.

The deadlock apparently occurred in the decision of whether the acts amounted to murder in the first degree or the second. Though a finding of second-degree would at least be a measure of justice (albeit one which would have assigned too much blame to the victim), a declaration of deadlock provides none.

Short, and to the point.

I recommend yesterday's Tom Tomorrow.

Data Tables

Please use the sidebar...

Sorry about this. It's just data, not leisure reading. But I highly recommend my little treatise on neoliberalism, at left. "Definitions and Neoliberalism." So click that. Or, if you like to pore over polling data state-by-state, by all means linger a little longer on the tables below...

Double apologies is you're on a low-res monitor and it's messing up the screen...

The following tables have been generated by a macro to summarize the data I'm using to make my maps. I intend to update this post when I do the horse-race maps and just link back to it for the benefit of anyone wishing to analyze the underlying data...

TradeSports Table

LAST UPDATE - 7/23/04 (may be slight discrepancies with daily report on account of newer info)

STATE	BUSH	KERRY
Alabama	96	4	9
Alaska	94	6	3
Arizona	77	23	10
Arkansas	59.9	40.1	6
California	10	90	55
Colorado	78	22	9
Connecticut	7	93	7
Delaware	16	84	3
District of Columbia	0.9	99.1	3
Florida	51	49	27
Georgia	93	7	15
Hawaii	5	95	4
Idaho	95	5	4
Illinois	9	91	21
Indiana	93	7	11
Iowa	36	64	7
Kansas	94	6	6
Kentucky	90	10	8
Louisiana	81	19	9
Maine	25	75	4
Maryland	13	87	10
Massachusetts	4	96	12
Michigan	35	65	17
Minnesota	28	72	10
Mississippi	96	4	6
Missouri	59	41	11
Montana	93	7	3
Nebraska	96	4	5
Nevada	58	42	5
New Hampshire	47	53	4
New Jersey	13.5	86.5	15
New Mexico	41	59	5
New York	6.5	93.5	31
North Carolina	77	23	15
North Dakota	96	4	3
Ohio	54	46	20
Oklahoma	95	5	7
Oregon	38	62	7
Pennsylvania	44	56	21
Rhode Island	5	95	4
South Carolina	91	9	8
South Dakota	95	5	3
Tennessee	81	19	11
Texas	97	3	34
Utah	96	4	5
Vermont	5	95	3
Virginia	80	20	13
Washington	24	76	11
West Virginia	61	39	5
Wisconsin	42	58	10
Wyoming	96	4	3
TOTALS:	274	264

Average of Avail. Popular Surveys

LAST UPDATE - 7/24/04 (may be slight discrepancies with daily report on account of newer info)

STATE	BUSH	KERRY
Alabama	54	37	9
Alaska	56	33	3
Arizona	45	42	10
Arkansas	47	45	6
California	41	49	55
Colorado	48	43	9
Connecticut	34	55	7
Delaware	0	0	3
District of Columbia	0	1	3
Florida	46	47	27
Georgia	51	40	15
Hawaii	0	1	4
Idaho	55	25	4
Illinois	38	53	21
Indiana	49	32	11
Iowa	45	49	7
Kansas	56	37	6
Kentucky	52	39	8
Louisiana	48	42	9
Maine	44	45	4
Maryland	39	53	10
Massachusetts	31	59	12
Michigan	44	48	17
Minnesota	44	49	10
Mississippi	61	30	6
Missouri	46	46	11
Montana	53	33	3
Nebraska	1	0	5
Nevada	48	42	5
New Hampshire	46	48	4
New Jersey	41	50	15
New Mexico	43	50	5
New York	31	55	31
North Carolina	49	43	15
North Dakota	1	0	3
Ohio	46	46	20
Oklahoma	60	34	7
Oregon	43	50	7
Pennsylvania	42	49	21
Rhode Island	25	49	4
South Carolina	51	41	8
South Dakota	51	35	3
Tennessee	50	43	11
Texas	55	37	34
Utah	67	22	5
Vermont	36	51	3
Virginia	49	45	13
Washington	43	49	11
West Virginia	47	44	5
Wisconsin	43	49	10
Wyoming	1	0	3
TOTALS:	216	288

Digest of Averaged Polls

LAST UPDATE - 7/24/04

STATE	Bush (Wiss)	Kerry (Wiss)	Wiss Tot	Bush (DCr)	Kerry (DCr)	DCr Tot	Bush (Ras)	Kerry (Ras)	Ras Tot	Bush (SUSA)	Kerry (SUSA)	SUSA Tot
AL	57	36	9	52	38	9	52	38	9	55	36	9
AK			3	56	33	3			3			3
AZ	41	42	10	41	42	10			10	53	41	10
AR	48	43	6	46.7	44.5	6	45	46	6	49	47	6
CA	41	49	55	38	49	55	38	52	55	45	46	55
CO	48	43	9	48	43	9	49	44	9			9
CT	34	55	7	34	55	7			7			7
DE			3	0	0	3			3			3
DC			3	0	1	3			3			3
FL	48	46	27	48	46	27	43	48	27	44	47	27
GA	51	40	15	51	40	15	52	41	15			15
HI			4	0	1	4			4			4
ID			4	55	25	4			4			4
IL	38	54	21	37	53	21	37	53	21	39	52	21
IN	52	36	11	46	27	11			11			11
IA	46	50	7	45.7	50.4	7	44	48	7	45	48	7
KS	57	39	6	56	36	6			6	56	36	6
KY	52	40	8	52	39	8			8	52	39	8
LA	48	42	9	48	42	9			9			9
ME	41	44	4	45	46	4	45	46	4			4
MD	38	52	10	39	53	10	39	53	10			10
MA	33	58	12	30	59	12	31	60	12			12
MI	45	47	17	45	47	17	44	46	17	41	51	17
MN	45	48	10	45	48	10	41	50	10			10
MS	61	30	6	61.2	30	6			6			6
MO	44	46	11	44	46	11	48	44	11	48	46	11
MT	53	33	3	53	33	3			3			3
NE			5	1	0	5			5			5
NV	49	38	5	45.1	43.3	5			5	49	45	5
NH	46	48	4	46	48	4	45	47	4			4
NJ	41	49	15	41	51	15	41	51	15			15
NM	43	51	5	42.1	49.4	5			5			5
NY	34	57	31	29	51	31	30	58	31			31
NC	49	44	15	49	44	15	49	42	15			15
ND			3	1	0	3			3			3
OH	46	48	20	46	48	20	46	42	20			20
OK	58	34	7	59	35	7	63	31	7	60	34	7
OR	43	50	7	43	50	7	42	50	7			7
PA	39	51	21	39	51	21	43	48	21	46	47	21
RI	25	49	4	25	49	4			4			4
SC	49	39	8	51	44	8	53	36	8	51	44	8
SD	51	35	3	50.1	34.8	3			3			3
TN	52	41	11	47.5	47.5	11	49	41	11	51	41	11
TX	55	38	34	55	37	34	55	37	34			34
UT	67	22	5	67	22	5			5			5
VT	36	51	3	36	51	3			3			3
VI	47	45	13	50	45	13	48	45	13	50	45	13
WA	44	45	11	44.4	52.6	11	41	50	11	44	49	11
WV	45	48	5	51	42.8	5	46	41	5			5
WI	44	49	10	44	49	10	42	50	10			10
WY			3	1	0	3			3			3
TOTALS:	0	0

Definitions and Neoliberalism

I pretty much self-identify as a "neo-liberal." Defining "neoliberalism" though isn't quite so easy as one would hope. One tentative definition I've offered in the past is "microliberalism" - a notion that, while the broad class of goals we call "liberalism" are sound, overly broad interventions by the state are innately injurious and that the state should be strictly circumscribed in its operations. I'd guess that's the part of neoliberalism that is, technically "conservative." Significant markers, though, are the rejection of a materialist analytical perspective (communism in its leftmost version, fascism in its rightmost version, with community-values conservatives on the "materialist-right" and material-egalitarians and cultural relativists on the "materialist-left").

So, what exactly is it? Not quite a conservative, not quite a "liberal" in the current imprecision of the term. The libertarians have been sqautting on the term "classical liberal" (disgracefully, too, I might add), despite already having a perfectly serviceable label of their own. I know it aligns me with people like Mickey Kaus, who could be considered the "Let them eat shoe leather" wing of the Democratic party... but I'd like to think I'm substantively more soft-hearted... so the alignment would be one of methodology more than compassion. So, if "neoliberalism" is a way of seeing the world, then what exactly is it that a neoliberal sees when he looks out at the world?

Neoliberalism is like language.

As users of language, we have a vested interest in the commonality of definition. If we are to make ourselves understood, we must be able to trust that our words convey our meaning. At the same time, language is in many ways organic. When we use a word, we not only want to convey a definition, we often wish to convey a "structure of senses." When we use the adjective "hot" in place of "sexy" we are aware that in addition to our definitional use of the term, we're conveying a host of related images which are part of our meaning even though they're not strictly part of our intended definition. We know this interpretation will be subjective and dependent upon the associations of our listener, but our word-choice delivers not just a literal definition, but a broadly indeterminate structure of senses which is essential to our total meaning. As the "structures of senses" we wish to convey alter over time, we readjust the sense-structures of our words to accomodate new conveyances.

If the meanings of our words grow too permissive, however, communication disappears entirely. When George W. Bush discusses "full sovereignty," by which he means something that almost no theoriest has ever described as "sovereignty" before, he obscures his meaning. Those of us who use words with caution find that he has "lied." Though he may argue that "sovereignty" now means whatever he says it means, we acknowledge that it also still has a "public meaning" and that his use of the term is starkly at odds with this commonly understood definition of the term. A word of such specialized coinage as sovereignty can be modified without stirring broad outrage... but let a President parse the meaning of "is" and see how many people will take such lying lying down!

To avert this confusion, we use dictionaries - commonly acknowledged sources of authority on the meanings and definitions of words. As an authority, however, dictionaries are heterodox. The Oxford English Dictionary is a very particular compendium of words - exhaustive in breadth but deliberately anachronistic - striving to assert the most conservative interpretation of our language's meaning possible. On the other extreme, there are slang dictionaries for regionally-defined subcultures, such as the Bay Area Hip-Hop Dictionary which try to record the dynamic flux of language in real-time. The most significant trait, which almost all dictionaries share (aside from Webster's horrendous assault on language), is an attempt to take their cues from language as it is used, rather than to describe language as it ought to be.

The "evolution" of language, then, is a bottom-up phenomenon subject to no artificial law. The dictionary does not express a vision of language which we then impose upon human speech. Rather, it tries to describe the boundaries of the variance in commonly understood meanings of words. Dictionaries do not dictate the sense of our usage, but they strive to clarify them.

This may sound suspiciously similar to Adam Smith's brand of economic liberalism. According to Smith, economic activity likewise behaves in an organic, bottom-up fashion. The economic order is "evolutionary" and law is ideally used to establish "transactional definitions" - defining the allowable terms of contract; enforcing the rights of property and alienation; and demanding adherence to normative standards of fairness. So, it has an affirmative function, which describes (not creates!) the economic relations between men; a protective function which enforces the standards of transaction, and a negative function which restricts the tendency of an economic system to lapse into monopolism. Thus, the liberal economic order is organic, descriptive, and only intervenes to maintain a dynamic equilibrium.

Neoliberalism, then, is such an outlook applied to the social system itself.*** Men in community together will structure their relations with one another in an organic, bottom-up fashion. The law is used to recognize the "relational definitions" of human roles. It describes the natures of relations (spouse to spouse, parent to child, employer to employee, etc.); defines the terms of a "fair bond" by describing the ideal obligations in a relationship and defining abuse or neglect; and it intervenes tactically to ward off any form of social "monopoly" - those political states which we might recognize as "tyranny."

Any action beyond that, the political system puts its own "health" in danger. The "activist neoliberal" could almost be seen as a part of the autonomic nervous system of the political order... his goal is to limit state interventions to the redress of manifest injustices (despite lacking a strong coherence to his definitions of justice) and to restrain the totalizing visions of society's visionaries... it's sort of a "militant moderatism"... but it's more partisan than that.

Another metaphor I'm toying with, and for which I am indebted to this discussion, the author of which is unclear from the site, is that society could be considered to operate like a gas under pressure. Unfortunately, I cannot say anything remotely meaningful about the nature of thermodynamic equilibria... but the notion that society is a self-regulating energy system in a like manner strikes me as a neoliberal view of the social order and even (if the same model could be applied to the brain as the author suggests), a neoliberal theory of mind...

I am indebted to Jean-Pierre Dupuy for explaining the link between economic liberalism and social liberalism... though the innate liberalism of language is my own observation.

This Can't Be For Real.

Noam Scheiber is reporting on the march of the Kerry V-P nomination process. According to Scheiber, there are a large number of reasons why Gephardt is currently a strong favorite.

1. Won't Upstage Kerry
   
2. No Greater Political Ambition
   
3. Could Be President
   
4. Personal Rapport
   

This may be all true. But let's just make this 100% clear.

IF DICK GEPHARDT IS KERRY'S VP, KERRY WILL LOSE

Who will Dick Gephardt bring to the polls? Organized labor? Are you kidding? So-called "organized" labor doesn't represent itself. For the most part, labor isn't a CONSTITUENCY... It's an ORGANIZATION. Name one national general election that has been won on the grounds of courting labor. Even in a recession, Clinton was able to win election with a pro-NAFTA message.

And, worse, Gephardt will alienate every anti-Bush moderate who is even CONSIDERING voting Democratic in 2004.

I mean, I'm a pretty hard constituency to lose. I'm a dedicated liberal, gay, urban, college-educated, knowledge-worker, atheist... I'm your "demographic sweet-spot." But a Gephardt nomination pick, a sop to the paleo-liberal state-interventionist wing of the Democratic Party will instantly undermine any claim that Kerry could make, that everyone wants to believe, that bad as he may be as a prospective President, his Administration would be better than Bush.

A Gephardt VP nomination. For the love of God, let's hope not...

Weekly Horse Race

Polling Data

Sorry it's been a while since I updated this feature. Two weeks ago DC Political Report moved over to a subscription based model, and now all the state-by-state polling data has been removed from the sphere of public knowledge. So I started doing my own damn research. I've found two major polling outfits that are covering most of the states of the union and maintain their own digests of polls they have conducted. Rasmussen Reports is available here, and Survey USA is available here. I don't know how they're getting away with it, but The LA Times is serving up the latest state-by-state results from The Polling Report. And lastly, David Wissing has a digest of all polls, state by state at his blog.

I've taken the average of the latest Rasmussen poll for any state, the latest Survey USA poll, the most recent poll listed on the LA Times website, and the most recent poll from David Wissing that was not conducted by Rasmussen or Survey USA, and gotten a kind of blended poll status. To be clear, I don't pretend this is scientifically weighted or anything. I just wanted some kind of polling benchmark that might swing a little less wildly that what DC Report does. The biggest methodological flaw is that if one of the other three is cited on the LA Times site, then that poll's "representativeness" will be slightly boosted. But since that means that it is also the most recent, it will actually tend to front-load the poll results... weighting the most recent highest.So, without further ado, here's the current breakdown of the nation's election campaign, according to the averaged polls:

Bush (>5%) - 174 E.V.; Bush (<5%) - 81 E.V.

kerry (>5%) - 154 E.V.; Kerry (<5%) - 95 E.V.

No Polls - 34 E.V.

TOTALS: Bush - 255, Kerry - 249

TradeSports Summary

Over at Tradesports, there appears to have been a surge in volume on the state-by-state futures which has driven overall prices up significantly. The race has swung back decisively towards Bush.

Bush (>10) - 249; Bush (<10) - 34; TOTAL = 283

Kerry (>10) - 210; Kerry (<10) - 45; TOTAL = 255

A Bush Near To Hand...

The following was sent to me from a friend who's based in Germany:

>Thought you might appreciate this...
>
>A campaign poster in Jena for the Green Party from the recent elections
>for the European Parliament and the legislature of Thüringen,
>Germany. The Green Party opposes, among many things, the cloning of any
>animals, including humans.
>
>Literal translation:
> You Decide!
> Give cloning no chance
>
>I think the rest is self-explanatory.
>

Geoff In Print

Not a big score, but yours truly made it into the back page of The Atlantic Monthly this issue. I rated an honorable mention for a disgracefully snarky letter suggesting a term for the envy one feels when the line next door moves faster than one's own.

"Quevetousness."

As long as we're discussing The Atlantic Monthly, a few months back they featured a really nasty piece of work by Howell ("Good Riddance!") Raines, rightfully disgraced former editor of The New York Times. His piece whined about the institutional sclerosis that the paper had faced, as though the problem were somehow the tenure of its illustrious roster of journalists, rather than the poor editorial judgment that led to the noticeable diminishment in the paper's quality under his watch. The article was so long-winded, so outrageously off-base, and so myopic, that I never finished it, but I saw no evidence in the first half of the 40-page screed that it was building towards anything remotely resembling accurate introspection.

Raines' saturation coverage crusades had the disagreeable effect of writing The New York Times' editorial agenda across the face of the front page. "The paper of record" has always had a distinctly urbane and educated bias (not surprising in a paper directed at urbane and educated readers), but Raines' use of it as a blunt instrument for ridiculous social campaigns seriously undermined the credibility that it had amassed over the years. The paper's devoted readership were never likely to gratefully swallow the saccharine social prescriptions Raines' paper tried to shovel down their throats. Until that point, the paper's strength had precisely been its unwillingness to condescend to its readership.

His portrayal of an institution on the verge of irrelevance and decay would strike any reader who remembered the solid paper of the late nineties as an outrage. Raines was killing the paper, and it is a wonderful thing for this nation that he was stopped.

Anyhow, that's all a long-winded preface to the following Letter to the Editor from one The New York Times' senior editors, Martin Gottlieb, that I think cogently and succinctly rebuts Raines' entire farcical whine:

Howell Raines makes plenty of assertions that are easy to take issue with, but the fatal one was a misevaluation of the Times that, I think, was unavoidable for Howell, given that it was inextricably tied to the self-image that drove his narrative, in The Atlantic and at the paper.

He needed a big wrong to right, and this more than anything real led him to conclude that until his arrival as boss, the Times was marching toward irrelevance. In fact, the day before he took over, the paper was the best it had ever been in its reporting, writing, range, and graphic display.

That didn't leave much room for a dragon slayer, only for someone who could stand on others' shoulders and work day-to-day to improve something that was already quite excellent. Perhaps that would have led to a better paper, and one that probably would have stood behind its editor when a danger that honorable staff members had been trying to flag caused real damage.

Aesthetics

There are two really great articles available at The New Republic right now that I feel should be mentioned before they cycle off the front page. Fortunately, both are available free to non-subscribers.

The first is a reproduction of the 1922 book review for Ulysses run in The New Republic. As those who know me are usually aware, I look upon Ulysses as the single greatest accomplishment in the English language - ever. This is largely due to a feature that Mr. Wilson aptly summarizes:

[I]n Joyce you have not only life from the outside described with Flaubertian virtuosity but also the consciousness of each of the characters and of each of the character's moods made to speak in the idiom proper to it, the language it uses to itself.

The entire review is excellent, and a worthy enticement to engage the full book. It's one of my great regrets that I have yet to find the words to express this book's power. "Poor Bloom, with his generous impulses and his attempts to understand and master life, is the epic symbol of reasoning man, humiliated and ridiculous, yet extricating himself by cunning from the spirits which seek to destroy him." I couldn't have put it better myself.

His criticisms are stinging, and fair. Though I disagree with him mightily about the appropriateness of literary parody in Ulysses - a book which portrays the epic of the Western Mind as a literal analog of the pre-eminent epic of Western Literature would fail to make its point if it did not rigidly track the literariness of thought - I do concede that the book is often tedious, and often deliberately so. What can we say of James Joyce other than that he expects his readers to work at their own satisfaction. Though the expectation can be exasperating, it can also be seen as a compliment. As in life, the tedium of Joyce's world is so often redeemed by some retrospective insight (most markedly illustrated in his short story "The Dead" from Dubliners).

Far more engaging is this lively account of Rochelle Gurstein's hunt for the vanished aesthetic sensibility of our Classicist forebears. What was it that they saw in the mysterious evanescent beauty of the Venus de' Medici? How did a work that was once universally acknowledged as a masterpiece, and violently defended against criticism by its protagonists fade so completely from the canon of aesthetic accomplishment? How did it slide from a gateway to sublime contemplation of beauty to a commonplace, a piece of stone in an old museum passed with barely a note of registration by most viewers?

It's a fascinating piece, and I recommend it highly. It reminds me of a book I once read by Anthony Grafton called New Worlds, Ancient Texts about the gradual change in our perception of future and past. His thesis, as I seem to remember it, was that we live in an age where alienation from the past is taken for granted. But the great pioneers and innovators of previous ages felt far more at home in the traditions of antiquity, and saw their efforts as a fulfillment of the past, rather than a challenge to it. Well worth the read.

Update

Over at Slate there's a discussion of Ulysses going on. It's an interesting intermixture of searing insight with the jaw-droppingly asinine... ("The question for us is, what shape is the bourgeois parlor in now? Should we mess it up some more? Kick a few more holes in the door, shatter the windows?") I'd recommend it as well...

Dear Justice O'Connor

It is with great distress that I read your concurring opinion in the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. I am not a lawyer, but am an atheist, and though I freely concede I may have misunderstood your argument, it seemed its legal grounds would suggest that patriotic atheist Americans like myself do not have our patriotism impugned every day by the use of "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

In your opinion, you lay out cogent principles for determining whether a practice violates the Constitution's Establishment Clause. The first principle is a determination whether "government makes adherence to a religion relevant ... to a person's standing in the political community." Secondly, it must be evident that a "reasonable observer" would not conclude, in full knowledge of the principle's history and cultural role, that its purpose was to exclude proponents of any given faith from the political community.

I admire the wisdom and perspicacity of both these principles, but am profoundly shocked that they lead to the outcome of your ensuing consideration of the Pledge. In finding the Pledge to be nothing more than a harmless instance of "ceremonial deism" your analysis never once acknowledges the vast difference between a prayer and a pledge. The Pledge of Allegiance is NOT a "prayer." It is a "pledge." It is a solemn affirmative declaration of allegiance to this nation's emblematic symbol and to the country which it represents. I recited the Pledge of Allegiance nearly daily from the age of 5 until the age of 17. I continue to know it by heart, and continue to feel bound by the promise which it states (though I regret the divisiveness of the phrase "Under God"). If the honor of Americans stands for anything, then the content of our pledges - our "words of honor" - should not be taken so lightly. In fact, it is my understanding that your Court has made the statement of the Pledge purely voluntary precisely because it is such a powerful statement of allegiance.

Because the Pledge commits us, as Americans, to the defense of a nation, it is not insignificant what elements of the nation are defined as worthy of that loyalty. The qualifier "under God" is not some nebulous characterization of this nation's history, as you assert. It is a descriptor of the nation signified by our flag. This nation is a Republic, united, with liberty and justice for all. Yet, for reasons I cannot fathom, schoolchildren are asked to take a daily oath of allegiance which explicitly expels the large minority of this nation's inhabitants who do not recognize any being which might be called a "God" from the political community.

As Rehnquist discusses in his opinion, to which you concur in full, the phrase "Under God" was inserted in 1954. The stated intent of the provision's author, according to Rehnquist, "was to contrast this country's belief in God with the Soviet Union's embrace of atheism." Thus, it was at least envisioned as a statement of an attribute of this nation that distinguished us from a foreign power we then viewed as an enemy. The intent and effect of the insertion of the clause, "Under God" served to render a substantial portion of our population "indigenous aliens." If atheism was the defining trait of the Soviet Union (rather than, say, totalitarian Communism), which separated it from the United States of America, then those Americans who might happen to be atheists were, in effect, the political representatives of an anti-American political order. It was conceived as a statement of enmity towards a belligerent foreign power, and articulated in such a way as to carve out a portion of our own, honestly patriotic, population as adherents to the moral evils of that power.

Given the distinguished role that atheism has played in the founding of the liberal political philosophy that midwifed this nation, that hardly seems fair. The British liberal utilitarian philosopher, John Stewart Mill, in On Liberty (Ch 2, pg. 18) notes that in his day it was a commonplace to refuse the oath of self-avowed atheists. "A rule thus self-convicted of absurdity so far as regards its professed purpose, can be kept in force only as a badge of hatred, a relic of persecution; a persecution, too, having the peculiarity, that the qualification for undergoing it, is the being clearly proved not to deserve it." The Pledge, as it presently stands, accomplishes a like effect. And though Rehnquist notes extensively the role of avowedly religious men in this nation's history, it is important to remember Mill's caveat, true for American society as well as English, that historically "our merely social intolerance kills no one, roots out no opinions, but induces men to disguise them, or to abstain from any active effort for their diffusion." The open avowal of atheism has never been an entirely safe practice, and a large number of active intellectuals have felt constrained in the public profession of their disbelief by the opinions of their fellow men. This history of persecution and intolerance has submerged whatever role atheism may have played in the foundation of this nation. I don't see how you can argue that the Pledge is not a similar statement of social and political exclusion directed at atheists, when exactly such exclusion was central to its intent, and is obviously part of its effect. Religious though our forefathers may have been, they still saw fit to include the caveat that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." It seems perverse, then, to use the voluntary religious expressions of our nation's officers to justify inserting a subtle "religious Test" into the oath of allegiance to our nation itself.

I have never in my life believed that I had any standing on a legal basis to object to the phraseology of the Pledge of Allegiance. But I have long objected to the clause "under God" on a moral basis. It certainly bothers me to know that America's schoolchildren declare on a daily basis that I am not one of the individuals united to our Nation. It distresses me even more to hear a sitting Supreme Court Justice declare that this statement is merely "ceremonial deism" and does not "send a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community."

In your opinion you write, "I find it telling that so little ire has been directed at the Pledge." I would argue that it is telling of the political inefficacy of atheists (who, by our definition, tend not to have churches which keep us politically organized). According to an ABC News Poll, 11% of Americans felt that "Under God" did not belong in the Pledge. Though the majority of opinion expressed by the remaining 89% is astounding, that minority is far from insignificant. And when you consider the Pew Report's finding that 66% of Americans report a negative view of atheists, the political neutrality of statements impugning the political role of those Americans should seem highly suspect.

It is a shame that our youth is exposed to a definition of "patriotism" which rejects the claim to national pride of America's atheists. I am disappointed that your opinion did not even acknowledge the very real pain that such a declaration causes. To be an atheist in America requires constant reiteration that one's beliefs have not led one to the rejection of all morality or to the rejection of love of one's country and the ideals for which it stands. As an atheist, I find it obvious that the Pledge reflects skepticism of my patriotism, even if it does not motivate such doubts.

Whether the Court should remove the clause from the Pledge or not, I couldn't fairly state. I tend to believe such changes are most rightly made through the democratic process. But if you are to defend the Pledge as a practice, I would hope to see a more accurate assessment of its impact upon atheists and its power as a statement of political exclusivity. To treat it as a innocuous articulation of ceremonial deism is a denial of its very real purpose as a pledge of loyalty to our nation and its ideals and is thus an affront to the patriotism of American atheists.

Happy Bloomsday!

I slept for a paltry three hours last night.

But I want to go celebrating.

What's a man to do?

June 16th, 2004 doesn't come around all that often, you realize... No more than once a century... of that much I'm certain.

Hypothesis

If identity is a logical relation (a=a) and logic is a process independent of a self (i.e., objectively true) then no self can be said to be self-identical from a vantage within that self. That is to say, we can ONLY be objectively self-identical, NOT subjectively self-identical. The "identity" of "cogito ergo sum" dislocates the truth-value of the cogitator and the summary into the ergo-sphere... leaving us to ponder the function of identity (and its validity) between two separable phenomena, rather than the phenomena itself.

Dimensionality

Let us declare a one-dimensional array which we will denote as Arrα(2). This gives us one dimension with two points. Arrα[0] and Arrα[1].
Let us state that Arrα[0]=X₁ and Arrα[1]=X₂.

Now, let us say that every point within this array is possessed of an attribute. This attribute is therefore a property of that point, and the point is likewise a property of its attribute. Thus, if there is an attribute of "redness", we could say that there is some function R(X₁) which represents the redness of X₁, and a function X₁(R) which expresses the X₁-ness of Red. (Before you object, consider whether your hometown is "as boring as Fresno." Fresno is not only a place which has some level of boring-ness... there is some level of boring-ness beyond which we might as well be in Fresno)

We have created a second-dimension. The comparative dimension.

Let us say that X₂ is also possessed of redness (even if that value is equal to 0). There is then a function R(X₂) which expressess the redness of X₂ and also a function X₂(R) which express the X₂-ness of Red. Thus, in considering the redness of X, we find that we need a two-dimensional array as follows:

X1	X2
R(X1)	R(X2)

Let us call this two-dimensional system Arrß(2,2).
Arrß[0,0] = X₁, R(X₁)
Arrß[0,1] = X₁, R(X₂)
Arrß[1,0] = X₂, R(X₁)
Arrß[1,1] = X₂, R(X₂)
We know for a fact that we still have only two points (X₁ and X₂) which are both elements of Arrα(2). But the mere consideration of the attributes of points X₁ and X₂ necessitated the creation of a new array with a new dimension Arrß(2,2) which contains twice as many points as we know to exist. That is to say, half the points contained with Arrß(2,2) are potentialities. Each point represents either a "fact" or a "conjecture".

"What if X₂ were the color of R(X₁)?"

"Why, then, R(X₂) = R(X₁)"!

And thus, X₁=X₂ with respect to redness by means of their identity within the dimension of R.

So, there must be another one-dimensional array, ArrR(2) containing the values of R(X₁) and R(X₂), and thus we could more accurately express the dimensionality of Arrß(2,2) as Arrß(Arrα(2), ArrR(2)).

If we were then to stipulate that R(X₁)=R(X₂), we could say that the size of ArrR is 1, which we denote ArrR(1). That would then alter Arrß(Arrα(2), ArrR(1)) as follows:
Arrß[0,0] = X₁, R(X₁)
Arrß[1,0] = X₂, R(X₁)

Though the number of points within the array shrink, the number of dimensions remains constant. It merely becomes an array wherein all ArrR() of Arrß(Arrα(), ArrR()) are identical.

How can this be?
IF
R(X₁)=R(X₁) for any point in ArrR() of Arrß(Arrα(), ArrR()),
BUT
R(X₁) is a property of any point of Arrß(Arrα(), ArrR())
AND
Arrß[0,0] != Arrß[1,0],
THEN
how can it be possible that R(X₁) is both a component of Arrß[0,0] AND Arrß[1,0] yet also self-identical? For there are at least two properties of R(X₁):
X₁(R(X₁)) and X₂(R(X₁)) that are not identical.

Within the scope of ArrR(0) there is no paradox. But within the scope of Arrß(Arrα(), ArrR()) there is an obvious paradox. The self-identity of ArrR[0] within Arrß(Arrα(), ArrR()) must itself be reliant upon a dimension... a dimension of self-identity?

If you took logic in college, feel free to groan and depart... I'm not here to impress you.

In order for the values of R(X₁) to be identical within the Array of Arrß(Arrα(), ArrR()) there must be some function X() whereby X(Arrß(0,0)) = X(Arrß(1,0)).

This function would take as an argument the points within the array of Arrß(Arrα(), ArrR()) and yield a one-dimensional array of it's own - ArrX() - where each value within the array of X corresponds to the derivation of a point within the larger array of Arrß(Arrα(), ArrR()).

This of course means that we now need a new, three-dimensional array to express the relations between our points:
ArrΓ(Arrα(), ArrR(), ArrX()).

And on and on it goes...

Why the FUCK Does This Matter?

So, allow me to return to my pet theory of the moment - consciousness is a function of space/time.

Stipulate that the universe is a sequence of property-bearing points contained wtihin a four-dimensional array of ArrU(x,y,z,t). Now, let us speculate that consciousness is a PROPERTY of any given point A with coordinates ArrU[x,y,z,t]. Thus, there would be some function X(A) which expresses the consciousness of point A. In order to argue that the consciousness of another point, B, is continuously joined with the function of X(A) we need to at a minimum establish that X(A) = X(B). Thus, we need a new dimension, ArrΩ() which will allow us to say that for any given point [x,y,z,t,Ω] that Ω is self-identical. Any given life, then, becomes a finite five-dimensional array within space time of ordered points - Arr∞(x,y,z,t,Ω). (Pun intended)

But, what's more... in order for that ordered set of consciousness to apprehend itself as continously self-identical it would need to resort to ANOTHER dimension (call it the logical dimension) to draw a cohesive relationship of self-identity between the separate points within the larger matrix of the consciousness. And the points of THAT dimension would require yet another dimension (call it the justified dimension) which would draw the various instances of logicality into some relation of self-identity.

And on and on it goes...

Sidenotes of History

In his dissent with the Newdow ruling, Rehnquist cited Palmore v. Sidoti, a 1984 ruling by the U.S.S.C. on a matter of family law. Reading this case, it's fascinating how far we've come in a mere 20 years.

When petitioner and respondent, both Caucasians, were divorced in Florida, petitioner, the mother, was awarded custody of their 3-year-old daughter. The following year respondent sought custody of the child by filing a petition to modify the prior judgment because of changed conditions, namely, that petitioner was then cohabiting with a Negro, whom she later married. The Florida trial court awarded custody to respondent, concluding that the child's best interests would be served thereby. Without focusing directly on the parental qualifications of petitioner, her present husband, or respondent, the court reasoned that although respondent's resentment at petitioner's choice of a black partner was insufficient to deprive petitioner of custody, there would be a damaging impact on the child if she remained in a racially mixed household. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed.

Rehnquist expresses concern that yesterday's ruling on prudential standing would cut the legs out from under an intervention like Palmore. What's kinda' scary is that he might be right...

Rehnquists argument:

The Court cites Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U. S. 429 (1984), as an example of the exceptional case where a "substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue" makes the exercise of our jurisdiction appropriate. Ante, at 9. In Palmore, we granted certiorari to review a child custody decision, and reversed the state court's decision because we found that the effects of racial prejudice resulting from the mother's interracial marriage could not justify granting custody to the father. Contrary to the Court's assertion, the alleged constitutional violation, while clearly involving a "substantial federal question," did not "transcen[d] or exis[t] apart from the family law issue," ante, at 9; it had everything to do with the domestic relationship--"[w]e granted certiorari to review a judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child," 466 U. S., at 430 (emphasis added). Under the Court's discussion today, it appears that we should have stayed out of the "domestic dispute" in Palmore no matter how constitutionally offensive the result would have been.

-empahasis in original

Pop, Crackle, Fizzle

So, just a quick "by-the-numbers" look at the advance of freedom across Iraq, as measured by hours of daily electrical output per directorate from February of 04 and June of 04:

Directorate	Hrs.Srvc./Dy., Feb. 04	Hrs.Svc./Dy., Jun. 04	Net Chg.
Dahuk	10 hrs.	22 hrs.	+12hrs./+120%
Arbil	17 Hrs.	8 Hrs.	-9 hrs./-52%
Ninawa	10 Hrs.	8 Hrs.	-2 hrs./-20%
Tamim	11 Hrs.	7 Hrs.	-4 hrs./-36%
Salah Ad Din	9 Hrs.	8 Hrs.	-1 Hr./-11%
Diyala	14 Hrs.	9 Hrs.	-5hrs./-35%
Anbar	11 Hrs.	8 hrs.	-3hrs./-27%
Baghdad	12 Hrs.	10 Hrs.	-2 Hrs./-16%
Wasit	10 Hrs.	10 Hrs.	0
Babil	11 Hrs.	10 Hrs.	-1 Hrs./-9%
Karbala	14 Hrs.	15 Hrs.	+1 Hrs./+7%
Najaf	14 Hrs.	9 Hrs.	-5 Hrs./-35%
Qadisiyah	13 hrs.	7 hrs.	-6hrs./-46%
Masyan	15 Hrs.	9 Hrs.	-6 Hrs./-40%
Dhi Qar	14 Hrs.	14 Hrs.	0
Muthanna	10 Hrs.	7 Hrs.	-3hrs./-30%
Basra	23 hrs.	10 hrs.	-13/-56%

There's a lot of fascinating info available at The CPA's website but it's never very "user-friendly" and I don't know what will happen to all this data when the interim government takes over...

Must Have Been a Long Fuse

Apparently, the family of accused Ohio Bomber Nuradin Abdi disagree with the Justice Department's characterization of him as anti-American or pro-Islamic terrorism.

He's been in detention since November of 2003!!! It takes NINE MONTHS, behind bars, to INDICT a man for terrorism?!?!?

Whether Abdi is guilty or not, there is no justifiable grounds for denying him due process for such an extended duration. I know it's fashionable these days to deny even an approximation of Constitutional justice for immigrants, but we used to hold as universal values:

That "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. "

Ouch.

Hit No. 2. Northern pipelines, southern oil terminus, same day, plus a sustained (multi-day) assault on the primary transportation corridor coming out of Baghdad International Airport.

I'd almost be tempted to conclude that the insurgency had a broader national presence than either the Interim Government or the CPA...

The Newdow Ruling

Dahlia Lithwick has an article over at Slate defending the Newdow ruling. Initially, I found her argument really persuasive. But the more I consider it, the more I'm inclined to disagree.

Obviously, Newdow's standing on behalf of his daughter is obliterated by Banning's counter-motion. But it seems that his own claim still remains incredibly strong, especially with regards to the Establishment Clause.

Lithwick writes:

In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist disagrees with the majority, finding that Newdow has the unfettered right to expose his daughter to his religious views. Of course he does. But Newdow cannot make ultimate decisions on yes/no matters, such as whether she can recite the pledge. For Banning's veto to mean anything, it must mean that she makes those calls.

This misrepresents both Rehnquist's argument and the strength of Newdow's claim. Newdow's claim to personal standing is that the state is lending it's imprimatur to the beliefs of Banning by coercing his daughter into a daily vow of fidelity to a God he does not acknowledge.

The Court does not take issue with the fact that, under California law, respondent retains a right to influence his daughter's religious upbringing and to expose her to his views. But it relies on Banning's view of the merits of this case to diminish respondent's interest, stating that the respondent "wishes to forestall his daughter's exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree." Ante, at 13. As alleged by respondent and as recognized by the Court of Appeals, respondent wishes to enjoin the School District from endorsing a form of religion inconsistent with his own views because he has a right to expose his daughter to those views without the State's placing its imprimatur on a particular religion. - Rehnquist

It would seem that Rehnquist rightly argues that Newdow has standing to challenge, not on the grounds of an unfettered right to influence his daughter, but on the grounds to ask neutrality from our Nation on a contested question of values between himself and his wife in the upbringing of their daughter.

Rehnquist's subsequent defense of the pledge, in which he cites the religious testaments of several presidents (as though the words "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" didn't render such displays purely private in character) seems untroubled by a question that really does and should bother American atheists.

We are One Nation. Not all of us are Under God. Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower can declare their belief in God and their conviction that God guides this glorious nation, as cited by Rehnquist, without ever harming the interests of those of us who are Americans and also atheists. But the ideology embodied in and articulated by the Pledge explicitly declares that those who do not recognize God are, in a real and powerful sense, not properly Americans. This was neither an accident unrelated to intent ("The amendment's sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this country's belief in God with the Soviet Union's embrace of atheism"), nor in keeping with the historical tradition of this country - which has always acknowledged that we can stand united in love and loyalty for our country whatever our disagreements on matters of conscience and principle.

Surely Newdow has a right to ask his nation to stop telling his daughter that he is not a part of it? To ask as a patriotic American that the nation not persuade his daughter that the glue of patriotism only binds the religiously faithful to the glories of our nation? Whether Rehnquist is right and the clause of the pledge is harmless or not, the material harm to Newdow is not implicated by Banning's right to sanction her daughter's participation in the pledge, but in Newdow's right to request the state to refrain from characterizing the patriotism of Americans as a function of their religious faith.

Whoul'd've Ever Thunk It?

Interesting review of a Broadway revival of Stephen Sondheim's 1991 musical "Assassins" in this week's Economist.

"Assassins", in turn, has had its resonance amplified by recent events. In 1991, audiences may not have fully taken to the story of Samuel Byck, one of the eight presidential killers, or would-be killers, presented in the show. His aim (never achieved) in 1974 was to dive-bomb a commercial airliner into the White House, thereby assassinating Richard Nixon.

Now, I'm not one of those "blame Bushers"... but still. If artsy-fartsy New York composers could conceive of the threat, isn't it just a little astonishing that:

And I said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile." As I said to you in the private session, I probably should have said, "I could not have imagined," because within two days, people started to come to me and say, "Oh, but there were these reports in 1998 and 1999. The intelligence community did look at information about this." To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us.

- Condoleezza Rice