Doomed to commit the same mistakes

Watching Prohibition by Ken Burns on PBS. A few points:

1) They kind of quickly glossed over he fact that at the time of early America, you could not trust the water. This was a time before the germ-theory of disease had been formed. Water purification was unknown (except for mixing it with alcohol). John Chapman (Johny Appleseed) planted the groves of apple trees not for the apples, but so the pioneers could have cider (and he could sell it to them as well).

2) If you aren't seeing the ties into modern politics and events, I don't believe you're paying attention. It's not so much an echo of the past as a deliberate snitching of the template and a resurgence of certain religious and political movements.

235 Years Ago, that's a long time

Offered as political satire on the current two-year long Presidential Election Cycle:

John Adams: This is positively indecent!

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Oh, John, they're young and they're in love.

John Adams: Not them, Franklin. Us! Standing out here, waiting for them to... I mean, what will people think?

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Don't worry, John. The history books will clean it up.

John Adams: It doesn't matter. I won't be in the history books anyway, only you. Franklin did this and Franklin did that and Franklin did some other damn thing. (pause) Franklin smote the ground and out sprang George Washington, fully grown and on his horse. Franklin then electrified him with his miraculous lightning rod and the three of them - Franklin, Washington, and the horse - conducted the entire revolution by themselves.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: I like it.

and

John Adams: Mark me, Franklin... if we give in on this issue, posterity will never forgive us.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: That's probably true, but we won't hear a thing, we'll be long gone. Besides, what would posterity think we were? Demi-gods? We're men, no more no less, trying to get a nation started against greater odds than a more generous God would have allowed. First things first, John. Independence; America. If we don't secure that, what difference will the rest make?

America, I remember my promise to you.

The Stories We Tell Ourselves, Our Christian Founding

On the myth of "America (ie. the United States) was founded for religious freedom."

I think I just read this canard one too many times today. Nothing. Nothing. Not one thing could be farther from the truth.

Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 for religious freedom? The Spaniards came to pillage and rape the Caribbean, Meso-America and South America for religious freedom? De-Soto traipsed about the American South from Texas to Florida for religious freedom? English traders came to the East coast to pillage and raid (not to mention spread diseases), taking Native Americans as slaves back to England for religious freedom? Jamestown was founded in Virginia swampland for religious freedom? Georgia was founded as a debtors/penal colony for religious freedom? The Dutch swindled the local indians (who actually may not have been local at all, but on a fishing trip) to found New Amsterdam (which they later sold to the English who renamed it New York) for religious freedom? The colonies of South and North Carolina introduced the concept of "transportation", indentured servitude, and fueled the trade in African Slaves for religious freedom? Maryland with her verdant fields of tobacco, Delaware with her banking interests, New Jersey because, well, because it was between England and Pennsylvania (Jerseyites, I kid, I'm one of you, but, really, the state is a sand bar with pretensions), these were founded on religious freedom?

Pennsylvania and WIlliam Penn... okay, he pretended it was for religious freedom, but did you notice how rich he got from selling the land? Also, please note that because of his Quaker hauteur the colony of Delaware was formed to get away from "teh Crazies" in Pennsylvania (btw, while Penn was back in England cleaning up his own and his son's mess, the Pennsylvania colonists revolted and replaced his charter with their own). So you get a barely true with that one.

Next we have Massachusetts, which was, for the most part, founded because the Puritans didn't want their children to speak that evil language, Dutch. And the King of England didn't want them in his country. So he gave them some leaky boats and sent them West. So you can say they were religious refuges. They, however, intended to land in NY when they were blown off course to Plymouth. Not having a lot of money and seeing it was "God's Providence" they petitioned to start their own colony of which the King was glad to do something with that land, and really, anything to keep them from returning (Want to know why? Look up Oliver Cromwell, Lord Defender. Now you know.). So, okay, you have Massachusetts. However, good ol' MA people then went on to found New Hampshire as a place of refuge from the religious fervor of the Pilgrims (as they were now called). Connecticut was founded to kick the Calvinists from MA. And Rhode Island was founded for good Connecticut people to get the hell away from those Calvinist crazies, avoid the Dutch, and not return to MA. So while two of those colonies were founded in an effort to get away from religion, I guess you could say all four were founded based on religious freedom. Let's not discuss the religious intolerance of the area.

Tell you what, I'll throw in PA as a gimmee.

So you get 5 out of 13 colonies founded for "religious freedom" of one sort or another, or 38%. Now that's just raw numbers, like an electoral college and doesn't represent actual land mass or population.

Next up, so you're saying that the colonist revolted against the English Crown after what, their religious freedom was threatened? The battle cry was "No Praying Without Representation"? The Stamp Act revolt was about having to buy religious stamps for Advent Calendars? The original Tea Party dumped Anglican Bibles into Boston Harbor to prevent standardization? I don't seem to remember that part.

This isn't meant to say that one of our greatest freedoms is not religious freedom (which includes the right to not be religious, and no where in the 1st Amendment do you see the word "Christian"). By all means, it's one of the reasons why it's in there with the other number one rights (speech, press, assembly and association). But even there, it's 20%.

So no, this one fails the reality test. Sorry.

As a linkee-poo, there is also this post on if "In the Year of Our Lord" as referenced in the standard issue of the Constitution was actually a scrivener's (printer's) addition. And as they say, referencing the date that way was a standard of the time, much in the way we say AD (which is the abbreviation of Anno Domini, which is "Year of our Lord"). See also, consternation over the use of C.E. (common era). It's as much a nod to Christianity as when people these days say, "Bless you" when you sneeze. Which is, it's a part of the background culture that most people don't even think about enough to even either take offense or claim evangelical pride in. (Grokked from Jay Lake)

The limits of science.

I think I've mentioned before that there are limits to science. It was a basic limit, that is if there is no study or data regarding a subject, science (typically) says it doesn't exist or isn't so. If the scientist being interviewed is generous, they'll go with the bland, "We can't speak to that because there is no data," answer. Both sound authoritative and because it is usually spoken by a person in a white lab coat, most people nod their heads sagaciously and swallow the pablum, and label the question in the "No" column.

However, it's complete bullshit.

While it feels we are in the "end times" and all is falling into ruin, people speak authoritatively like we have figured everything out and know a lot of what there is to know. We are in fact at the very beginning of scientific inquiry. As the quote goes, "The more we learn, the more we learn just how much more we need to learn."

Here's the thing, science is a process. Science is political. And many things are considered "scientific" when, in fact, they aren't "science" at all. All of those things put boundaries on science and all are critical faults. Here I will make the caveat that science is fabulous and certainly beats (hands down) faith based assumptions. However, you would be very surprised at just how much "science" out there are really faith based assumptions (carnivores feeling "remorse", the sexual reproduction of herd animals gong to the "biggest and strongest males"). There are the "frontiers" of science (this means, "nobody has ever really studied this" or "this issue isn't settled"). There is the "contradictory data" issue on both a macro and micro scale (of which climate deniers and intelligent design proponents like to use as proof that the theories they're going against are wrong, however what they point to are controversies over minutia, not evidence that contradicts the main theories). There are things that are beyond scientific inquiry (well, mostly things that you really can't do with science, such as "disprove God" or "prove a negative").

Science is a process of percentages. With the way the politics of science (internal to discipline areas) currently work, you really can't "prove" anything with one experiment anymore. If you read the papers, even if the evidence is overwhelming, the writer (typically the last name on the paper) will use the phrase, "seems highly likely, although it warrants more research," or something similar. Even though there is plenty of "established" science that was shown to be "true" because of only one experiment that was never repeated let alone replicated. Some of these are now being disproven as new researchers try to base new experiments using the data and conclusions of the past only to find their experiments go awry (because what they're basing their experiment on, the previously published material, turns out to have been incorrect). Not many places give grants to redo someone else's research. And if you can't get a grant, or secure some other funding, nothing is going to be done. And it's an embarrassment (not often discussed) about just how much "research" out there is bogus (either cooked data, bad procedure, or experiments that just weren't conducted). Then there is the politics of getting research grants (there's really very little unsponsored research going on that doesn't have any conflicts of interest, even if we ignore the basic, "make it so we get another grant" temptations). Add in the politicization of science in the realm of actual real politic, and things get screwy very fast.

Finally we get to things that look like science, but aren't really. They can have the minimal trappings of science (like "Ghost Hunters") or they can be cloaked in heavy-duty tin foil science, like modern medicine. Yes, I can hear you howling from here. Modern medicine, as a professor once commented to me, "is the best lies we know." Why, because as a working physician he saw many "well researched" conclusions overturned. And not all of them were because of "breakthrough science."

You might remember the recent discontinuation of the NIACIN trials, or the more disastrous hormone replacement therapy trials. You may also remember that these therapies weren't new drugs or new uses for the drugs. Not to mention the various drug recalls (with drugs being removed from the market because they not only didn't perform as their earlier trials, but the side effects were quite worse than originally shown). These make more sense when you understand the underlying mechanics of drug research (hint, the tests are set up to succeed by statistical probability). YOu may have also heard that the placebo effect has been increasing lately. You could chuckle, shrug and say, "Well, that just shows the healing power of positive thought." It's a common riposte that sounds like it explains the problem. It's completely wrong, though. While the brain is a wonder (the origin of "placebo" was the use of "morphine" that had actually run out, but the field doctor knew he had to do something, and many of the patients who got the placebo felt better), what the placebo effect shows is just how ineffective some medicine is.

This is not to be taken as a criticism of vaccinations or any other prophylactic medicine practices. We have good research that those work (we also have good research that says they're not 100% safe, but the societal benefit outweighs the costs) and that they don't lead directly to autism. So, if a doctor says "You should…" you should take that seriously and follow directions.

Now, this isn't to say that modern medicine isn't good for a whole lot of things. Like broken bones for example. However, in my own case, my orthopedic doctor, citing that there were no long term studies on the internal use of metals, had all my screws and plates removed. Many doctors will cite there's no research that shows such long term exposures to metals causes any risk and so, leave them in.

But what I really want to point you to is the documentary, Under Our Skin. It's about Lyme Disease, and specifically chronic Lyme disease. It exposes the politics of medicine and research, and how those two problems combine. It talks about how something as common as Lyme disease is still not diagnosed correctly. And it also talks about how the insurance companies are really driving the process (remember all that talk during the HCR debate about how government shouldn't get in-between you and your doctor and those of use pointed out that there was already a worse actor there, your insurance company?).

As someone who has seen first hand the devastating problem of doctors either "just not keeping up to date," "failing to keep an open mind," or "not seeing what was in front of them," It's maddening. The patient knows something is wrong, and because whatever it is doesn't fit the test for the first thing the doctor thinks of, it's written off as "just in their head." I can only tell you that this isn't the only disease that is treated this way. Notice just how large the "antidepressant" market is. Not all of those people taking those drugs are really depressed. They have a disease that is not diagnosed, but still fell "malaise", and so the default position for most doctors is, "You're depressed. Here, take some of these." Do I need to roll out the list (fibromyalgia - still considered to be all in your head, chemical sensitivity - still considered bogus in many places, pollution related cancers - just turn on the news to see how this is treated). Why is this happening? Money. Plain and simple. There are even well known diseases that doctors just don't diagnose.

Also, make sure you catch that the majority of cases of doctors being brought before their medical boards for review aren't brought there because of patient complaints. The majority are brought there by insurance companies.

Notice the one doctor (involved in setting the standards for treatment for Lyme disease) and his stance on anything that disrupts his conclusions. Scientists, real scientists, don't behave that way when there is no data. Real scientists will say, "We have no data one way or the other, we should research that." He says, "There's nothing to show that there is chronic Lyme disease." Even though there are patients right in front of him. Because, you know, it's all in their heads.

The Hole in the Water

I appreciate my friends who like to remind us all that the death of bin Laden solves nothing. However, I disagree. It's true that his death won't stop the war in Afghanistan or the myriad other fronts (Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Europe, Northern and Eastern Africa, Indonesia, or anywhere else). It's true that his function in al Qaeda at this point was mostly spiritual leadership. It's also true that he had time to create a plan of succession within the organization.

It is not true that this isn't a significant blow to al Qaeda. It also isn't true that this doesn't hurt them.

But in the end, it was because he was the one who ordered the attacks on our Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, the attack on the USS Cole, and what most people remember, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Not to mention the other attacks committed against other nations and the acts done in his name.

You do not get to do that and live. The longer he was alive, the more impotent the US appeared (regardless of our numerous victories around the world). For every day he drew breath it encouraged his followers and recruitment efforts and added to his stature as someone "Blessed by Allah."

For a long time we looked for his handiwork, his signature upon the rock. And in the end, we found him the way I knew we would. We found the hole in the water, as they say. We confirmed it with tracking his couriers. Good old style intelligence gathering and analysis at its boring best. And once we knew where he was, the action was done appropriately. The President signed the order, the team practiced, the watchers waited to make sure the target didn't move, and the plan went off when we determined it would. And nobody tipped their hand. For eight months. You just can't believe the professionalism involved in that.

Now Osama/Usama is dead by America's hand and buried in an unmarked and unremembered grave. (Here I will note, whomever was involved in his burial at sea know where he is at, and will be very good at keeping that secret, thank you)

I would not be surprised to hear, a decade down the road at least, that whatever part of him we took to conduct DNA fingerprinting is stored in some FBI or CIA lab somewhere. Disappointed, but not surprised. bin Laden was special to the US, and in many cases we have put aside our guises of civility and taken inappropriate trophies (just ask an American Indian who grew up on reservation). It will never be shown, but just like Hitler's skull fragment in the Soviet Union, those who are concerned and need to know will know what and where. And I'm okay with that. At some point the photo of him with a bullet through his head will leak or be released. I'm not so good with that, but I understand it will and needs to happen.

The members of whatever team performed the assault (odds are on SEAL Team Six at this point, if I know SEALs, they will never acknowledge it), and all those involved in tracking down the hard data, will receive commendations and awards that will sit in boxes in someone's office. They'll take a well deserved deep breath, and then they'll get back to work looking for al Zawahiri and the rest. Because that's what they do. And as this operation showed, they're the professionals.

This morning the birds sang of spring and renewed life. Our solders around the world continued the war we asked them to fight. The world continued to spin and orbit at its accustomed rate and direction. And while the air is still redolent with the smoke from the fires of civilization, its a little less thick and acrid.

Don't know much about history

Say, remember when the argument was we weren't paying teachers enough. We couldn't get the best to stay because we weren't paying enough and we were losing the best to industry who could pay better. And now, only a short decade later, the argument is we're paying them to much? Why? Because we're paying them too much, that's why.

So notice how the argument is going? For executives and other top earners, we can't tax them more or deny their bonuses or hold their pay increases down to, say, cost of living because we'll loose the best people that we need to continue to drive our businesses into the ground and off shore US innovation. Not to mention the proliferation of Vice Presidents with in an organizational structure that we now have several layers of VPs. But for the other end, we pay way too much, we should cut jobs, maybe even just get rid of the minimum wage all together. Because that's how the market will drive us to the correct levels of compensation.

Get it yet?

Promises lit up the night like paper doves in flight

Somewhere in my Mom's home a splinter of concrete sleeps in a velvet bag. Probably it's now at the back of the closet resting in the history of dust and hiding with the other memories of youth and foolishness. A piece of The Wall, broken and crushed, now preserved for posterity, a reminder of man's inhumanity to their fellow man. Extracted from the hand of repression, a mouse and lion story of politics. A relic of the worst and best of us. When I looked at it I remembered the history of the airlift, of airmen stealing candy and dropping it from their planes after dipping their wings in signal to the walled in children. A few precious pounds of airlift capability sapped to provide comfort. Maybe a bag of salt left behind on the tarmac. And I remember the automatic machine gun nests and no mans land. The barbed wire greeting card. A wall designed to keep people in place, to guard a misguided philosophy.

And now they sell chotchkies at Checkpoint Charlie, wear costumes of the past, and children are born without knowing the mentality of denial. For those who don't dwell in those lands, the Cold War and Iron Curtain are nothing but historical remnants as key to their lives as knowing how to build a stepped pyramid. The memory dies hard in some of us. We may forgive ourselves, but we can never forget. The depth of cold went deep into the well of our souls and poisoned the source.

And now there are those who continue to play out the shadow drama of the past randomly substituting players without context, lost in their own paranoia. They can be forgiven, in the past we cultivated paranoia as one grows a victory garden and they haven't learned to sow that ground with salt, but instead allow the weeds to strangle and fester in the fallow field of their mind.

The world changed in a bacchanal of champaign, hammers and rock and roll. I'll still take this world over the old one.