I can't watch the news

"What do you think he's going to say in his speech?"
"What does this moment mean to who-he-whats-it?"
"What's Michelle going to wear?"

I can't take it anymore!

Luckily, the Australian Open is on ESPN2.
I recommend it highly.

Plane Makes Emergency Landing on Hudson River

No fatalities, no serious injuries.

END OF STORY!!!

OK, fine, maybe you want to know what went wrong with the plane, and how they managed to save everybody, etc.

But a 24/7 news story? Why?

Forget about those 1000 people who have died in Gaza in the past two weeks.
155 Americans almost died in New York yesterday!!

Tortured Logic

1. Water boarding is torture.
   
2. The Bush administration authorized water boarding.
   
3. Authorizing torture is a punishable offense.
   

Therefore... ?

What's the rationale for denying the claim that someone from the Bush administration is liable to criminal prosecution?

• We should look forward, not backward (Obama)
  

I tried telling that to the judge when I was in traffic court: "That speeding I did -- that's in the past. The important thing is that I will obey the the speed limit in the future." It didn't fly.

• We shouldn't criminalize policy disagreements (Holder).

But what if it's someone's policy to break the law? It's not their disagreeing with you that's criminal -- it's the crime that they committed.

• The Bush administration didn't know that what they were doing was illegal.
  

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I told the judge in traffic court that I didn't know that going 60 mph on that particular stretch of road was illegal, but that didn't work either.

• The Bush administration acted in accord with legal council that said that what they were doing was legal.

Oh! The lawyers said it was OK! Why didn't you say so? So, if I hire a lawyer to tell me that speeding is legal, I can drive as fast as I want?! Yippee!

It seems to me that the laws that protect people from being tortured should be at least as strong as the laws that protect people from my driving too fast.

And it seems to me, if something is against the law now, and the reasons it is against the law were in play at time t, then that thing was against the law at time t.

So, are there any reasons that make water boarding against the law now that weren't in play in the last several years?

A different administrative "policy"?

What was that I heard, once upon a time, about a separation of legislative and executive branches...? If Obama's policies can deem water boarding to be against the law when it was previously not a punishable offense, then it would seem that they would be justified in not having those policies if that were their prerogative.

Lucky for us, they're nice guys.
Let's hope so, since they seem to basically agree with the Bush administration about the executive being above the law.

It reminds me of when my co-worker opined that our boss was a very judgmental person. When I told her that he didn't seem that way to me, she said "Well, it's not obvious, since most of his judgments are positive."

Charlie Rose

One of my new favorite shows in Charlie Rose on PBS.
It's basically an interview show. Find out more here:
http://www.charlierose.com/
When I first stumbled across it, I thought it was sort of boring, old-fashioned, and a little annoying.
But more often than not, I leave my tv on PBS late at night, and would find Charlie Rose there, conducting a calm, thoughtful, intellectual, in depth and often enlightening interview.
Last night, I caught part I of his interview with David Sanger, talking about his new book, The Inheritance. I'm not one to run out and buy a book after listening to someone on a book tour, but I want to read this book!
On the other hand, I did catch Kate Winslet on there twice, talking about her recent films -- The Reader and Revoloutionary Road. Gosh, she is a little too impressed with herself.

Bush family mourns death of 18 year old white house cat.

That was an AP headline.
I like cats.
I would be sad if one of my cats died.
It's interesting to find out about what the Bush family finds worth morning in the waning days of the Bush administration.

Knit till it hurts!

I finally got a little free time so I wanted to get some knitting and crocheting done.
I over did it, and now I have repetitive stress issues on the right side of my upper body, especially my forearm and wrist. I had to give it a rest today, and it really bumbed me out. It made me start thinking, if God really hates me, he will give me arthritis in my hands so I can't spend my retirement years knitting.

Warren Piece

Rick Warren of Saddleback Church is to deliver Convocation at the Presidential Inagueration.
He has stated on the church website that unrepentant homosexuals are not welcome at his church. He supported California's Proposition 8 which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to wed.


Maybe the government shouldn't be in the marriage business.
Any maybe religious prayers should not be said at state functions.

But given that the government is in the marriage business, and given that prayers are said at state functions, I think that the views held by those who deliver prayers at state functions can sometimes matter, and in this case, they do.

When a religious figure presides at a state function, he plays a certain symbolic role, and is accorded a certain status. He is speaking as spiritual leader, or moral authority. Perhaps you don't consider him your spiritual leader, and you do not recognize his moral authority. But by picking Warren for this role Obama has in effect asked the American people to see him as a spiritual leader and a moral authority, or at least communicated the idea that he sees Warren as an appropriate fit for that role. It is an expression of respect for his spiritual and moral leadership.

If a religious leader speaks at a state function, and the speaker is known for regarding, treating, and arguing that other people should treat some members of the citizenry as undeserving of the full rights and privileges granted to other citizens, then that view is implicitly sanctioned as at least tolerable by those who are responsible for putting him in the role of spiritual and moral authority at the state function. Imagine having a preacher that has spoken out against interracial marriage at the inauguration. What kind of message would that send?

There are those who think that Warren's views are tolerable and even commendable. I don't agree, but we can have that argument another day. What troubles me is those who say they disagree with Warren about same-sex marriage, but think having him speak at the inauguration is not a problem.

Some of the arguments of the apologists:

• Obama said he would talk to leaders of Iran and North Korea, and that was supposed to be OK. Rick Warren is not nearly as bad as those guys, so this should be OK too.
  

I'd have no problem with Obama talking to Rick Warren. Even without pre-conditions. I'd be happy for them to negotiate if they had something to negotiate about. But you wouldn't put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il up there to sanction this big important national event. Why not? I'm not saying Warren is part of the axis of evil, but whatever reason you would have for not wanting a bad guy to cloud your big day should apply to Warren as well.

• Obama is "reaching across the aisle" just like he said he would.

But Warren isn't a Republican congressman that liberals need to negotiate with in order to get legislation passed or something. Political negotiations among lawmakers on various sides of the same-sex marriage issue is probably a good and necessary thing, pragmatically. Perhaps reaching out to their constituents, the evangelicals and the like, is part of that process. But putting someone in what is considered a position of honor is not a matter of being willing to talk and negotiate with them. Its symbolic meaning is much more than that.

• We can disagree about policy without being disagreeable.

It's not like we're disagreeing about a gas tax holiday. We're disagreeing about the permissibility of some people being denied rights that other citizens have, of treating some people as second-class citizens, of denying some committed monogamous couples privileges and benefits granted to others merely on the basis of their genders. I can't blame gays, lesbians, and allies for being a tad disagreeable at the moment.

And I'm not saying Obama should be disagreeable to Warren. If you discuss same-sex marriage, or any other controversial issue with Warren, by all means, behave like a perfect gentleman. But if you find your opponent's views morally problematic, don't put him up on a pedestal and ask for his blessing.

• In the long run, this will do more good than harm for gays and lesbians.

Hmmm.
Well, that's a prediction, and a counterfactual. (We'll never be able to compare the world where Warren spoke at the inauguration to the one where he didn't.) But apart from existential doubts about possible worlds, I don't know why we should think that's true. What can be accomplished for gays and lesbians that is less likely to happen without an anti-gay marriage minister speaking at the inauguration? Is it placating the opponents? or galvanizing them? Is it mobilizing the supporters? Or were they already mobilized after passage of Proposition 8?

And furthermore, it's a crassly consequentialist argument. I'm not saying consequentialism is crass, but consider this analogy. After Jessica Lunsford was abducted and murdered, her father became an activist and got Jessica's Law passed in many states, and (suppose for the sake of argument) numerous would-be victims of child molesters and predators are better off as a result of this course of events.

...and therefore there was nothing wrong with John Couey abducting, raping, and burying Jessica alive?

I'm not saying there's anything equivalent to abduction, rape, and murder going on here.
My point is that inviting Warren speak at the inauguration could be bad in itself, even if, by some strange course of events, it turns out to have good consequences.