Sunday, December 25, 2005
Intelligent Design.....revisited....just for a sec...
As I pointed out in a previous post the irony of the fact that the judge in the Dover, Pa. intelligent design trial was a Republican appointed by President Bush!!! got a wonderful sarcastic mention in the last paragraph of Frank Rich's column in today's Times.....
Reprint from Andrew Sullivan's essay article in Time Magazine's year end issue. I could not have said it better myself.....
Monday, Dec. 19, 2005
The Year We Questioned Authority
For President Bush and other public figures, it was the end of the free pass
By ANDREW SULLIVAN
In mid-January 2005, President Bush declared that the 2004 election had been his "accountability moment." He spoke a bit too soon. The "moment," it turned out, lasted for the following 12 months. The President didn't see it coming. And who could blame him? For more than three years after 9/11, the American public had given the Administration, and indeed many authority figures, the benefit of the doubt. We were at war, even in mortal danger. Trust was essential. The bigwigs kept assuring us they knew what they were doing. And so most of us went along.
2005 was the year we stopped going along. We gave up blind trust and demanded real accountability. We finally had it with a war in which Bush's bromides didn't even begin to match the facts on the ground. We wanted answers and detail and a plan for victory. We began to get one in the past month or so, as the President finally started to give more candid speeches in front of general audiences, even taking unscripted questions! He acknowledged "setbacks" in Iraq and wrong prewar intelligence, predicted violence ahead, asked for persistence and cited tens of thousands of civilian Iraqi deaths.
It was a strange kind of relief, but relief it was. Some of us had wondered if this man, who had so steadfastly refused to match rhetoric with reality for so long, would ever finally hit a wall he couldn't deny, a fact he couldn't dismiss, a world he couldn't fully control. We wonder no more. Bush's signature second-term domestic agenda--Social Security reform--died a pitiless, lingering death in 2005, as the public simply refused to buy it. His gleeful opening of the fiscal spigot--the biggest increase in public spending since F.D.R.--got deficit hawks squawking enough to force the first tiny potential cuts in pork, if nowhere near enough to control the looming debt. The Republican congressional guru, Tom DeLay, discovered that gerrymandering districts in Texas could lead to a Supreme Court challenge and that money-laundering campaign cash could lead to an indictment. Karl Rove lost some sleep over Patrick Fitzgerald. The President's argument that he didn't authorize torture but that he would veto any law that forbade it tanked so badly in the Congress that he had to capitulate and co-opt the McCain anti-torture amendment in full.
These weren't setbacks. They were outright, no-spin defeats: thrilling, fleeting moments when democracy actually seemed to work, when the powerful were forced to concede the limits of their own clout and spin. Katrina was the turning point, the moment when the extent of cronyism, incompetence and sheer smugness in Washington reached a level that even the White House couldn't ignore. FEMA's Michael Brown, the American people surmised with their wide-open eyes, was not doing a "heck of a job." And a President who could say such a thing obviously had no clue about what was going on in his own government.
But the President wasn't the only one to have an accountability moment in 2005. The United Nations was finally compelled to concede that the oil-for-food program for Saddam's Iraq had turned into a massive scam. The French looked into the abyss of their tendency to segregate the races. Arnold Schwarzenegger discovered that his charms had limits. Harriet Miers was stunned to find that being the President's favorite lawyer and running the Texas lottery were not actually qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. The New York Times's Judith Miller learned that you cannot be both a journalist and a de facto member of the Bush Administration. Scooter Libby was informed that fibbing to a grand jury--even if you are Dick Cheney's right-hand man--is not, in the end, a good idea. Baseball players with necks the size of most people's thighs were shocked to discover that we were on to them. Saddam Hussein found himself in a court that he didn't control. Even the journalistic giant Bob Woodward realized that he still worked for a newspaper to whose readers he remained--yes!--accountable.
We tend to think democracies come truly alive only when we elect or throw out a President or Congressman or Senator. But the truth is that sometimes the democratic spirit is more vibrant in the intervals. Democracy is rooted in the impertinent belief that our rulers are no better than we are and that they are answerable always. We're occasionally amazed to discover that people who are used to power forget that. That's why, every now and again, we have to remind them. In that sense, 2005 was a great year for democracy. Because it was reborn this time after the votes were counted.
Andrew Sullivan's blog, the Daily Dish, can be found at andrew sullivan.com
The Year We Questioned Authority
For President Bush and other public figures, it was the end of the free pass
By ANDREW SULLIVAN
In mid-January 2005, President Bush declared that the 2004 election had been his "accountability moment." He spoke a bit too soon. The "moment," it turned out, lasted for the following 12 months. The President didn't see it coming. And who could blame him? For more than three years after 9/11, the American public had given the Administration, and indeed many authority figures, the benefit of the doubt. We were at war, even in mortal danger. Trust was essential. The bigwigs kept assuring us they knew what they were doing. And so most of us went along.
2005 was the year we stopped going along. We gave up blind trust and demanded real accountability. We finally had it with a war in which Bush's bromides didn't even begin to match the facts on the ground. We wanted answers and detail and a plan for victory. We began to get one in the past month or so, as the President finally started to give more candid speeches in front of general audiences, even taking unscripted questions! He acknowledged "setbacks" in Iraq and wrong prewar intelligence, predicted violence ahead, asked for persistence and cited tens of thousands of civilian Iraqi deaths.
It was a strange kind of relief, but relief it was. Some of us had wondered if this man, who had so steadfastly refused to match rhetoric with reality for so long, would ever finally hit a wall he couldn't deny, a fact he couldn't dismiss, a world he couldn't fully control. We wonder no more. Bush's signature second-term domestic agenda--Social Security reform--died a pitiless, lingering death in 2005, as the public simply refused to buy it. His gleeful opening of the fiscal spigot--the biggest increase in public spending since F.D.R.--got deficit hawks squawking enough to force the first tiny potential cuts in pork, if nowhere near enough to control the looming debt. The Republican congressional guru, Tom DeLay, discovered that gerrymandering districts in Texas could lead to a Supreme Court challenge and that money-laundering campaign cash could lead to an indictment. Karl Rove lost some sleep over Patrick Fitzgerald. The President's argument that he didn't authorize torture but that he would veto any law that forbade it tanked so badly in the Congress that he had to capitulate and co-opt the McCain anti-torture amendment in full.
These weren't setbacks. They were outright, no-spin defeats: thrilling, fleeting moments when democracy actually seemed to work, when the powerful were forced to concede the limits of their own clout and spin. Katrina was the turning point, the moment when the extent of cronyism, incompetence and sheer smugness in Washington reached a level that even the White House couldn't ignore. FEMA's Michael Brown, the American people surmised with their wide-open eyes, was not doing a "heck of a job." And a President who could say such a thing obviously had no clue about what was going on in his own government.
But the President wasn't the only one to have an accountability moment in 2005. The United Nations was finally compelled to concede that the oil-for-food program for Saddam's Iraq had turned into a massive scam. The French looked into the abyss of their tendency to segregate the races. Arnold Schwarzenegger discovered that his charms had limits. Harriet Miers was stunned to find that being the President's favorite lawyer and running the Texas lottery were not actually qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. The New York Times's Judith Miller learned that you cannot be both a journalist and a de facto member of the Bush Administration. Scooter Libby was informed that fibbing to a grand jury--even if you are Dick Cheney's right-hand man--is not, in the end, a good idea. Baseball players with necks the size of most people's thighs were shocked to discover that we were on to them. Saddam Hussein found himself in a court that he didn't control. Even the journalistic giant Bob Woodward realized that he still worked for a newspaper to whose readers he remained--yes!--accountable.
We tend to think democracies come truly alive only when we elect or throw out a President or Congressman or Senator. But the truth is that sometimes the democratic spirit is more vibrant in the intervals. Democracy is rooted in the impertinent belief that our rulers are no better than we are and that they are answerable always. We're occasionally amazed to discover that people who are used to power forget that. That's why, every now and again, we have to remind them. In that sense, 2005 was a great year for democracy. Because it was reborn this time after the votes were counted.
Andrew Sullivan's blog, the Daily Dish, can be found at andrew sullivan.com
A Comment on a Comment
A reader points out some faux pas from previous post......my response follows:
Both points are well taken......
1. "no link" - correct......because the title of the op-ed piece - "a Beginner's......Foe" is adequate for anyone to jump to the NYTimes site (from sidebar) and bring up the piece by inserting title into its search engine.....
up till now i've purposely refrained from giving specific links for Times' articles (because if one is not registered the link will only lead to its registration sign up page) but on reconsideration - and i thank you for the provocation - i will ex post facto alter my modus operandus.......Thank you.
Post Script: interestingly, the NYTimes site shows no references to the subject op-ed piece, which appeared Dec 23rd. indeed if one goes on the site to a listing of its op-ed pieces there are none that can be brought up from that day. curious that there's a "blackout" for the day....could be ;-) that the Times itself is embarrassed for the piece and has imposed its own blackout....
2. as to the "hot air" I refrained in this instance from guilding the lily. so-to-speak, but you are correct in that the letter is amiss in not citing at least one example of what i was attempting to convey.
Both points are well taken......
1. "no link" - correct......because the title of the op-ed piece - "a Beginner's......Foe" is adequate for anyone to jump to the NYTimes site (from sidebar) and bring up the piece by inserting title into its search engine.....
up till now i've purposely refrained from giving specific links for Times' articles (because if one is not registered the link will only lead to its registration sign up page) but on reconsideration - and i thank you for the provocation - i will ex post facto alter my modus operandus.......Thank you.
Post Script: interestingly, the NYTimes site shows no references to the subject op-ed piece, which appeared Dec 23rd. indeed if one goes on the site to a listing of its op-ed pieces there are none that can be brought up from that day. curious that there's a "blackout" for the day....could be ;-) that the Times itself is embarrassed for the piece and has imposed its own blackout....
2. as to the "hot air" I refrained in this instance from guilding the lily. so-to-speak, but you are correct in that the letter is amiss in not citing at least one example of what i was attempting to convey.
Friday, December 23, 2005
The Times Hits a Low Point in Good Taste
A Beginner’s Guide to Hanukkah
By JONATHAN SAFRAN FOE
Anyone who reads the Times on a daily will be interested in today's op ed piece - referenced above.
I was so taken back with it that I wrote them a letter, cc below:
Dear Editor:
I am a daily reader and admirer of the Times.
However, this op-ed piece (referenced above) from today's paper is in such poor taste - insulting, disrespectful......indeed quixotic and way off-base.
I will still read the paper every day - indeed most often I agree with your editorials. But I implore you to use better judgement in the future when selecting a piece for the op-ed page.
Cordially,
Herbert Peress
A Shining Star Falls.....
South Korean Stem-Cell Researcher Resigns
By BO-MI LIM, Associated Press Writer
South Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk resigned from his university on Friday after the school said he fabricated stem-cell research that had raised hopes of new cures for hard-to-treat diseases.
A university panel, releasing initial findings of a probe, accused Hwang of damaging the scientific community with his deception, while South Korea's government rued the scandal surrounding the country's star scientist and said it may pull its funding for his research."I sincerely apologize to the people for creating a shock and disappointment," Hwang told reporters as he was leaving his office at Seoul National University, considered the country's top institution of higher learning.
The above story which came out this morning gave me pause......I was shocked at what appears to be this scientist's apparent ethical lapse in fabricating his research. What is most sad is the profound effect this has had and will continue to have on students there, especially in a nation like Korea where an extremely high moral compass prevails and respect for family elders and the importance of education is paramount. I have always been impressed with the Korean students I've met here and it is just very sad that one of their shining stars has fallen from grace. I include two photos showing the reaction of students at the news conference where Hwang announced his resignation......Their faces says it all.....
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Holiday Greetings from the Big Apple
Transit strike or not - our doors are open and our customers appreciate the personal attention and excellent product selection we provide........ Peress Lingerie at 1006 Madison Avenue.......pay us a visit when you're in town.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Intelligent Design
December 21, 2005
From the New York Times
Issuing Rebuke, Judge Rejects Teaching of Intelligent Design
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
HARRISBURG, Pa., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."
In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum.
Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of "breathtaking inanity" and "dragged" their community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
This decision which came down today, banning the Dover School Board from inserting a discussion about "intelligent design" into the high school students biology curriculm, was from a Republican Judge appointed by President Bush.
Lets see now how the the far right fundementalist wing of that party will react.....Will they ask for the judges impeachment as they did with that Florida District judge who "had the audacity" to consistently rule in favor of the hushand in the Teryy Schiavo case.
Tonight, there's good news in the heartland. Thank G_d that everyone in a position of power has not lost their senses.
I applaud this Judge's forthright, honest and most rational decision.
From the New York Times
Issuing Rebuke, Judge Rejects Teaching of Intelligent Design
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
HARRISBURG, Pa., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."
In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum.
Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of "breathtaking inanity" and "dragged" their community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
This decision which came down today, banning the Dover School Board from inserting a discussion about "intelligent design" into the high school students biology curriculm, was from a Republican Judge appointed by President Bush.
Lets see now how the the far right fundementalist wing of that party will react.....Will they ask for the judges impeachment as they did with that Florida District judge who "had the audacity" to consistently rule in favor of the hushand in the Teryy Schiavo case.
Tonight, there's good news in the heartland. Thank G_d that everyone in a position of power has not lost their senses.
I applaud this Judge's forthright, honest and most rational decision.
Technorati Tags: Current Events
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Charlie Rose
Rose has the most interesting guests - tonight was no exception.....the second half of the show was devoted to a discussion w/ Richard Brodhead, President of Duke University - a renaissance man if there ever was one. He was educated at Yale, undergarad and graduate, went on to teaching there - humanities, rose to Dean of the Undergraduate School, and recently was offered and took over as President of Duke. A most delightful, articulate educator. I urge everyone to pick up the transcript from the interview which is usually nade available a few days after airing: The Charlie Rose Show
Monday, December 12, 2005
Introducing Herb's Blog
You, the reader, on this site will be privileged to read an occasional rumination on a variety of subjects by no other than yours truly..........Herbert Peress
