Tuesday, July 11, 2006

What Religion is YOUR Superhero or Supervillain?

Via the usually philosophical Brandon, I found this index of the religious affiliations/beliefs of a wide swath of comic book heroes, supporting characters and villains. So, I've added, to this quiz [via], their religious affiliations.

Your results:
You are Superman
Superman (Methodist)
80%
Spider-Man (Protestant)
65%
Iron Man (Secular/Agnostic)

50%
Robin (Christian)

45%
Hulk (lapsed Catholic)
45%
Green Lantern (various)

40%
Supergirl (Methodist)

38%
Catwoman (Catholic)

35%
Batman (lapsed Episcopalian/Catholic)
35%
The Flash (nominal Christian)

20%
Wonder Woman (Greco-Roman Classical)
18%
You are mild-mannered, good, strong, Methodist, and you love to help others.
Click here to take the "Which Superhero am I?" quiz...

Adding this result to my quiz and meme index, I note that I took this before and came out almost the same. Does it mean anything that I'm a bit more Superman than I was six months ago?

Monday, July 10, 2006

Good Reading...

Start, if you're one of us "can't put it down" readers, with Chris Bray's meditation on literature-induced insomnia. Also suffering from insomnia, Sepoy meditates on torture in media as well as in reality.

Then, because he says it so well, I'll just quote Ralph Luker
Recent years' enthusiasm for the Founding Fathers has neglected John Witherspoon. Roger Kimball, "The Forgotten Founder," Opinion Journal, 3 July; Jonathan Rowe, "John Witherspoon," Positive Liberty, 3 July; and Brandon Watson, "Musing on Witherspoon," Siris, 7 July, is a conversation that needs to happen.
Just remember to read all three pieces, because there's some very interesting correcting and revising going on in the process. Luker also notes the Asian History Carnival, which has much better stuff in it than my own contribution....

Bill mostly quotes other folks, but I'm going to quote him: "The Chicago Manual of Style. You either know it and hate it, or you've never had to deal with it." So true. He has some suggestions, though.

Sunday, July 09, 2006

Post-Posting the Post

At first, it looks like grade inflation gone completely berserk.
"You have to understand our circumstances. We cannot perform well on the exam because of the problems in Baghdad. And you have to help," the letter began, said its recipient, A.M. Taleb, dean of the College of Sciences at Baghdad University. "If you do not, you and your family will be killed."
Read on, though, and it's really about the inexcusable atrocity being committed by anti-modern forces in Iraq: the decapitation -- figurative and literal -- of Iraqi learning, technology, professionalism, and hope
It's finals time in Iraq. Black-clad gunmen have stormed a dormitory to snatch students from their rooms. Professors fear failing and angering their pupils. Administrators curtailed graduation ceremonies to avoid convening large groups of people into an obvious bombing target. Perhaps nowhere else does the prospect of two months' summer vacation -- for those who can afford it, a chance to flee the country -- bring such unbridled relief.
I can't think of any examples of something like this going on that didn't take at least a generation to recover.

Michael Kinsley makes good points about the morality of stem cell research, but ultimately misses the point
Proponents of stem cell research like to emphasize that it doesn't cost the life of a single embryo. The embryos killed to extract their stem cells were doomed already. But this argument gives too much ground, and misses the point. If embryos are human beings, it's not okay to kill them for their stem cells just because you were going to kill them, or knowingly let them die, anyway. The better point -- the killer point, if you'll pardon the expression -- is that if embryos are human beings, the routine practices of fertility clinics are far worse -- both in numbers and in criminal intent -- than stem cell research. And yet, no one objects, or objects very loudly. President Bush actually praised the work of fertility clinics in his first speech announcing restrictions on stem cells.
The natural conclusion, which Kinsley misses because he's trying to be nice, is that stem cell research is the "wedge issue" which will ultimately result in regulation of all embryonic handling and the death of biological science. "No one objects, or objects very loudly" to fertility treatments because they don't want to scare off millions of potential supporters until they have a stronger legal and rhetorical case and it's too late to reframe the question.

In other fertility news, China is persecuting an activist for exposing abuses committed in the name of China's One-Child Policy. Again, there's a sort of double-edged sword there: most of what he describes is actually pretty much what's required by the policy itself, so he's not really critiquing local officials as much as he is the existence of a population control regime. Which, of course, is why the central government is coming down on him like the proverbial ton of bricks.

Mexican Election Blogging

Like most Americans, I haven't spent a lot of time on the Mexican election (though I've paid more attention than I did to the recent Canadian elections, for what it's worth), but there's been some interesting commentary in the wake of the close result. Oscar Chamberlain's discussion of the third party raises interesting questions, particularly in the light of recent overtures to "unity government" building. The most detailed critique of the vote counting agency is solid stuff, but sometimes a graphic really is worth a thousand words.

Update: Avedon Carol (from whom I got most of the above links) has a great roundup of recent commentary.

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Behavioral Economics and Politics

This Harvard Magazine overview of the field of behavioral economics is interesting in itself, but even more so when you realize the extent to which these findings are being manipulated and managed by political and corporate overlords to shape the population in the image of their perfect consumer/constituent.

This Tomorrow's Professor posting describes some of the "first impression" analysis that we do as experts, the subtle ways in which we can be manipulated, and the importance of training our incredibly agile minds.

As important as first impressions are, though, real debate -- not canned pseudo-presidential press appearances or forensic exercises or blogwars -- by the people who are affected by policy is incredibly effective at cutting through "conventional wisdom" and reaching solutions that actually work with the community because they come from the community. It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight more democratic and wise than what we've got now.

I used to have a button -- from my F/SF Con days -- that said "Can you tell the difference between fallacious logic and cunning linguistics?"

Thursday, July 06, 2006

New Sadducees


The Torah portion this week is one of the true dividing lines in modern Judaism: Liberal Jews like myself interpret this portion historically and metaphorically; Orthodox Jews sit somewhere in the middle; Torah literalists, eschatologists and other "ultra" types want to recreate the Temple and the taboos of pre-Rabbinic practice
Parshas Chukkas begins with the laws of the Parah Adumah, the Red Heifer. Any Jew who has had contact with a corpse, even indirect contact such as walking in a cemetery or being under the same roof as a corpse, becomes ritually impure (“tamei”). The only way to remove his tum’ah is through sprinkling him with the Parah Adumah ashes.

Nowadays, with the absence of the Red Heifer ashes, we are all regarded as ritually impure, since in the course of day-to-day life avoiding all contact with a corpse is not feasible. (Consider that entering a hospital creates a likely situation of “being under one roof with a corpse,” and even walking outside leaves open the possibility of “walking over an [unknown] grave”.)

Rambam (peirush ha-Mishnayos; Parah 3:3) asks: Seeing as obtaining Parah Adumah ashes requires the services of an “ish tahor” — one who is already pure — how will it be possible to re-establish the mitzvah of Parah Adumah in the future (when Moshiach comes)? It seems, he answers, that we will have to seclude two small infants from society, and ensure they never leave the premises of a ritually-pure home built especially for them until they reach the age that they are able to supervise the making of a new set of Parah Adumah ashes. This is an acceptable way of obtaining the ashes.

He concludes as follows:
For there is no [practical] difference between one who was never tamei to a corpse, and one who was tamei his whole life and was purified [through the Parah Adumah process], except that one who has become purified [after being tamei] is on a higher level of purity than one who was never tamei to begin with, since [the Torah] calls him ‘tahor,’ [but still, both are acceptable to create the new ashes].
In a nutshell, Rambam observes that the Torah ascribes greater purity to one who was tamei and rendered pure through the Parah Adumah ashes [in that the Torah calls him “tahor” — pure], than it does to one who is inherently tahor, never having been in contact with a corpse. An insightful observation — but why? How is it possible that one who was once tamei is on a higher level of purity than one who was never tamei to begin with?
The answer to that is a Jewish version -- yeah, that came from Judaism, too -- of the Prodigal Son principle.

With the establishment of the State of Israel, this was probably inevitable. The return from Diaspora in the Persian/Roman age produced a great diversity of responses to the loss of the First Temple and creation of the Second: Sadducees were the Temple Priests, Torah literalists and political collaborators to protect their position (and remind me very much of the ulta-orthodox position in Israel today); Pharisees and Scribes were the Diasporic teachers, creators of the Synagogue tradition and the Oral Law preserved in Talmud and Mishnah (they also absorbed the messianic tradition from Persia), adaptors and ethical thinkers whose legacy is carried on in both the moderate Orthodox and Liberal traditions; Essenes and other eschatologists were Torah literalists with a messianic bent (kind of remind me of Christian Zionists, actually) who rejected the corrupted politics of the Sadducees; Zealots, the first Zionists, who rejected political collaboration in favor of an independent Jewish nation but who had no particular religious affiliation; assimilationists, of course, have existed in every age, and in every age the literalists have failed to distinguish between modernizers and rejectors of the tradition.

Ultimately, the loss of the Second Temple -- due in no small part to political infighting -- led to the ascendancy of the Rabbinic tradition. Now, perhaps ironically, there are probably as many "rebuild the temple" literalists living in the US as there are in Israel (note the first link above), and, aside from another (God forbid) catastrophic event, I don't see what will prevent these factions from becoming entrenched positions.

Satire and all

The Carnival of Satire has some great stuff. I'm particularly fond of the Strange Statue Gallery (fair warning: Being art, there's nudity, and being modern and satirical, there's crudity).

These "laptops with secret information lost" stories are really funny when they happen to someone else, we find out about them in time, and nobody actually gets hurt....

Skeptical Soda is the theme of the latest Skeptics Circle, another -- if there were an award for most creative hosting, Skeptics Circle would have a lock -- incredibly creative presentation of really good material.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

More things to think about

Carnival of Feminists seems to have mostly recovered from the comic critique fixation and moved on in some nice directions.

Prisons just got Constitutional protection from inmate lawsuits, which Eric Muller's guest blogger says is even worse, human rights-wise, than any of their other recent decisions. I'm inclined to agree.

I love Brian Ulrich, with his plague on both houses analysis of the Israel-Palestine problem.

Osama bin Laden likes George W. Bush.... I didn't say it, the CIA did. And the CIA is done looking for him, which suggests that the feeling's mutual.

Why are we barking up new trees, when we're still cleaning up after Reagan and Bush I, and we can't even convince North Korea to stop testing duds.

And Orac needs links if he's gonna make the big time. Links from bigger bloggers than me, that is....

Liberals and other Patriotic Sorts

The Carnival of the Liberals is a solid roundup of stuff, though the topics are quite predictable. If you haven't been following the political blogs at all lately, it's a good catch-up edition. If you have, there's usually at least one new blog or thought there....

British Police Bloggers haven't yet, it seems, run into the humorless chain of command problems of US police bloggers.

Speaking of Justice, I still haven't figured out what to say about China's "Bus of Death", mobile execution facility. Speechlessness seem appropriate, somehow.

Conversely, I have too many things to say about Tim Burke's thoughts on politics and liberty to know where to start. A bit at a time, perhaps.

Jonathan Wilson has produced a short guide to tendentious history which, in spite of the easiness of the target, is a wonderful piece.

Finally, contrasting adaptations: Orac tackles racialist nonsense and Ozarque compares bad news to the ever-present tick.

See also: Laughing at Neo-nazis, an incredible rainbow, Beer Spearing, Living with HIV/AIDS Blog Carnival, Lazy Cluelessness, and Legal antics.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Forever in peace may it wave....

American Flag
Flag myths and July 4th myths aside, it's a celebration of worthy ideas and ideals. That we fall short of them at times does not change fact that I'd rather be alive here and now than any other time or place in history I can think of.