Arts & Ammo

Bill 666 to Disestablish Church

A motion in the House of Commons calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England was assigned number 666. The assignment occurred while the members were debating blasphemy.

Bob Russell, Liberal Democrat MP for Colchester and one of the signatories, said: “It is incredible that a motion like this should have, by chance, acquired this significant number.

Draw your own conclusions.

May 31st, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Politics, Religion | no comments

A Convenient Martini

We have the perfect solution for those worried over global warming and also for those worried about an opera on global warming. Teddy Tahu Rhodes sings “Non piú andrai” replete with martini. The martini is chilled (hopefully) to ward off rising temperatures, and the opera is likely better than what’s in store for La Scala 2011.

Have one. And if you’re worried about both issues, global warming and opera, then have two. Mozart would approve, I’m sure.

Image by Ken30684 - Creative Commons)

May 30th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Leisure | no comments

An Inconvenient Opera

La Scala has commissioned the Italian composer Giorgio Battistelli to produce an opera on “An Inconvenient Truth” for the 2011 season at the Milan opera house. The composer is currently artistic director of the Arena in Verona.

What will the plot line be? One review describes Al Gore’s drama this way:

[D]espite Gore’s dire predictions and the over-the-top trailer, which promises scenes of death and destruction, the film itself is a dull affair. Most of it consists of Gore giving lectures with infantile visual aids, including cartoons that seem designed for 2-year-olds. Now and then he throws in an inspiring quote, providing some touchy-feely, Dr. Phil-like moments.

I suppose operas have been made from grimmer stuff and some operas suffer from, shall we say, an incoherent plot, so history suggests that Battistelli may be able to overcome those disabilities.

Milan makes an interesting venue for the premiere. It has been designated the pollution capital of Europe, so it may be a major contributor to global warming. Since it lies 338 feet above the current sea level, however, it should remain high and dry as the rising seas swamp Covent Garden and the Met.

But will the 2011 season will be too late? Prince Charles says we face a series of natural disasters from global warming in only 18 months. Who needs a prophetic opera like “Inconvenient Truth” when they can watch the real disaster on TV news or at their front doorstep?

It might be interesting to see which ending Battistelli chooses: the tragedy where the British King says we are already doomed, or the comedy where the British judge declares Al Gore wrong. Then again, it might be just as interesting to contemplate an opera based on the Agriculture Department’s latest PowerPoint on soil erosion.

Besides, it’s already been done in an admirably short version.

May 30th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Music, Politics | one comment

Boomers In Charge

Baby Boomers want it all: abundant energy without energy production, high home equity and low mortgage payments, government services paid for by taxes on somebody else. Victor David Hanson says that the great divide in the country is not conservative versus liberal, but the result of generational chaos.

Those who came of age in the 1960s now hold the reins of power and influence – and we are starting to see why their values have worried almost everyone for nearly a half-century.

History has seen something like them before in the “blame them” years of Demosthenes’ Athens, the self-indulgence of Julio-Claudian Rome, the “after me, the deluge” generation of late 18th-century France, the Gilded Age, and the Roaring Twenties.

Boomers seem to take it as given that their generation is special, that a new enlightenment began in the 1960s, characterized by radical liberalism and ushered in by student demonstrations. They rejected all traditions as manifestations of an imperfect past, a past in which flawed leaders and political systems had failed to end poverty, war, and oppression. Boomers were the first to develop a social conscience.

But youthful altruism is more about youth and less about altruism. The boomers’ were able to sustain their self-indulgence, however, because they had the demographic wind at their backs and were fortunate not to encounter many of the harsh realities that frequently force young people into adulthood.

Sociologists have correctly diagnosed the perfect storm that created the “me” generation — sudden postwar affluence, sacrificing parents who did not wish us to suffer as they had in the Great Depression and World War II, and the rise of therapeutic education that encouraged self-indulgence.

One other factor needs to included: the easy ability to avoid or end pregnancy. The avoidance of biology truly set the boomer generation apart. It fueled a change in sexual attitudes and practices that made all social and religious restraints appear unnecessarily restrictive. The science that put a man on the moon and made your girlfriend temporarily infertile could surely be counted on to work other miracles as needed.

The cultural upheaval of the 1960s was about sex. Everything else was a detail.

Boomers like to take credit for the civil rights movement, but the real breakthroughs were accomplished in the early 1960s, before the boomers came of age, by morally serious blacks and middle-aged Republicans. Boomers borrowed the gravitas of their immediate predecessors.

The end of the draft, consequence-free sex, and continued prosperity enabled boomers to perpetuate their adolescence indefinitely. When AIDS made sex once again worrisome, the boomers resorted to the methodology of their college days. They joined hands, wore ribbons, and sang songs – incantations to conjure a scientific solution lest the party come to a premature end. Calls for restraint were rejected out of hand. Abstinence was stigmatized.

Now boomers are indisputably in charge and, in case you haven’t noticed, it’s still all about sex. The most divisive cultural issues are reminiscent of the late 60s: free access to abortion and the purported civil right (the language again borrowed from more serious times) to copulate with whomever you want. Anything that constrains sex or reminds us of its procreative nature belongs to the pre-1965 dark ages and will inevitably top the list of rules, customs, and laws that boomers seek to sweep aside.

May 29th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Politics | no comments

Real Archaeologists

Real archaeologists don’t actually live the life of Indiana Jones. Neil Asher Silberman finds the fictional portrayal of archaeologists somewhat distressing.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a fan of pop culture. But I have a problem with the entertainment tail wagging the archaeological dog. As someone who’s been involved in archaeology for the past 35 years, I can tell you that Indiana Jones is not the world’s most famous fictional archaeologist; he’s the world’s most famous archaeologist, period.

I’ve got news for Silberman. Real lawyers don’t exactly live like Perry Mason or the lawyers that Grisham writes about either. I’ve often envied Perry Mason for having only one case at a time, getting it resolved in a few days, and then having a new client immediately appear with a new problem and a new fee.

I know that the Indiana Jones series is just a campy tribute to the Saturday afternoon serials of the 1930s and the B-movies of the 1950s, but believe me, it totally misrepresents who archaeologists are and what goals we pursue.

And I would guess that the writers took some liberties portraying the professional life of Clark Kent, Dr. Kildare, and Rin Tin Tin. If I were an archaeology professor, I would be grateful that someone had the creativity to make my profession look glamorous. The alternative would be to pass two hours watching Indiana Jones grade papers at his kitchen table.

Silberman’s real point, however, is buried toward the end of his column – a political argument straight from the formulaic script of academia:

At a time when our national political debates are centered on our relationships with other cultures, when the question of talking to rather than attacking perceived enemies has become a contentious presidential campaign issue, . . . the thrill-a-minute adventures of Indiana Jones are potentially dangerous and dysfunctional models for both modern archaeology and American behavior in the world.

Who’s mired in fiction now? I didn’t know Indiana Jones was a model, dysfunctional or otherwise, for American behavior in the world. Do we expect archaeologists to lead us out of the political wilderness and into a new age of enlightened diplomacy? If only we had better, more genteel, models of archaeology, we would elect more Democrats and our enemies would love us.

No thanks. Give us more action. Maybe a movie about a blogger who jets around the world in his pajamas rescuing damsels and writing posts on his PDA while drinking martinis – stirred, not shaken.

Fantasy can be a guilty pleasure. But don’t confuse it with archaeology. And please don’t ever ask me about my fedora and bullwhip again.

A professor with a bullwhip and fedora? We could wish, but . . . too heteronormative, too patriarchal.

May 28th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Ammo, Film, Politics | no comments

Google’s Memorial Day

Memorial Day is not among the special occasions that Google commemorates. There are special pages with special Google logos for Mother’s Day, Earth Day, the Persian New Year, Walter Gropius’s 125^th birthday (one of my favorites as a part-time Weimar resident), and many others.

Google has stated reasons for leaving Memorial Day off the list:

We have to balance this rotating calendar with the need to maintain the consistency of the Google homepage.

Furthermore, Google’s special logos tend to be lighthearted in nature. If we were to commemorate Memorial Day, we would want to express reverence, rather than mirth. This would be a particularly challenging design. We would not want to, in any way, create a graphic that could be interpreted as disrespectful. In light of the mail we have received about this, we are actively considering designs we could display on this day next year. We welcome any suggestions you may have.

Little Green Footballs took up the challenge. Many good designs (scroll down) were submitted by readers for a Memorial Day Google logo.

As much as I like Little Green Footballs, however, I decline to join the criticism of Google on this issue for two reasons. First, I don’t know of any reason that Google should feel compelled to decorate its page for particular occasions or justify its decision to ignore the event. If consumers are unhappy with its decision, they can vote with their feet. Google may have raised expectations by observing some patently frivolous occasions or by observing more serious occasions frivolously, but that does not seem a sufficient basis to start demanding something more. Free-market conservatives in particular should concede Google’s right to make whatever choice it wants.

Second, we have a distressing tendency to trivialize our observances. It is possible (though doubtful) that the majority of Google’s staff attended special Memorial Day services. That kind of observance would be preferable, I think, to festooning the logo or putting a mini flag next to the hotdogs at the company picnic. Cheap and effortless displays too often substitute for something more meaningful.

No doubt many people, individually and in groups, observed Memorial Day by attending a Requiem, saluting a flag, tending a grave, or offering thanks in myriad other ways. The Google page can neither add to nor subtract from these more weighty and heartfelt observances.

May 27th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Ammo | no comments

Memorial Day

“‘Let no ravages of time testify to the present or the coming generations that we, as a people, have forgotten the cost of a free and undivided republic.’

“With that solemn promise, Army General John Logan signed the order in 1868 that established Memorial Day. We have honored his promise faithfully ever since, and this year — with our nation still at war and a new generation of heroes fighting and dying for freedom — we will do it again.

“Upon the graves of our war dead — be they from Lexington and Concord; Gettysburg and Antietam; the Argonne Forest or the beaches of Normandy; Chosin and Inchon; Saigon and the Mekong Delta; Baghdad or Kandahar — rests not only the memories and the pride of valor past, but the hope and the vision of a better, more peaceful future.”

Adm. Mike Mullen’s Memorial Day Message

Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army

May 26th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Ammo | no comments

Now Hear This

From Overlawyered:

A group in Santa Fe says the city is discriminating against them because they say that they’re allergic to the wireless Internet signal. And now they want Wi-Fi banned from public buildings. … [Arthur] Firstenberg and dozens of other electro-sensitive people in Santa Fe claim that putting up Wi-Fi in public places is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The city attorney is now checking to see if putting up Wi-Fi could be considered discrimination. But City Councilor Ron Trujillo says the areas are already saturated with wireless Internet. (Gadi Schwartz, KOB, May 20).

And I suppose those people who pick up radio signals in their head could bring an FCC complaint. Maybe psychics could sue the dead under stalking statutes and make their estates pay damages. Can schizophrenics collect twice?

May 25th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Law | no comments

Congress, Sue Thyself

The timidity of the legislative branch of government is partly to blame for the unwarranted boldness of courts. Surely some activist judges reason that, “If Congress won’t do it, I will.” Congress likes to leave the dirty work to others. It speaks in platitudes while delegating the messy business of lawmaking to federal agencies and courts.

The NOPEC bill, passed overwhelmingly this week by House of Representatives, takes this pattern to an extreme. It provides that the Justice Department can sue OPEC over oil prices. Condemnation of the idea is almost universal.

Members wanted to head home with a story to tell the voters about how they were taking bold action. Doing something so transparently stupid, however, highlights Congress’s failure to do something smart. This particular Act of Stupidity has focused the debate precisely on the issue Congress wants to avoid – its own complicity in driving up oil prices.

Coyote Blog seems to have been first in crafting the right response: “Congress, Sue Thyself.”

I am sure, either through scheming or more likely incompetance, that OPEC countries are under-supplying their potential capacity for oil production. But if we want to deem this a crime, who is the biggest criminal? The US is the only country I know of that has, by statute, made illegal the development of enormous domestic reserves. Just last week, Democracts in Congress, in fact the exact same folks sponsoring this bill, voted to continue an effective moratorium on US oil shale development. No country in the world is doing less to develop the most promising oil reserves than is the US. . . . If this passes, I would love to see the US counter-sued for not developing ANWR. Or large areas of the Gulf. Or most of the Pacific coast. Or all of the Atlantic coast. Or our largest-in-the-world oil shale deposits.

Mark Steyn picks up on this theme.

As Rep. Wasserman Schultz herself told Neil Cavuto on Fox News, “We can’t drill our way out of this problem.”

Well, maybe not. But maybe we could drill our way back to $3.25 a gallon. More to the point, if the House of Representatives has now declared it “illegal” for the government of Saudi Arabia to restrict oil production, why is it still legal for the government of the United States to restrict oil production? In fact, the government of the United States restricts pretty much every form of energy production other than the bizarre fetish du jour of federally mandated ethanol production.

Calling the plan “A Derangement of Legislators,” Samizdata writes:

The US House of Representatives have just in effect declared that all foreign governments and businesses must be subject to the wishes of US politicians and their regulations and sell oil at prices that US legislators like. Or else. The sheer absurdity of this is breathtaking. Exactly what sanction were they planning against OPEC? Perhaps not buying their fungible oil? Yeah, that will do the trick.

Times Online sounded one faint note in support of Congress, labeling as “sceptics” who question the measure:

Sceptics claim that Congress should instead open the way for more domestic oil production including drilling in the protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some offshore waters that have been off limits to oil companies for more than 25 years.

Yes, and some people are skeptical about the earth being flat.

Now that Congress has identified the problem as under production, perhaps the public will realize that Congress has made us the most egregious under producer of all.

May 24th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Politics | one comment

Martini Science

There is, of course, a science to making a good martini. A good bartender knows this, and every now and then we pass along lessons from professional mixologists. Medical scientists are also studying the topic.

To celebrate the centenary of the birth of Ian Fleming, creator of the world’s most famous secret agent, Professor Charles Spence and Dr Andrea Sella will be unveiling the secrets of 007’s favourite drink and a range of other cocktails, at a lecture at the Cheltenham Science Festival next month.

Apparently, some martinis are better at breaking down hydrogen peroxide. If you don’t know whether you have hydrogen peroxide that needs to be broken down – well, better play it safe.

And Dr Sella believes that shaken martinis are not only healthier, but also taste better. This is due to what experts call “mouthfeel” - the shaken martini has more microscopic shards of ice, making its texture more pleasing.

I can already hear many of you grumbling that this “scientist” has it all wrong and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But the science is only valid if it can be duplicated in independent tests. So, back to the lab.

(Image by Ken30684 - Creative Commons)

May 23rd, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Leisure | no comments