Pickin’ and Choosin’, Shuckin’ and Jivin’

I don’t know if people elsewhere in the nation are following the ongoing struggle over gay marriage here in Massachusetts in much detail now that May 17th has come and gone, but needless to say the battle continues. By an overwhelming margin which should be seen as a rebuke to Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the Mass. Senate votes to end 1913 law the governor has been using to prevent out-of-state same sex partners from marrying in the state. It is not clear if the Mass. House will follow suit because of the opposition of conservative, oligarchic (and Catholic) House Speaker Thomas Finneran. The 1913 law, which was designed to prevent interracial marriages, makes it illegal for an out-of-state couple to marry in Mass. if there would be any impediments to their doing so in their home state. Originally, the State Attorney General ruled that Massachusetts would allow marriages between out-of-staters from ten other states which do not specifically define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, but apparently under intense pressure he has reversed himself and said that no gay couples from any of the other forty-nine states could marry here. Town clerks have been ordered to submit records of this week’s marriage license applications to the Governor’s office for scrutiny. The governor’s spokesman says Romney has no choice about the 1913 law because he cannot “pick and choose” which laws he enforces. A friend just sent me a clipping of this interesting rejoinder (which, by the way, is penned by the founder of the venerable Boston Computer Society) in the Boston Globe‘s letters section, which I have not yet been able to find online:

May 21, 2004

AGAIN Eric Fehrnstrom has defended Governor Romney’s overreaching interpretation of the 1913 law banning out of state couples from marrying here with his refrain that “The governor cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce” (“Senate votes to end 1913 law,” Page A1, May 20). It’s time someone called Fehrnstrom on this spurious argument. The fact is, the governor chooses which laws to enforce every day. Massachusetts has a panoply of so-called “blue laws” that have never been enforced in modern times by a Massachusetts governor. These include the law requiring citizens to get written permission from their doctor before taking a bath. The next time Fehrnstrom uses this argument someone should ask if Romney intends to begin enforcing the blue laws as well?

Jonathan Rotenberg, Boston

Can ‘Star Wars: Episode III’ be saved?

Start by firing Lucas, says this opinion piece:

“We’ve got one more year before George Lucas finishes up his “Star Wars” prequel trilogy with the as-yet-untitled Episode III, and he certainly has his work cut out for him. Not only does he have to resolve the ongoing storylines of “Phantom Menace” and “Attack of the Clones” in such a way as to lead directly into Episode IV, the original 1977 “Star Wars,” but he has to overcome two of the most soul-killingly dull storylines ever put on film. I mean, really — I’ve seen more interesting films on sandwiches I left in my fridge too long. Is there any way for Lucas to salvage the series in a single movie? It would take a great disturbance in the Force, but it’s not impossible.” (MSNBC)

Too political??

A few days ago, I was doing the ego-surfing thing and looking for references to Follow Me Here I hadn’t seen before. I came across an entry by a weblogger who, linking to a FmH post she found praiseworthy, commented that I had redeemed myself as she had just been on the verge of dropping FmH from her blogroll because I was getting “too political.” Well, I plead guilty as charged, your honor. I suppose that, if you are still reading, it is because you do not mind. It was not my intention in starting Follow Me Here to be a political commentator. Cynical me! I fancied myself somehow above national politics and dubious about the relevance to any truly important aspects of life of the actions of the buffoons who choose to dedicate their lives to transparent and ingratiating vote-grubbing and giveaways to their rich friends. Local politics, I have always thought, is a different matter. ‘Think globally, act locally’ makes eminent sense. Nation states the size of the US are just to large and diverse to govern effectively and, seeing that truth, we should divorce ourselves from politics on the irrelevant and absurd national scale, I thought. Perhaps because of that disdain, I have never had the patience to follow the minutia of political machinations, and others on both the left and the right are far more erudite analysts than I aspire to be. Yet, since Bush’s election, the distinction between the merely banal, superficial and pompous and the malignant in politics has come to be clear. While I am not sure that national leadership can make much of a positive difference, it is clear how much evil it can do in the wrong hands. The most important fact in my experience of American public life has come to be not merely, as it is characterized, a ‘culture war’ around which sitcoms we choose to watch, which books move us, or which beverages we drink, but a life-and-death struggle for our souls between the life-affirming and just and the apocalyptic world-destroying (and, believe me, I am the first to get sick to my stomach of hyperbolic prose).

Not to suggest that those of you who do not have children should not be similarly moved, but watching my children grow up in the world George Bush has engendered is to a large extent what has transformed my sense of urgency around political issues. In my professional life as a physician, I fight to make small contributions to maintaining the life-affirming and dignifying effects of healthcare treatment in the face of its debasement. My weblog is becoming my little contribution to a similar but broader, multi-faceted struggle, over the outcome of which I am desperate and far far from confident, to pass on a world that is perhaps just abit more than debased, degraded and totally degenerate to our descendants. I do preach to the choir, but I hope there is something that deepens and widens your perspective and moves you toward further or more nuanced engagement in that struggle. I am logging essentially what widens and deepens my thinking and engagement. I was far more honored by a journalist reader’s recent comment to me that I am doing a good job on the war than I am troubled by those who might want to keep the blinders over their eyes. I hope that, if FmH is “too political” for you, it is because you have already gotten it, that you find all the thoughts upon which I harp already obvious and tedious. In any case, departing reader, fare ye well, and keep up the good fight.

Related: “Despite the worst foreign policy blunder in American history, George W. Bush and his millionaire supporters don’t know the meaning of the word shame”. Hal Crowther writes a devastating impeachment on indyweek.com:

“I never imagined 2004. It would be sophomoric to say that there was never a worse year to be an American. My own memory preserves the dread summer of 1968. My parents suffered the consequences of 1941 and 1929, and my grandfather Jack Allen, who lived through all those dark years, might have added 1918, with the flu epidemic and the Great War in France that each failed, very narrowly, to kill him. Drop back another generation or two and we encounter 1861…

The irreducible truth is that the invasion of Iraq was the worst blunder, the most staggering miscarriage of judgment, the most fateful, egregious, deceitful abuse of power in the history of American foreign policy. If you don’t believe it yet, just keep watching. Apologists strain to dismiss parallels with Vietnam, but the similarities are stunning. In every action our soldiers kill innocent civilians, and in every other action apparent innocents kill our soldiers–and there’s never any way to sort them out. And now these acts of subhuman sadism, these little My Lais.

Since the defining moment of the Bush presidency, the preposterous flight-suit, Fox News-produced photo-op on the Abraham Lincoln in front of the banner that read “Mission Accomplished,” the shaming truth is that everything has gone wrong. Just as it was bound to go wrong, as many of us predicted it would go wrong–if anything more hopelessly wrong than any of us would have dared to prophesy. Iraq is an epic train wreck, and there’s not a single American citizen who’s going to walk away unscathed.”

Cosmos ‘a billion years older’ and far larger than thought

“The Universe could be a billion years older than was thought, according to Italian and German scientists.


Measurements made in an underground laboratory suggest an atomic reaction that produces energy inside stars is slower than was believed.


It means that estimates of stellar lifetimes are too short. A readjustment gives the Universe an age of 14.7 instead of 13.7 billion years.” (BBC)

Microwave mismatch proves our cosmos is a whopper. “There is not much room left for a small universe”, says a cosmologist, perhaps intending the pun, in response to new research throwing out suggestions that the universe could be a relatively small shape wrapped around itself. At a minimum, the universe is 78 billion light years across. (Nature)

Cannabis Use Not Linked with Psychosocial Harm

“Various reports indicate that young people who use cannabis tend to experience psychological and social problems. However, there is no evidence that marijuana use is directly linked with such problems, according to the results of a study published in The Lancet.


‘Currently, there is no strong evidence that use of cannabis of itself causes psychological or social problems,’ such as mental illness or school failure, lead study author Dr. John Macleod of the University of Birmingham in the UK told Reuters Health.


‘There is a great deal of evidence that cannabis use is associated with these things, but this association could have several explanations,’ he said, citing factors such as adversity in early life, which may itself be associated with cannabis use and psychosocial problems.


Macleod and his team reviewed 48 long-term studies, 16 of which provided the highest quality information about the association between illicit drug use reported by people 25 years old or younger and later psychological or social problems. Most of the drug-specific results involved cannabis use.


One consistent finding among the studies was that young people who reported using cannabis were more likely to have attained a lower educational level than their non-cannabis using peers. Cannabis users were also more likely to report an increased use of other illicit drugs.


On the other hand, cannabis use was not consistently associated with violent or antisocial behavior, or with psychological problems.” (Reuters)

The Rebirth of the ‘NYRB’

Thank You, Dubya: “(T)he election of George W. Bush, combined with the furies of 9/11, jolted the editors. Since 2001, the Review’s temperature has risen and its political outlook has sharpened. Old warhorses bolted from their armchairs. Prominent members of the Review ‘family’–a stable that includes veteran journalists (Thomas Powers, Frances FitzGerald, Ian Buruma), literary stars (Joan Didion, Norman Mailer) and academic heavyweights (Stanley Hoffmann, Ronald Dworkin, Arthur Schlesinger Jr.)–charged into battle not only against the White House but against the lethargic press corps and the ‘liberal hawk’ intellectuals, some of whom are themselves prominent members of the Review’s extended family. In stark contrast to The New Yorker, whose editor, David Remnick, endorsed the Iraq war in a signed essay in February 2003, asserting that ‘a return to a hollow pursuit of containment will be the most dangerous option of all’; or The New York Times Magazine, which gave ample space to Michael Ignatieff, Bill Keller, Paul Berman, George Packer and other prowar liberal hawks, the Review opposed the Iraq war in a voice that was remarkably consistent and unified.


The firepower it directed against the liberal hawks reveals much about the Review’s political mood these days. Like many in the liberal hawk camp, the publication sanctioned US military intervention in the Balkans on humanitarian grounds. But when Ignatieff & Co. invoked the logic of humanitarian intervention as a basis for military action against Saddam Hussein, the Review (which has showcased Ignatieff’s work for years) insisted that Bush’s crusade against Iraq was something closer to old-fashioned imperialism. As Ian Buruma wrote in a quietly devastating assessment of Paul Berman’s 2003 book Terror and Liberalism: ‘There is something in the tone of Berman’s polemic that reminds me of the quiet American in Graham Greene’s novel, the man of principle who causes mayhem, without quite realizing why.’


What blew the dust off The New York Review? In no sense, really, has the paper returned to its New Left sensibility of the late 1960s: Chomsky, Hayden and Willis have not been reinstated; young lions like The Baffler’s Tom Frank and The Village Voice’s Rick Perlstein have not been invited to contribute; Eric Foner, Bruce Cumings, Richard Rorty, Chalmers Johnson, Stephen Holmes, Anatol Lieven, Elaine Showalter and Carol Brightman continue to publish much of their finest work not in The New York Review of Books but in the more radical, eccentric and sprightly pages of the London Review of Books. In short, the Review’s liberal (and establishment) soul remains intact. What has changed significantly, in the age of Bush, is the Review’s style of rhetoric and degree of political focus and commitment.” (The Nation)

FCC Asked To Examine A la Carte Cable TV

“Most satellite and cable companies require their customers to subscribe to packages of channels, arguing the system allows them to maintain robust lineups at affordable rates. But a la carte pricing, which would allow subscribers to pick and choose the channels they want, has been gaining momentum among some lawmakers and consumer groups as costs have risen and concerns have grown over televised indecency. Several parents groups have complained that consumers should not have to pay for channels that air content they find offensive.” (Washington Post)

Are You a Potential Terrorist?

‘Before helping to launch the criminal information project known as Matrix, a database contractor gave U.S. and Florida authorities the names of 120,000 people who showed a statistical likelihood of being terrorists — sparking some investigations and arrests.

The “high terrorism factor” scoring system also became a key selling point for the involvement of the database company, Seisint Inc., in the Matrix project.’ (Wired)

Bush Visits Capitol Hill to Calm Republicans on Major Issues

“In a 45-minute pep rally in a basement conference room at the Capitol, Mr. Bush told more than 200 House and Senate Republicans that the United States was firmly committed to transferring power to the Iraqis on June 30 and insisted that the temporary government would not be under American control, lawmakers said. Specifically, Mr. Bush told the group that the new American ambassador to Iraq, John D. Negroponte, would not be a de facto successor to L. Paul Bremer III, the top American civilian administrator in Iraq who is to step down July 1.” (New York Times)

Is there a Republican in the Senate or the House who is still credulous enough to believe this??

Why We Have to Look

Watching Blood and Gore: “Susan Sontag holds that photos of death before our eyes numb us to the suffering of others. I get what she means. I can look with considerable aplomb at such extreme images, but not when they move and scream. I suppose even that acuity could erode with repeated exposure, but not as long as the pictures show me something I don’t already know.


That’s why the beheading footage didn’t enrage me. I expect that sort of thing from a ruthless enemy like Al Qaeda. As a gay American Jew, I know exactly what they have in mind for me. But the images from Abu Ghraib revealed something I hadn’t wanted to confront. It was the real-world manifestation of the snarl-behind-the-smile that Rummy wears so well. Thanks to those leaked photos, we’re closer to understanding why most of the world reads this leer as the look on America’s face.


Pictures of the unfathomable force us to see. That’s why all the evidence of prisoner torture must be released.” — Richard Goldstein, Executive Editor of the Village Voice

"If they killed foreign fighters, why don’t they show us the bodies?"

One incident. Forty dead. Two stories. What really happened?: “US forces insist that the attack was on a safe house used by foreign fighters entering Iraq from Syria. They do not dispute that they killed about 40 people, but claim American forces were returning fire and the dead were all foreign fighters. For the video footage that shows dead women and children they have no explanation.

So potentially damaging is the video to the US occupation that American officials have demanded that the Dubai-based al-Arabiya television news network, which obtained the footage, give them the name of the cameraman who took it. Al-Arabiya has refused.” (Independent.UK )

Also: ‘US Soldiers Started to Shoot Us, One by One’: Survivors describe wedding massacre as generals refuse to apologize. (CommonDreams)

Torture Scandal Deepens, Widens

New front in Iraq detainee abuse scandal?

“With attention focused on the seven soldiers charged with abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. military and intelligence officials familiar with the situation tell NBC News the Army’s elite Delta Force is now the subject of a Pentagon inspector general investigation into abuse against detainees. The target is a top-secret site near Baghdad’s airport.” (MSNBC)



Exporting Abuse?


Wardens Chosen to Establish Iraq Prison System Had Past Abuse Allegations.

“A number of former state prison commissioners chosen by the Bush administration to establish a prison system in Iraq left their old posts after allegations of neglect, brutality and inmate deaths, an investigation by ABCNEWS has found.”

“Some prisoners at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison were ridden like animals, fondled by female soldiers, forced to curse their religion and required to retrieve their food from toilets, according to a published report Friday.” (Associated Press )

GI: Iraqi boy mistreated to get dad to talk:

“A military intelligence analyst who recently completed duty at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (news – web sites) said Wednesday that the 16-year-old son of a detainee there was abused by U.S. soldiers to break his father’s resistance to interrogators.” (Yahoo! News)

Reuters, NBC Staff Abused by U.S. Troops in Iraq

“U.S. forces beat three Iraqis working for Reuters and subjected them to sexual and religious taunts and humiliation during their detention last January in a military camp near Falluja, the three said on Tuesday.

The three first told Reuters of the ordeal after their release but only decided to make it public when the U.S. military said there was no evidence they had been abused, and following the exposure of similar mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

An Iraqi journalist working for U.S. network NBC, who was arrested with the Reuters staff, also said he had been beaten and mistreated, NBC said on Tuesday.”

Shocking Details on Abuse of Reuters Staffers in Iraq (Editor & Publisher)

His Imperial Nakedness:

‘House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday sharply questioned President Bush’s competence as a leader, suggesting his policy in Iraq is to blame for the loss of U.S. lives. That assessment drew a furious response by Republicans who called on the Democratic leader to apologize.

“The emperor has no clothes,” Pelosi, D-California, told reporters on Thursday. “When are people going to face the reality? Pull this curtain back.” ‘ (CNN )

"…It should come as no surprise… that our chimpanzeeness overcomes and dominates our humanness with regularity…"

“According to neuroscientist Paul MacLean’s venerable Triune Brain Theory, the human brain is composed of a primeval reptilian segment, a later mammalian segment, and a relatively recent neocortical segment. These three levels correspond roughly to instincts (reptilian), feelings (mammalian), and thoughts (neocortex). In 1983, I asked professor MacLean if it made sense to speak of “regressing down the triune brain” or “progressing up the triune brain”? He averred that it made perfect sense. My 1987 book, Human Paleopsychology: Applications to Aggression and Pathological Processes (Erlbaum) was dedicated to MacLean and his work.


Human beings are literally designed to “regress” down the triune brain with ease, but “progressing” up is unnatural, difficult, and requires years of cultural shaping and formal education in industrialized societies. Simply speaking, when regressive processes are set against progressive ones, regression tends to win. Partying tends to win out over studying, impulsivity over self-control, amorality over morality, and disorder over order. Human Paleopsychogy focuses on individual and social breakdowns of cultural, moral, religious, and economic systems that have taken thousands of years to reach their present form. Yet, with the slightest provocation in the form of social malaise, insult, drug or alcohol intake, exposure to pornography, or even sudden changes in the stock market, we see that good will, manners and civility, social order, and concern with “higher things” can disappear in an instant.


The process whereby this occurs is termed phylogenetic regression and it refers to the sudden stripping away of the thin veneer of culture and the complementary re-activation of ancient evolved programs of selfishness, tribality and xenophobia, aggression, sexuality, and the like. In other words, when highly stressed and/or provoked, a person easily slips back into earlier evolutionarily adaptive programs that may have served our ancestors well in precultural times but may be amoral/immoral, socially chaotic, illegal, and even pathological today. For example, sexual promiscuity and male gang behavior in hunting contexts may have served young men well 30,000 years ago, but activation of these tendencies today in the absence of moral, religious, legal, or other constraints can easily lead to rape, gang warfare, or even worst case scenarios like the “inexplicable” murderous actions of the two young men in Littleton, Colorado on April 20, 1999. Human paleopsychology tries to make sense of these “inexplicable” events and others including serial murder involving cannibalism, body mutilation, and storage of body parts, mothers brutally killing their infants and young children, and even phenemona such as rage killing, road rage, and the brutal initiation ritual of the Glenbrook North High School sorority girls who literally outdid their chimpanzee cousins in chaotic violence.” — Kent Bailey (professor emeritus of clinical psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia)

The Moral Levitation of David Brooks

Must we float free of causality to count as moral agents? “In his latest book, Freedom Evolves, Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett coins the wonderful term “moral levitation” – you’ll even find it in the index. It names what some philosophers and many lay people think is required for morally responsible choices:

“Real autonomy, real freedom, requires the chooser be somehow suspended, isolated from the push and pull of…causes, so that when decisions are made, nothing causes them except you!”.


New York Times regular David Brooks expresses this view perfectly, writing in his May 15, 2004 column, “Columbine: Parents of a Killer,” that

“My instinct is that Dylan Klebold was a self-initiating moral agent who made his choices and should be condemned for them. Neither his school nor his parents determined his behavior.”


By claiming Klebold was self-initiating, Brooks isolates Klebold from the causal push and pull of school and parents, disconnecting him from the world so that he can count as a “real” moral agent. Brooks seems to think that Klebold’s choices are morally condemnable only if he wasn’t determined to make them. But as Dennett, myself, and others continue to point out, such supernatural moral levitation isn’t in the least necessary to sustain judgments of right and wrong, or to justify holding persons responsible. Causal determinism – being fully caused to be who you are, and do what you do – isn’t a threat to moral agency, although it undermines certain justifications for punishment which Brooks and other conservatives may not want to give up.”

FmH readers will recall I reacted similarly to the Brooks column when it came out, albeit far less eloquently and not couched in the formal language of moral philosophy. Of course, the issue of whether moral agency and causal determinism are opposed informs our purview on the Abu Ghraib torturers as well, as I have tried to suggest in my agonizing over the issue.

Related: Michael Ruse reviews Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution, Connectivism, and Moral Cognition by William D. Casebeer: —

“It is the claim of William D Casebeer, in Natural Ethical Facts, that we can

give a naturalistic account of ethics. Not just a science-based description of

what we do and think and feel that we ought to do, but in some sense a

justification of these feelings of ought-ness or morality. One way to do this —

a way suggested by the late John Mackie and supported by (among others)

myself — is to argue for some kind of ethical non-realism. We deny that there

are really ethical facts – we argue that, in some sense, a claim like “rape is

wrong” is a fiction (perhaps a very useful fiction) in a way that a claim like

“roses smell nice” is not. Casebeer will have none of this. Arguing from what

he claims is an updated version of the theory of the great Greek philosopher

Aristotle, using the findings of modern evolutionary biology, Casebeer thinks

that he can go all of the way and provide a full-blooded, biology-based — that

is, naturalistic — account of morality.” Human Nature