Heretics' almanac

The dogs of sports

It seems a long time ago, but once upon a time athletes were admired not just for their prowess but also their athetic integrity, that winning was only worthwhile if it was fair, that adversaries were to be respected and honored.

And then there is the football player who kills dogs with his bare hands for shits and giggles, and the innumerable athletes who shoot up various kinds of hormones and act like flaming assholes, and referees who bet on games they influence.

They're going to get their due, but something tells me they'll feel victimized at worst, and cry all the way to the bank at best.

So here's what I think the athletic assoiciations should add to the mix: the penalty of public humiliation. That's right: during halftime, make them come out to the field and get reprimanded - harshly, with a particular emphasis on their lacking manhood. This would be a first warning for moderate offenses. For severe stuff and last warnings, a solemn ceremony of excommunication from the world of sports. They will not be allowed in the stands, other sports organizations will refuse them entry, and every honorable athlete is publicly admonished to never play as much as a game of pick-up with them. They can go jogging by themselves or pitch at a fence, 'cause not even the Little League will let them on the stand.

All the leagues should implement a zero-tolerance policy toward drugs, and put a special monitoring program in place for any athlete that shows unusual changes in muscle mass. Any winning team or individual should go through a battery of tests.

Even the mobsters who do illegal gambling should refuse to take bets from anyone involved in the games.

And killing dogs by throwing them to the ground, well, nobody who does that deserves to keep his testicles.

Alienation, me worry?

Slate, along with its sister publication the Washington Post, is featuring a series of articles on the lives and prospects of Muslims in America. One writer, Moushumi Khan, warns against trends that may ultimately serve to alienate American Muslims to the point of alienation European Muslims find themselves.

This includes wiretapping mosques, planting informants, profiling, and other activities that plainly make its targets feel set aside in the society they belong to.

These practices are problematic to begin with, and only in our Bushic world are people so complacent about them.

But even as Khan writes this, he/she notes that moderate Muslim organizations (however one defines "moderate,' I suppose) have little credibility in Europe and the US. One can envision Daniel Pipes in the background, thanking Khan for making the point. Khan goes on to say that Muslims are starting to feel that they are under suspicion for their political views, including, of course, "Palestine."

One common characteristic of bigotry and xenophobia is the premise that the others can be tolerated, provided they know their place by conforming as required and not complaining too much. It's the in-group that sets the rules for the out-group, thinking this is all fair and reasonable. Without a doubt, American and European Muslims feel this all the time. Don't dress to exotically or eat foods that smell too strongly. Learn the language, but don't presume to act like a native. Participate in our customs but don't expect us to acknowledge yours much. Etc.

But I suppose this is where Khan deserves to have th tables turned. To be sure the larger American and European society does not have the right to dictate the terms for accepting Muslim communities into its fabric. But they are allowed to ask questions, the first one being "what role do you want to play here? What rules do you subscribe to?"

For example, people can not on the one hand deny Israel's right to exist but claim immunity against having such a position criticized and condemned. Nor can they support Hamas without being asked pointed questions about their view of terrorism. In other words, we can not hold people and organizations responsible for acting consistently with our point of view, but we can certainly ask that they act in compliance with their own.

Angels in Norway

Märtha Louise, princess of Norway, has recentlly disclosed that she's been psychic from childhood, and that among her gifts is the ability to converse with angels. And now she's going to open a private school that will include in its curriculum how to talk with angels.

Let's first of all be clear that if I had to try to create publicity around a similar premise, the press wouldn't have given me much airtime.

And let's also be clear that this is such an easy target for ridicule that you'd have to be petty to go for it.

Also, the world would probably be a better place if more people tried to talk to angels more often.

But what really interests me are the reactions from Norway's official religious establishment.

One demands that Märtha immediately resign from the Church of Norway, over which her father is the supreme (if symbolic) ruler. Another - a professor in theology - warns that seeking out angels is fraught with risk, as she's just as likely to attract demons.

So there it is. The state of organized religion in Norway. The church leaders who have opined on this aren't concerned that all this angel talk might detract from real issues confronting the church (such as its rapidly decling role in Norwegian public life) but rather that someone might get confused when a demon rathe than an angel picks up the phone.

The Norwegian State Church professes itself to Lutheran doctrine on behalf of all Norwegians who haven't actively excused themselves. This is an involved theology that very few Norwegians - even among those who count themselves as Chirtian - fully understand or necessarily accept. The church is caught in dilemma between on the one hand propagating a faith that isn't just nominally Christian but dogmatically and distinctly Lutheran, and on the other creating a church with universal appeal. In trying to balance these two imperatives it is likely to lose both, and that may be for the best.

On the other hand, spirituality is a badly neglected topic in Norwegian public discourse. A lot of people will make fun of Märtha Louise for being a little looney and presumptuous, but there's something to be said for raising the topic.

Potter (spoiler)

The last Harry Potter book was easily the best written, and the most convincing demonstration that Rowlings is not just enormously creative but a more than competent writer.

So I'd give it a solid thumbs-up.

Still, the ending wasn't as tight as it could have been. Fantasy stories need symmetry and internal consistency, but few do. This one limped just a little.

Marine One

The Wall Street Journal reports today that the US Navy has ordered 23 helicopters from Lockheed at a cost of $6.1 billion, to replace the existing fleet of Marine One helicopters, birds designed for one thing, namely to ferry the president and his entourage from the While House Lawn to Andrews AFB, a ride that's 11 minutes. Oh, and these won't be ready until 2015.

$6.1 billion? 23 helicopters? 2015? Somebody is going nuts here, and it isn't me.

I don't understand why the fleet has to be this big. I think it's crazy to write specs for electronics now for delivery in 2015. And I think it all smacks of overengineering. But most of all: $6.1 billion?!

More on the whale

At BT.no, the story gets more interesting.

At the moment, they can't find the whale.

And they've already tried to sink it, at least once. The police were first at it, then the military and now the harbor authority has jurisdiction, while the "inter-municipality authority for acute pollution" is getting its act together. Which, judging by its name, may take a while.

All this because, as they say, the whale by definition is garbage.

This whale lives its life in its natural habitat and dies a natural death, returning, as whales do, to sludge by decomposing. This is "pollution" and "garbage?"

Of course, they have to find it first.

Why do I have the feeling things are a bit too uneventful in Bergen these days?

Flying whale bits in Bergen

Norwegian newspapers are concerned, among other things, about a dead whale that is floating in the water near Bergen, making a big stink.

Not satisfied to let nature take its course (decomposition is advanced, and scavengers are all ovr the carcass) authorities want to sink the damn thing. But the experts warn that this may not be such a great idea, as the whale may explode (or rather, as they put it, erupt like a fart) at any moment, and anyone trying to sink it might be hit by flying rotten whale bits.

I'm always skeptical about Norwegian claims to expertise, but when it comes to whales, I am inclined to believe we have a bit of a corner. I don't know how far the whale smell reaches into populated areas, but I'd just leave it alone and avoid any kind of futzing that involves being hit by rotten whale pieces sent flying by a "violent fart."

But if they do this, they should definitely film it.

Wakefield and the vested interest

Andy Wakefield and two other docs are facing a disciplinary panel in the UK over a "series" of alleged acts of misconduct related to their research on a link between what the Brits call MMR jabs and autism.

One of the accusations relates to the fact that some of the parents of the kids in the study were involved in litigation against vaccine manufacturers and therefore had a "vested interest" in the outcome of the study.

I suppose this is a factor Wakefield et al should have considered and disclosed. On the other hand, it seems a more reasonable assumption that these parents were pursuing litigation because they honestly believed there was causality. Similarly, if Wakefield honestly believed MMR vaccines cause autism, it would be entirely reasonable that he dedicated his career to fixing this problem.

And I resent, no condemn, the implication that parents see their autistic kids as cash registers. Anyone who believes that is despicable and should be denounced by decent society.

But there are many vested interests to consider here. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested (and entirely legitimate) interest in gaining market acceptance for their products. The medical community certainly has a vested interest in protecting medical practices it has observed in good faith, and public health agencies have a vested interest in protecting the public against health risks. Each of these can be distorted if you want to be uncharitable.

Of all the involved parties, parents have the least assailable vested interest, namely the health and welfare of our children.

The fading Bush presidency

Is ther anything charitable or even merciful to say about the Bush preidency at this point? Is there anyone who is willing to give his assertions the benefot if the doubt? As a self-proclaimed contrarian, I feel duty-bound to resist the overwhelming conventional wisdom that it's a lost presidency and find that silver lining, but I'm coming up short. When an intelligence report asserts that Al Queda in the US is as strong now as it was on 9/10/2001, there's reason to question whether the guy has any clue.

But what I find outragous is the way the Bush administration resists any accountability. What with signing statements, assertions of executive privilege and that the vice president belongs to some fourth branch of government, characterizing international treaties as "quaint," hostility to the press, etc., etc., this presidency appears to set itself over any constitutional precept. And their excuse - that the war on terror has changed the rules - turns out to be empty if the strategy to wage it has been so ineffectual (and expensive, measured in human, financial, and political capital).

The Democrats can point this out until they're blue in the face and still be labeled partisan. What is needed is a Republican leader to show some personal integrity and call the Bush West Wing what it is. It's happening in small ways, but unless the mainstream Republicans want to be tarred as acomplices in the inevtiable fallout, it's time to step up and show some character.

Palestinian scenarios 1: Gaza, the gateway to the Orient

The areas that some people would call "Palestine" as in turmoil now. Gaza is run by a fundamentalist, rejectionist, and notably terrorist organization with an astonishingly populist appeal. The West Bank is run by an inept, corrupt organization with moderating impulses but little else going for it. Now that there is decidedly less to blame Israel for, the world is losing interest. What scenarios lie ahead?

It might be easier if Gaza and the West Bank saw itself as two separate but related entities. Whether the resulting model is more like Pakistan/Bangladesh or Quebec/Canada remains to be seen, but the settin is so different for the two that it's increasingly meaningless to keep them logically apart.

The happy scenario for Gaza is this:

The gateway to the Orient for air travel, tourism, and trade, Gaza ten years from now is a showcase for the rapidly emerging school of new Arab architecture and urban planning, with spectacual urban neighborhoods that have minimal impact on the environment, have state of the art sanitary infrastructure, yet are friendly to trade and transportation. A large airport on leased land in the Sinai serves as a hub for air traffic between Europe, Asia, and Africa. Waterfront hotels offer unparalleled hospitality and stunning sunset views. High-speed train connections put Jerusalem, Beirut, Amman, and Cairo within a one-day excursion. Land transportation lines with Suez and Ashdod make Gaza a shopping destination in its own right.

Gazans are employed in trade, transportation, and tourism. They exemplify the economic benefits of global free trade. The expat community is dynamic, and there's a growing Jewish minority. The city-state becomes a center for fusion cutting edge art forms, including music, fashion, and design.