The Uncertainty Principle

It looks GOP Presidential hopefull Bill Frist, M.D. is out.

One arch-social conservative out. Now if only Mitt Romney would withdraw from the race... Slate's John Dickerson has a piece today encouraging Mr. Romney to start diffusing his religion situation A.S.A.P.

And Andrew Sullivan has a piece concerning Mormon scared underwear.

A final Mormom fact. In high school, a Mormon friend of mine once told me about the chant that young Mormon women are supposed to sing about their future husbands. I can't source this, and its sometimes difficult to pin down on google, but it goes something like this.

Sung to the tune of "I know a weenie man," apparently.

"I know a mormon boy,
he is my pride and joy.
He knows most everything from Alma on down.
Someday, I'll be his wife
We'll have eternal life
Oh-oh I love my Mormon boy."

Posted by George Gordon at 5:55 PM | Permalink

Not surprisingly, the news cycles over the last few days have been dominated by Iraq. With the impending Democratic takeover, the increasing willingness of Bush to admit the need for new thinking, and the James Baker situation, it is no shock that the war has again crept to the forefront of public debate.

My usual favorite news magazine, The New Republic has printed a special issue (Subscrip. Requir.) dedicated to the Iraq situation, soliciting such writers as Lawrence Kaplan, Robert Kagan, Richard Clarke and many others to offer their two cents. Unfortunately, it has also spawned truly insipid (albeit web-only) pieces, like Jonathan Chait’s suggestion to re-install Saddam Hussein to power, which was cross-published in the LA Times.

The Washington Post ran two pieces in today’s edition. The first deals with the Bush administration’s pressuring of PM al-Maliki, while the second reports on the growing tendency of American officials and lawmakers to level the blame squarely upon the Iraqis

Meanwhile, Friedman, Dowd and the Editorial Board have all dedicated today’s pieces to the conflict in the New York Times.

Certainly, there are some difficult choices in the days ahead for the United States. President Bush, currently at a NATO summit in Latvia, is scheduled for a sit down with al-Maliki in Jordan, on Wednesday. Meanwhile, everyone is worked up over the Iraq Study Group’s forthcoming solution. The war is finally coming to a head. Democrats are clamoring for a hasty withdrawal, John McCain is clamoring for more troops. Henry Kissinger recently gave a detailed and nuanced answer that basically broke down to ”Victory in Iraq is no longer possible, and that the “breakup of Iraq could be the eventual outcome. We are at a critical moment, indeed. Stay tuned, more to come indeed.

Posted by George Gordon at 3:38 AM | Permalink

It’s about time. Today, the Boston Globe reports that NBC will begin to call the situation in Iraq a civil war, contrary to the White House spin of the past several years that it isn’t. The Globe credited “some media analysts” as drawing a comparison between this and the moment where CBS anchor Walter Cronkite declared that we were losing Vietnam.

Frankly, its about time that someone has stepped up to challenge the Bush administration on their use of vocabulary. Words are very important in the framing of things and spinning the news, and the Bush spin has long been to refuse to call the escalating violence, the death squads and the civil unrest a “civil war,” despite clear evidence to the contrary. NBC deserves accolades.

Interestingly, they announced the policy on the Today Show, which reminds me of an academic paper I recently read about the effect of soft news. It is entitled the “Oprah Effect” and can be found here. The impact of a Today Show announcement, rather than their flagship evening newscast to make such a bold announcement is certainly interesting, and perhaps telling of the decline in importance of the evening news, especially in the passing of the anchor chair to an entire new generation on all three networks.

Anyway, something to think about.

Posted by George Gordon at 4:21 PM | Permalink

Ahh, Massachusetts: birthplace of the Revolution, enlightened bastion of progressive liberalism as well as the home state of this author. Luckily, the Boston Globe and Slate are covering this sexy lawyer ad scandal. Don’t we have better things to report on?

In other news, this is simply classic. Pregnant Star Misses Vatican Gala… is “ expected to play her part well, not be a saint”

Posted by George Gordon at 1:41 AM | Permalink

Friday Links:

The Hill has an interesting piece on the Democrats securing severance pay for Republican staffers.

The New Republic has an article on the FCC, the Janet Jackson affair and the OJ debacle.

Slate's Timothy Noah writes a rousing defense of OJ's "If I did it..." and William Saletan writes about "Girth Control, and the ability to separate the consequences of eating food (getting fat) and from the pleasurable aspects, much like we've done with sex.

The Washington Posts's Krauthammer writes another piece on Borat.

And the New York Times's Krugman weights in on the possiblities of voting fraud and the need for better oversight.

That's the world of commentary today. Enjoy the weekend.

Posted by George Gordon at 12:39 PM | Permalink

The Uncertainty Principle would like to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving.

Posted by George Gordon at 12:39 PM | Permalink

In light of the recent election cycle, and the brand new phenomena of YouTube, making it possible to watch the best campaigns ads and classic politic gaffs from any race from the comfort of your own PC, I got to thinking about Neil Postman’s classic Amusing Ourselves to Death, which I just read recently.

The Corker-Ford Playboy Ad, the Macaca moment, the Allen campaign’s manhandling a blogger, even a campaign ad from an obscure 3rd party candidate for Governor in Massachusetts made a national splash, all because of their entertainment value. For those who were none too impressed with George Allen and had read the New Republic exposé on his Confederate Flag sympathies, it was almost satisfying to watch him bare his true colors. And it was curiosity that led many to the Corker ad, after many African Americans decried it as racist.

It led me down the path to exploring other classic TV commercials from the past. This site, The Living Room Candidate, has a supurb collection, streaching back to 1952, all the way to the present. Johnson’s “Daisy Girl,” Reagan’s “Bear” and Nixon’s gems are all there.

And finally, what got me thinking about all this today, was today’s Washington Post piece about how election news revolved primarily around covering ads and eschewing issues.

"Ken Goldstein, a political scientist who directed the study, said the coverage of politics and elections increased in the past month and reached its peak in the week before the election. But Goldstein said the news stories tended to focus on the horse race aspect of politics rather than on the views and policies of the candidates."

Amusing ourselves to death, indeed.

Posted by George Gordon at 4:06 PM | Permalink

A Delta fight attendant just upped the ante of the sexual prudishness in the United States.

The Boston Globe has continuing coverage.

Somewhere in New England, our Puritan forfathers are in their graves, delighted.

Posted by George Gordon at 2:26 AM | Permalink

Today’s New York Times featured an excellent article concerning the “brewing” conflict between science and religion, and the suggestion among leading scientific figures of a new kind of evangelization of science. In reality, it is a “war” as old as Galileo and the Church, but brought once again into the news cycles by a polemic written by famed evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.

I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Dawkins speak recently, in promotion of his new book, and I have to say I was genuinely impressed. I was impressed by his convictions, his iconoclast style and the presentation of his arguments. I haven’t read the The God Delusion yet, but I will certainly pick it up at some point.

While my own personal religious beliefs hang somewhere between Deism, the Hindu idea of Thou Art That, and Agnosticism, I certainly see and, to some degree, accept much of the scientific criticism of religion. However, the real issue at stake here is the role of science and religion in the public sphere and in modern society as a whole.

Dawkins and his colleagues at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies forum on religion need to recognize a point that Dr. Lawrence Krass made, which is “The Earth isn’t 6,000 years old [and] The Kennewick man was not a Umatilla Indian,” but the pursuit of scientific truth and the belief in an ordered universe, with a higher power are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, even the least sophisticated student of history can recognize the ideological conflicts that religion has caused. Yes, religion claims a dangerous monopoly on truth, often incompatible with modern liberalism. And yes, from a certain point of view, Mr Dawkins is correct that the religious education of a child does actually amount to a sort of indoctrination.

However, science has already claimed victory after victory in moving religion, particularly Christianity, towards a more tolerant and enlightened form. The literal belief in the Biblical creation stories has been on the decline since the Voltaire and the Age of Reason, the Reformation has smashed the ability of a hierarchical clerical power to meddle in political and social affairs, and the idea of Earth as the center of the Universe has been destroyed by mathematics and astronomy. The Earth has been shown to be billions of years old, the galaxy has been revealed to be an mind-bogglingly expansive place, of which the Earth is bit an insignificant speck.

Above all, Richard Dawkins, who is an evolutionary biologist, should realize that religion too has evolved to suit the needs of society and society has evolved to suit the needs of religion. And it will continue to evolve, often in tandem, sometimes gradually, and sometimes by simply being dragged by overwhelming force of evidence. Yes, it is frustrating to watch lawsuits attempting to stop the teaching of evolution and sound sience and replace it with some pseudo-philosophical objection. But science must confront theology respectfully and vigorously, and mind the fact that the overwhelming majority of human beings subscribe to, and have faith in, a greater being than themselves. That is the hallmark of progressive, enlightened, rational liberalism.

The New York Times – A Free For All On Science and Religion

Posted by George Gordon at 4:27 PM | Permalink