PRAVDA: Yuri Gagarin was not the first cosmonaut.
Just the first who lived.
Pretty creepy, but hardly surprising.
Posted by Ron Coleman on January 27, 2008
PRAVDA: Yuri Gagarin was not the first cosmonaut.
Just the first who lived.
Pretty creepy, but hardly surprising.
Posted in O Mores!, Oppression, Scientificus | 3 Comments »
Posted by Ron Coleman on January 26, 2008
Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is in trouble:
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said Friday that her office would investigate reports that Kilpatrick and Chief of Staff Christine Beatty exchanged romantic text messages in 2002 and 2003, despite testifying in a trial last summer that they did not have a physical relationship then.The Detroit Free Press examined about 14,000 text messages on Beatty’s city-issued pager from those years that indicate the two had been intimate during that period. They reveal the two carried on a flirty, sometimes sexually explicit dialogue about where to meet and how to conceal their numerous trysts.
The Free Press did not explain exactly how it obtained the messages. The newspaper said it cross-referenced the messages with the mayor’s private calendar and credit card records to verify events in some of the notes.
The ether betrays its secrets freely. Professionally speaking, it’s downright astonishing — and somewhat depressing — to see what people will punch into their cellphones and email accounts. It is a testament to great emotional desperation, the banal electronic background hum of hurting human souls. Interestingly, there’s a “literature” on the Internet that suggests that lovestruck, broken-hearted, and on-the-make men write more pathetic extended emails than women.
The question is, do these electronic devices really facilitate illicit relationships, i.e., allow ones to happen that otherwise would not? Or are we just getting better records of what was going on all along?
Posted in O Mores! | 7 Comments »
Posted by Ron Coleman on January 14, 2008
Emily Bazelon asks, “Who Was Hillary Kidding on Meet the Press?” when she said she sure as heck didn’t want to see gender or race injected into the Democratic primary campaign. It is to laugh!
Similarly, the ADDeRabbi blogger says, let’s face it, she can’t even tell the truth about the most important issues of the day:
[O]ne thing that Hillary said during her senatorial campaign which just totally summed up why I can’t stomach her. She was asked whether she’s a Yankee fan or a Met fan. . . .
Hillary’s answer: “I like them both”. No. You’re not allowed to say that. You can’t like them both. Clearly, she felt that she didn’t want to alienate the fans of one team by saying she supports the other. See, but that’s the point. She’s a phony. She said what she thought would be politically expedient, not what she believes. I’m not so fickle a person that I wouldn’t vote for Giuliani because he roots for a team I hate. He has his preference, and he doesn’t try to hide it. He wears his Yankee cap everywhere and attends games. Had Hillary said “Gee, y’know, I really don’t follow baseball much”, I’d have understood and respected that. Not everyone’s a baseball fan. But she didn’t say that. She tried to please them all by, for lack of a better term, lying. I understand that politicians often must do this, but when it’s so pervasive that it even extends to fundamentally trivial matters, it becomes abhorrent.
I always thought it was remarkable how hard it is for Hillary Clinton, she of the Wall Street Journal-based investment success and ersatz Southern drawl, to tell the truth about almost anything. The recent death of Sir Edmund Hillary reminded me of how, just for the hell of it, she invented a story that she had been named after the first man to climb Mt. Everest.
I praised Hillary Clinton when she was the only Democratic candidate with the nerve to admit that retreat from Iraq was not a good policy for America, back when the heat was on. Did she mean it then, or was that just what seemed to be the right thing to say, in a contrarian sense? I don’t know. But she is, fundamentally — as she constantly reminds us — a very dishonest person, and hence a perfect match for our disbarred former President… in their way… but not for you and me.
Posted in O Mores!, Politics and Poker | 8 Comments »
Posted by Ron Coleman on January 11, 2008
Most valuable commenter Ara Rubyan writes in and asks:
Given that you’ve written about how all politicians from FDR through Obama have failed to adequately respond to the Holocaust and genocide, could you be persuaded to address President Bush’s latest comments after visiting Yad Vashem?
And if you do, could you please include the comments of Sen. McGovern :
Former U.S. Senator George McGovern piloted a B-24 Liberator in December 1944, and his squadron bombed Nazi oil facilities less than five miles from Auschwitz. In 2005, he said “There is no question we should have attempted…to go after Auschwitz. There was a pretty good chance we could have blasted those rail lines off the face of the Earth, which would have interrupted the flow of people to thos death chambers, and we had a pretty good chance of knocking out those gas ovens.” Reflecting the ongoing controversy, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum historian Peter Black’s response to McGovern’s argument was that had the rail lines been destroyed, the Nazis might have shot the Jews instead. He also said the government couldn’t pinpoint where the gas chambers were and would have had to carpet-bomb the camp.
Yes, I can, Ara. What McGovern says is (as usual) not all that interesting. But I’m surprised at
what Black says. I am not a Holocaust expert, but the reason the Germans didn’t shoot the Jews wasn’t because they were shy about using bullets. In the early days of the extermination policy, when German forces sliced through Eastern Europe, they killed Jews the old-fashioned way — drowning them in marshes, burning them up in synagogues, and of course, shooting them. (Incidentally, the trick of making them dig their own graves and then kneel before them for execution was invented by Lenin’s boys.) They switched to gas for efficiency. Obviously they could always have switched back to less efficient methods, but that would have slowed the killing machine — and diverted manpower, and also ammunition.
But regardless of the incremental effect on the genocide — and that is nothing to sneeze at; he who save a single life saves an entire world — knocking out the gas chambers would have been the moral thing to do. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in O Mores!, Oppression, Past is prologue | 12 Comments »
Posted by Ron Coleman on January 1, 2008
Glenn Reynolds links to this article about the latest “key” to obesity. It says that “a protein called brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is critical in mediating satiety in adult mice,” so, naturally, it’s only a matter of time till someone finds a way to put the stuff in a brightly-colored pill, and then once again we’ll all be able to fit into those molded plastic seats on the subway, right?
Of course not. It’s a little more complicated than that. On the way home from afternoon shul that I heard this on NPR. Bear with me — it’s a little long, but really very interesting, and it hits all the notes:
Cox: This is Donny Wong. He’s a London-based pharmaceutical analyst who specialises in the obesity field. He says drug companies are throwing huge portions of their R and D budgets at obesity-related research.
Wong: “There are over 400 compounds that are listed in databases that are in some point of development.”
Cox: Pfizer and Merck are working on their own versions of cannabinoid receptor antagonists. Other companies are trying to improve on a drug that prevents fat absorption. There’s also research into a gut hormone that may control appetite.
But all these drugs come with concerns about side effects. In fact, Acomplia is not available in the United States because the FDA is concerned that the drug may cause psychiatric problems. In clinical tests, a handful of people on Acomplia developed depression or suicidal thoughts. Wong says those kinds of outcomes are a real risk for drugs that tinker with the brain.
Wong: “The centrally acting drugs oftentimes have centrally acting side effects, and that’s really a huge area of concern for physicians. “
Cox: Some day there may be a drug that that produces significant weight loss with no serious side effects. But Barry Popkin thinks that’s still many years off. Popkin heads a global obesity center at the University of North Carolina. He says a person’s metabolism depends on so many internal and external factors; pharmaceuticals will never be able to address them all.
Popkin: “These drugs, if we find them, are going to be very expensive and have to be targeted in very complex ways, possibly related to your genetic makeup and affecting small populations at a time. And the world can’t afford that. “
Posted in Americana, O Mores!, Scientificus | 6 Comments »
Posted by Ron Coleman on December 26, 2007
“Best of the year,” continued.
This is one of my favorite posts that got almost no traction whatsoever, undeservedly, I thought:
One giant leap in reverse for logic and public policy debate. Instapundit falls for the “man on the moon” fallacy:
Arianna Huffington … asks: “In the Age of Terror, Isn’t Busting Toe-Tappers an Insane Use of Our Law Enforcement Resources?” Put me down for a yes vote on that one.
It’s the same argument, just sideways, as the old, “If they can put a man on the moon, why can’t they ” — anything. Anything that has nothing to do with putting a man in the moon. It is a fallacious argument meant to simulate the
argument a fortiori, to wit, if they can do the larger A (put a man on the moon) surely then can do the much, much “smaller” B (serve good food on an airplane, get the cable guy to come on time, whatever). Of course B does not in any way flow from such an A; the issues are unrelated; there is no such proof.
Here, too, a major and minor premise are advertised as related and one deducible from the other, but here it is in reverse: If we have time for vice squad activities by law enforcement, “all the more so” we must have already “put a man on the moon,” i.e., solved terrorism. Oh, we haven’t done B? Then what business do we have doing A?! See what a bad idea A is?
But A does not flow from B at all. They have nothing at all in common at all except for the fact that both are described under the very broad rubric of law enforcement functions. But a reduction in vice squad activity in a Midwestern city has no bearing on the resources that will actually be made available, consequently, in the activities of entirely different law enforcement agencies, in different places, involving personnel with entirely different qualifications, in fighting terrorism — just as a posited reduction in traffic enforcement, drug enforcement, zoning laws and even burglary, rape and assault investigations are utterly unrelated to terrorism. All these things are “small” B’s to the larger A, but besides being smaller and both being done by people allowed to carry guns, they are completely unrelated.
It’s a very bad faith argument, a cloak for the true argument, which is, “I don’t like public morals laws.” So then come out and say that, and make that case. But the juxtaposition with terrorism is the chicken’s way out. It not only cloaks the bad argument but wraps the maker in a cynical mantle of patriotism and concern with terrorism. I’m not surprised to see it from the phony Huffington. As to Instapundit — here Glenn is simply caught up in his libertarian disdain for public morals laws and has switched his law professor brain entirely in favor of a head full of mush.
Too bad. If Glenn is against laws that prohibit solicitation of intimate activities in public facilities, I’d like to see him make those arguments, not endorse fake ones like this. “In the Age of Terror” has no more logical force than urging your favorite policy because it’s better “for the children.”
UPDATE: A related argument, from Kim du Toit, and one from Michelle Malkin.
Posted in O Mores!, Oppression | 4 Comments »
Posted by Ron Coleman on December 23, 2007
It’s the end of the year, auld lang syne and all that, so I am indulging in some more “best of” posting, perhaps through New Year’s, in addition to the constant, irresistible stream of stunningly original material.
The post reprinted below was among the first published on this blog. It came up while I was searching for something totally unrelated for purposes of a cross-reference. It turns out, however, not only to be a post I really remember liking — if only because I had finally expressed a thesis, complete with the Murray Slaughter reference, I’d been contemplating for decades — but because it utilizes a quote from Rabbi Israel Salanter that I used (having forgotten about it) about a week ago in this post; when I published the piece below, I had been unable to find its source.
Ultimately I also feel this post has something valuable to say about the way people struggle for ways to resolve their passionate need for connection, and when that need must be denied, however painful, in deference to other spiritual needs and moral priorities. In that respect it may remind regular readers of the theme of the “singing” post I put up late last week. The good news is, this one is much shorter, and a lot less purple. I have, however, added one additional sentence upon reflection.
Thank God, I have a lot more people reading my little thoughts now than when I wrote this one, so perhaps this merits a second look:
Dawn Eden, more than a little interested in the subject, clarifies the word chaste:
[E]veryone is supposed to observe chastity according to their state in life, so there’s single chastity and there’s married chastity. Chastity is really a way to look at all your relationships so that they no longer become mere exchanges of commodities. It’s a plan for your whole life, for your happiness, and for eventually going to heaven. I look at chastity as a way to practice what it’s like to be in heaven.
Huh — live and learn. It reminds me of the Jewish concept of tzeniuth, which is usually translated as “modesty” (typically alluding to modesty in matters of dress) but which I learned really means “dignity.”
There is one use of the word “chaste,” though, that I will always remember. It was on the old Mary Tyler Moore Show, when Murray Slaughter — the crypto-Jewish copywriter played by Gavin McLeod — his heart filled to bursting, finally has to tell Mary that he’s in love with her. (This was before McLeod became captain of, ironically, the Love Boat.) Mary, perpetually single but very desirable, expresses how flattered she is and gently reminds Murray that he’s married (thus avoiding the more painful truth that he’s not in her league). Murray, the literary romantic, resolves it by assuring her that he knows this, he loves his wife, and that he will still always love Mary (“Myeh-ry” as he says it; the Jewish part of his character is not played out as Rhoda Morgenstern’s is, but with that accent in Minneapolis, and his literary pretensions, it’s pretty clear) “pure and chaste from afar.”
I found that very touching, and of course somewhat sad, but also was impressed by the level of maturity that Murray showed in making this acknowledgment. I must have been impressed — I am sure I saw that episode about 30 years ago, and it still sticks with me. Still and all, the higher service for Murray would have been to keep his feelings to himself — this would truly have been pure and chaste and, especially, “afar.” In Jewish sensibility we call this k’rivath hadaath, literally, “the bringing-close of the mind” — for such a revelation of one’s feelings about another, regardless of acceptance or rejection, opens up new mental gateways between the two people in conversation. The Torah teaches us that merely expressing something verbally, among other things, can cross a line of the heart, breach a wall of emotional propriety that protects far more than mere emotions.
How more so is this true for the Murray Slaughters of the world, who can readily make words express what is in their hearts and by so doing open the hearts of others as well.
Murray, in fact, pushes the point and cannot restrain himself from asking Mary if the feeling is mutual. Unfortunately in his case, it isn’t. So she kind of says, “I love ya, buddy” and bear hugs him as his aunt might, thereby bursting his bubble — not as if he could ever have dared to think otherwise.
Yes, Murray would have been better nurturing, or neutering, his secret love secretly. I wish I could remember in whose name I saw this bit of doggerel — it went something like this: “Not everything that is said should be written; not everything that is thought, should be said.” Imagine where the blogosphere would be with such a worldview; and yet this golden rule — and not merely whether my swinging fist implodes your visage — is , perhaps, the very minimum guideline of a civilized, i.e., social, person. Perhaps this too it is of a piece with Dawn’s definition of chastity.
Posted in Heart and spirit, O Mores! | 6 Comments »
Posted by Ron Coleman on December 18, 2007
Not everything that is thought should be said, not everything that is said should be written, and not everything that is written should be published.
This is credited to Rabbi Israel Salanter.
The blog, the BlackBerry, the email are all vacuums, begging for content. Yet so often there is far more utility in shutting up; perhaps this is why Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel says in the Mishna, “All my days I grew up among sages, and I have found nothing greater for a person than silence” (Ethics of the Fathers, 1:17).
Is there a greater test, especially in our time, for the verbally facile, the spiritually agitated, the spirit seeking connection?
UPDATE: Turns out I used a version of that quote before.
Posted in Faith and Works, Homo sapiens, O Mores! | 7 Comments »
Posted by Ron Coleman on November 29, 2007
They’re having a freewheeling “God, Truth and Eternity” series of posts and related threads on Dean’s World. That’s one of that blog’s enduring merits — it doesn’t consider itself too fancy to have Square One debates early, often and wide open.
I wrote the following in response to a comment there, which is quoted in the indented passages here:
[T]he concept of a “God” who demands that I believe things that are logically indistinguishable from fairy tales or else he will punish me eternally… that is a God I find abhorrent, immoral and if not pure evil, then it’s hard to find something more evil than that.
Your logic is inconsistent. If there were such a God he would by your own definition transcend your definition, or ability to define, good and evil. And old argument, of course.
But I think more significant is that it really is a very egotistical formulation. Listen:
the concept of a “God” who demands that I believe things that are logically indistinguishable from fairy tales or else he will punish me eternally…
You are judging good and evil, and indeed divinity, based on your personal analysis of what is “logically indistinguishable from fairy tales”? Do you realize how many people, as smart as you, have so characterized assertions that have turned out to actually be true, in the worlds of science and history?
This is what people mean when they say that a certain kind of purported non-believer worships only himself. That’s what this formulation amounts to: If I — the height of cognitive evolution, and utterly devoid of bias — can’t figure it out, it’s not only impossible. It’s — what was the formulation again?
abhorrent, immoral and if not pure evil, then it’s hard to find something more evil than that
Du-hude!

Posted in Faith and Works, O Mores! | 4 Comments »
Posted by Ron Coleman on November 25, 2007
NewsBusters prints this excerpt from the transcript of NPR’s review of “Redacted” (via Instapundit):
The rape scene has led to a familiar charge, that De Palma is a misogynist who relishes violence against women. . . .
Another charge is that he’s anti-American or anti-troops. But it’s an act of sympathy to suggest that soldiers on their third tours of duty in a place where they have no knowledge of the culture, where they can’t tell who’s on their side and who wants to blow them up, stand a good chance of losing both their moral compass and their minds. Here, and in “Casualties of War,” De Palm[a] is dramatizing the idea that even decent people in such circumstances can convince themselves they’re entitled to do anything.
Here lies the road to the complete inversion of morality. As an “act of sympathy” for the troops, DePalma is supposedly taking the position that even the worst actors in the world — U.S. troops committing atrocities while on an imperialistic mission — are no worse than morally exempt from blame for such atrocities because of the moral incoherence all around them. The logic is unassailable:
- Bad guys might be good guys.
- Good guys might be bad guys.
- Hey, this is hard!
- Let’s rape someone.
This aligns well with the leftist conception that people the world ’round do not make their own choices at all, but rather are zombies. In America, choiceless voters are under the sway of Rush Limbaugh, religious fundamentalism, and Karl Rove. In the Middle East, suicide bombers are compelled to murder housewives and schoolchildren by their plight or by their rage. But it is relatively novel to see the left apply this to the faceless, heartless automatons of the U.S. military, even in the commission of their fictional outrages. Naturally we can expect NPR to lobby for the release of all soldiers incarcerated for improper conduct in the Iraqi theater immediately.
Soon we will recognize that everything — everything! — is George W. Bush’s fault, and that individual conscience is merely a bourgeois construct of kapital. It is so much simpler.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News.
Posted in Americana, Ars Longa, Medialites, O Mores! | 2 Comments »