Ruminations, Haunts, and Errors

‘Twas no surprise that a presidential commission today reported that the administration was ‘dead wrong’ about WMDs in Iraq–after all, plenty of us could see in 2002-03 that the evidence as given was much too flimsy to justify war–but it was a bit disturbing how forcefully the report made the point that our current intelligence capabilities are so messed up that we know ‘disturbingly little’ detail about even our known enemies. (Intelligence problems? Dubya? Urge to make joke…must..resist…) Well, I suppose the first step towards solving a problem is admitting it exists. I especially like the commission’s recommendation to encourage questioning and dissent within the various agencies: as anyone with scientific training knows, knowing the alternate hypothesis and margins of error is as important–often more so!–than knowing what the current ‘best fit’ (or ‘most desirable’) answer is.

Another recommendation I found interesting was to have the new director of intelligence not provide the daily briefings to the President, to have said director focus not on the details of current knowledge but instead on the more general aspect of how the agencies collect and analyze data. Bush is unlikely to go with this, and I think that indicates a flaw in his leadership style. In his MBA-warped mind he believes that much should be delegated to others, who should whittle info down to small chunks that require quick, high-level decisions from among a few clear options. Unfortunately, this mentality is exactly what led to the ‘group-think’ that encouraged analysts to pass along what the neocons wanted to hear. The intelligence director should ensure that the best possible information and analysis is provided, but it should not be his responsibility to assess, edit, and act upon that info–that accountability should lie squarely with the President.

Conservative pundits (such as Charles Krauthammer as quoted here) appear to be advocating for the ability to easily abrogate living wills if someone (almost anyone) doesn’t like the choice made. After the appeals court in Atlanta scathingly rejected the attempt by Congress to push the law in just that direction, Tom Delay was quoted this evening as promising that Congress ‘will look at an arrogant, out-of-control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the President’. (I guess he believes that Separation of Powers is such an antiquated concept.)

Apparently life and choice really are mutually exclusive, or soon will be if some have their way. So much for the government staying out of our lives. Oh, I guess they’ll leave anyone alone who makes the proper choices…

The tragic saga of Terri Schiavo finally came to an end with her passing this week, and while her death in itself is painful for her family even moresad is how the affair turned into such a travesty and media circus. As the recriminations flew, activists pontificated, and politicians grandstanded, the true and important issues of the case got lost. Here was an opportunity for discussion of and reflection upon weighty issues of life, law, choice, and death. The situation has probably spurred many to draw up living wills or at least begin discussions, and our judiciary reconfirmed its independence–sticking with facts and case law rather than the meddling of hypocritical politicians.

But did we really learn anything? Did it lead to an important dialogue? Not really. The Schindler’s stubbornly refused to be swayed by anything that didn’t support their belief that Terri could come back to them in some way. Their advocates clung to their murder/atrocity rhetoric and kept up the age-old tradition of American litigiousness: sue if you don’t like a decision, attempt ever-more-tenuous legal arguments with each loss, and get the media involved as much as possible. Even as she was in her final moments the families couldn’t set aside their acrimony to just be with her one last time, and the bickering continued afterwards with separate funerals and more mud-slinging. Simply deplorable.

In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in favor of life.

However, perhaps this quote from President Bush best highlights the continuing problem since the vitally important discussion of just what constitutes ’serious doubts and questions’ was ignored by all but a few doctors, lawyers, and judges. The Schindlers and their supporters may have sincerely believed first that Terri could recover someday and second that pulling the plug was simply the wrong decision regardless. But does such fervent belief–especially given their attitude of ‘neurologists and living wills be damned, keep her body alive’–really qualify as serious doubts? For someone to make a decision based, ultimately, on genuine faith that stands in opposition to apparent fact is fine, but opinions of that sort are not suitable for overrulling someone else’s choice. A supporter may always be found for any possibility, no matter how outlandish, so the mere fact that one or more people express doubts doesn’t by itself indicate that such doubts are reasonable. Moreover, when such questions are raised without any support based in solid fact, and especially when raised by people who simply refuse to be convinced their views might be wrong, then it is acceptable (and often proper) to dismiss them. I hope that our society will continue to recognize that sincerity of belief or poignancy of idea are not by themselves enough to justify the overruling of a carefully considered individual choice.

Huh, the Social Security reform debate has been going on for two months, and I have yet to pontificate! I feel like I should care more than I do, but it occurred to me that I’m currently farther from ’standard’ retirement age than I am old so the issues are remote in terms of personal connection. Moreover, that think tanks, pundits, spinmeisters, and economists toss back and forth projections that individually prove nothing and collectively cancel out (assuming one believes that such economic theories approach anything resembling accurate and rigorous models of reality) doesn’t help spur lasting interest, except as spectator-sport politics.

In that vein, I have found the Administration’s dishonesty about their motives (hmm, that sounds familiar, eh?) frustrating. In testimony before Congress a few weeks back, Alan Greenspan came closest to admitting the truth when he alluded to a need for the government to reduce obligations that will probably come due in twenty years or so; in essence the Administration wants to do exactly what companies have been doing for the past twenty years in moving from pensions to 401(k)’s: shift the risk back to individuals. If they want to push this to see if the Congress and the public will buy it, fine, but they should be honest about their ideological motivations and not try to sell us some BS line that individual ownership of stocks/bonds/funds is a panacaea that guarantees solid returns and alleviates the Social Security funding issue.

However, I think the best commentary I’ve seen so far is a relatively brief post on Angry Bear that goes right to the high-level issue of why a radical restructuring is unnecessary and how the practicalities of current politics may make said overhaul DOA. Time will tell.

Awoke this morning to the sound of lawn equipment. Ah, well, at least that indicates that things are growing again. I just wish the landscapers worked during the week.

I think my heart has finally started beating normally again. Wow!

With 4:04 left, Arizona was up 74-60 and this game looked to be over. While the loss to Ohio St. was sorta fluky, this one seemed to be a loss earned on merit: no inside presence to speak of, terrible rebounding. Only hot shooting from the perimeter and solid defense kept them even within shouting distance of the Wildcats.

Then it happened…a flurry of steals and treys, and suddenly it was all tied up again at 80 with 0:38 left in regulation. It was such an uncharacteristic position from Illinois, an unbelievable change in momentum, and a blur of activity that not until well afterwards, when my mind had calmed again and the despair had did I appreciate what an amazing display of gritty defense and hustling offense that it turned out to be.

I didn’t even really enjoy the outcome at first. Leading 90-89, I saw Arizona’s last shot go up and had a moment of glee when it bounced off the rim and apparently into Illini hands…then it was on the floor, a scuffle, and up again. Out of the corner of my eye it appeared the shot went up with 0.8 seconds left, and my heart sank with the ball through the net. Only then did I realize that time had expired before the shot (replays showed that it wasn’t even close in that regard).

What a finish! An bigger margin and an ending in regulation would have allowed me to enjoy it more immediately, but I at least got some whoops and high-fives from other fans on Southport. Some are already comparing this finish to the epic ending of the Duke-Kentucky regional final in 1992. On to St. Louis!

All season long, the college-basketball punditry has been disparaging the Big Ten, saying the league is down–with the implication that Illinois built up its impressive record by feasting on mediocre competition–and instead talking up the ACC as the elite, divine gift to the game. Two sqads from the latter (North Carolina, Duke) ended up as #1 seeds, and a third (Wake Forest) griped and moaned about being disrepected with a #2.

So, here were are down to the last eight teams in the Tournament and the allocation stands thusly: ACC 1, Big Ten 3. Lo and behold, two of the mighty ACC’s participants were steamrolled out of Elite Eight participation by the second- and third-place members from that certain inferior conference out of the midwest somwhere. (And UNC barely survived its game by a single point over Villanova out of that other media-darling conference, the Big East.)

That’s one of the greatest things about the NCAA Tournament, after all the talk and discussion, the players go out and prove it on the court–the only place it really matters.

Today, my tenancy in our current Wrigleyville apartment surpasses the time I spent in my (much smaller) grad-school apartment in Urbana, which means I have now lived here longer than any place other than the house in Chicago Heights where I grew up.

Utterly useless trivia, but an interesting way to mark the passage of time…

More profs like this, please! Maybe even some high-school teachers?

‘Please disagree with me.’ I’m the teacher and I’m going to grade you. But you don’t get a good grade in my class by agreeing with me. You get a good grade by thinking critically.

–UIC Professor Barbara Ransby

This weekend’s developments in the sad saga of Terry Schiavo continue to amaze. I’ll admit to a slight bias towards the right-to-die side of the debate–methinks that an inviolable human life requiring maintenance at all costs requires more than simple existence of some biological functions. Maybe that Michael Shaivo didn’t raise the idea of his wife’s wishes to not be kept alive until a long time had passed indicate that his decision was motivated by other (economic?) factors. (What person’s motives are truly ever completely pure, though, really?) However, he has consistently maintained simply that well-established law and precedent granted him, as the surviving spouse, the final call regarding what her wishes were. No one will ever completely know what her thoughts were, but he was in as good a position as anybody, and it seems presumptive for anyone else (especially the state) to intercede simply because they don’t agree with what she did (or did not) think.

The most exasperating aspect, in my view, has been that every time in the last few years that the parents’ side has ‘lost’, in the sense that a court has reconfirmed Michael Schiavo’s rights in the matter, the opposing political side has followed with reworked laws to overturn the ruling. These continued efforts to change the rules every time they fail to ‘win’ may not be unprecedented in American politics, but such incalcitrance–especially when apparently aimed at a single person–seems to violate the spirit of our jurisprudence. I can appreciate the sincerity and tenacity of the parents and many of their supporters, but at what point does it become a simple, stubborn refusal to accept that someone else’s views might have merit too?

And now, with the full theatrics of a late Sunday session of Congress and Dubya being awakened in the middle of the night to sign a bill in a White House corridor, conservative power brokers in Washington have seen fit yet again to try for a rules change. However, a post on Angry Bear shows that not only were the self-righteous proponents of this rushed law very selective in which right-to-life case they saw fit to champion, but they did so in large measure to bolster Republican efforts to unseat Florida (Democratic) Senator Bill Nelson in 2006. Galling. Just disgusting.

New Scientist posted the latest list of 13 things that don’t make sense. Fascinating stuff! ‘Tis quite interesting that 8 of those 13 are related to astronomy or planetary-science (with two others at least tangentially related due to their possible impact on cosmology).

Not only does a list like this show what’s cool and cutting-edge in science, I think it highlights what draws people to science: despite millenia of progress and lots of mental effort, the universe is such a fascinating place that many things still elude our understanding. Moreover, I really wish more people could be made to understand that puzzles, mysteries, and conundrums are what drives science forward. Too many activists (especially those aligned with the religious right) try to spin such gaps in knowledge as proof that the theories have utterly failed and scientists have been leading us down the wrong path. Broader understanding of the vital role of missing links and negative results would help neutralize such misguided (and often cynical) efforts.

Illinois 67, Fairleigh Dickinson 55…but only after a struggle.

The downside of having the #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament is that the first-round game is simply no fun to watch. Blowout by halftime? Bo-ring! Twelve-point win? Well, shouldn’t the margin have been bigger? And if, say, the #1 team were to spend the first half shooting poorly, rebounding worse, and generally getting out-hustled to lead by just a slim point, then said team’s fans spend the next half-hour worrying about becoming That Team, you know, the first one ever to actually lose to the #16 seed. Thus, a win in this opening-round game is at best a foregone conclusion or at worst simple relief. Not a whole lot of joy in either case.

Ah, well, one round down. Hopefully the Illini who showed up in the second half will take the floor against Nevada for all 40 minutes.

Last night I started playing with some night-sky pictures from my camera, using dcraw and then ImageMagick to convert from RAW to PPM to FITS format so I could do proper reductions with IRAF. It occurred to me how far digital imaging technolgy has come in recent years. Back on my first trip to Mt. Laguna in 1995, I was impressed by their recently installed imager: a 2048x2048 CCD, thinned and cooled to 148K (fun with liquid nitrogen!) to achieve great sensitivity. Combined with custom control software, it was state-of-the-art and still an top-notch imager through my last observing run in 1998. To my knowledge they’re still using it, as it performs its intended job quite well.

I realized that the CCD in my Pentax is bigger (3038x2022), full-color, has better on-board readout and processing firmware…and was bought at retail for probably a fraction of what the MLO detector cost! (On my first night at the observatory, as my advisor and I were picking up the massive dewar-detector combo to attach it to the ’scope, he reminded me to be careful with the instrument ‘because…well, I have tenure…’) Wonder what this camera could do if cooled and let loose on dark mountain skies…

Assuming the forensics from Wisconsin pan out, it appears that the brutal murders of Judge Lefkow’s husband and mother were the work of a disgruntled litigant rather than a white-power conspiracy. While still tragic, this is somewhat of a relief (if that word is at all appropriate in this context) for the public, for it indicates that the motive was not a calculated attack on our society or justice system but was instead of a personal nature–the sort of violence that, while abhorrent, can at least be written off as a sui generis event that’s part of the daily risk of living in the midst of a very large, diverse, and free populace. This event is essentially equivalent to the disgruntled former employee who walks into his former workplace and guns down those with whom he perceives to have wronged him. Unless and until the police and other government agencies perfect telepathy and clairvoyance (how scary would that be?), there is simply no social or legal method short of a police state to completely prevent a loner harboring a grudge, who has snapped and feels he has nothing left to lose (including his own life), from causing harm to the target(s) of his misguided rage (and innocent bystanders who might be nearby, unfortunately).

That the perpetrator had connections to both Lefkows, Joan in the courtroom and Michael as a potential attorney, would seem to give him stronger motive than Matt Hale. Hale and his ilk will probably see the whole thing as yet another example of the government’s plot against them, but given that their movement has a history of violence and intimidation, the initial suspicion of one of its leaders–especially one convicted in a plot to kill the very same jurist–was completely justified.

The concerns this incident has raised about the safety of judges and courthouses is still valid even without the grand conspiriacy, for the number of losing litigants, outwardly normal, who might snap and want to exact their vengance on the highly visible officials who make and enforce rulings against them is vastly larger than the number of people in well-organized hate groups.

Usually I’m fine with George Will (he’s a native Illinoisan and likes the Cubs, after all), for while I don’t share his views he typically presents them with calm, thoughtful arguments. However, this week’s column got under my skin for some reason. Suprisingly, it wasn’t primarily due to his characterization of the Count Every Vote Act as a cynical ploy by certain Democrats to give votes (presumably in their favor) to felons and other undeserving members of society. To pen such a screed on draft legislation whose ink is barely dry is uncharacteristic but merits just a roll of the eyes. No, what attracted my attention were the subtler undercurrents neatly summarized in this statement:

The act would further erode federalism by stripping states of their traditional rights to regulate elections

First off, will conservatives stop claiming that federalism equals subservience to state prerogatives? The attendees at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 knew better. True, the feds don’t always know best, but that doesn’t imply that the states (or localities) do either. The elections of 2000 and 2004 showed just how much effect one state can have on the nation. How the good citizens of Ohio or Florida or any other non-Illinois state choose to distribute the franchise for their state and local officials doesn’t concern me because I’m generally unaffected by the decisions they make; in contrast, the actions and decisions of Congress and the President do affect me, so I have a very legitimate stake in how the other states choose their Representatives, Senators, and Electoral Votes. As a result, the federal government has every right to mandate a certain uniformity of standards for federal elections.

Second, what does ‘tradition’ have to do with anything? This mantra that the old and current is necessarily good and deserving of protection is what continually drives me batty about conservatives. Their presumption is that whatver has ’stood the test of time’ must be sensible or strong or valid or whatever. Counterexamples are easy to find: the flat earth and human slavery come to mind. Anyone who has dealt with any large organization (e.g. big company, university, government office) knows that often things are the way they are because either 1) no one wants to suggest changes that might upset those who benefit from the current state, or 2) no one even considered doing it another way. Moreover, anything having to do with the government (well, at least the American one) was put in place by choice, and we should not feel compelled to maintain that choice in the face of new conditions or other options (so long as they achive comparable sociopoltical ends that are still considered desirable). New ideas need to be compared with the existing ones on their merits of logic (efficiency, fairness, etc.) alone; simple familiarity or comfort is an insufficient reason to resist change. If tradition has a role to play, it is in guiding the cost-benefit analysis of, or transition schedule for, the move from old to new (a concept the Left, to its detriment, often fails to comprehend).