Speaking of kids and childish things, it turns out that blood drinking is natural. At least, so elementary school kids are being taught in Philadelphia:

"Why," asked one third grader from the Independence Charter School, "do they drink blood?"

Her question, directed at Herman Bingham, a board member of the East Africa Resource and Study Center, contained a universe of incomprehension.

It's not that the eating habits of nomadic peoples in northern Kenya seemed ghoulish. Rather, they just made no sense at all.

Bingham, giving a talk and conducting a tour of the center, had heard it before. He kept it simple.

"Because it's nutritious," he said, "and because they don't slaughter their animals."

Fouzia Musse, a dynamic board member born in Somalia, took over from Bingham.

"Let me tell you about the blood," she said to the children gathered around her, amid the artifacts on the first floor of the center in West Philadelphia. "It is natural. The food you eat is transformed into blood."

And she went on with a mesmerizing description that American city children understood completely.

I don't have a problem with kids being taught that Masai warriors and other East Africans drink blood. It's a fact, and there are reasons why they do it. But I'm a little concerned about the science behind teaching third-graders (or anyone, for that matter) that blood drinking is "natural" simply because "the food you eat is transformed into blood." While it's true enough, isn't food also transformed into every type of cell and tissue in the body -- including human waste? Or is critical thinking something to be discouraged?

I'm no expert on the Masai or other blood drinkers, but I'm hardly the first to question whether "natural" foods like blood have really helped them achieve what we in the West might condescendingly call quality of life:

If calcium were in fact an overriding factor in determining health, freedom from disease, and longevity, the Masai tribe in Africa would have some very elderly elders. Interestingly, while they consume exhorbitant amounts of calcium (the mainstay of their diets is a mix of cow blood and milk), they have a life expectancy of only 45 years.

Just for kicks, I contacted the Centers for Disease Control and asked if I were to travel to Africa to visit with the Masai, what diseases would I need to be innoculated for or protected from. Here's an abbreviated list:

* Cholera
* Influenza
* Filariasis
* Anthrax
* African tick typhus
* Chikungunya fever (explosive urban outbreaks have occurred)
* Echinococcosis Leptospirosis
* Lyme disease
* Malaria
* Meningitis
* Black plague
* Tuberculosis
* Intestinal worms
* Rabies
* Typhoid Fever
* Yellow Fever

That's quite an impressive list for a population consuming several liters of calcium rich food every day. Maybe calcium is not the great protector Barefoot promotes it as.

Never mind that. Let's continue, with a lesson about family values:

"Africans know everything there is to know about community and family," he told the children. "That's what holds it all together... . They've mastered their environment by keeping their eyes open and taking care of their goats and sheep and camels."

The children listened with complete attention to Baumann's description of the 115-degree desert heat, the lack of water, the portable housing, the camels, and, yes, the bloodletting.

But the high point of the visit came when the children were turned loose among the objects crafted by people halfway around the world.

About a dozen boys and girls immediately crawled into a portable hut, assembled from grass and sticks, that had served as desert housing.

For example, there's no question that Somalians know a lot about how to perform female genital mutilation:

The most extreme form of female circumcision entails the female genitals being mutilated, whereby the clitoris and sometimes the labia are removed. Thereafter, the vagina is also more or less sewn up. The mutilation of girls is often carried out by inexperienced people, who use dirty instruments such as pieces of glass, razors or sharp stones which are often re-used without being sterilised first. This increases the chance of HIV infections.

The effects of genital mutilation can result in death. At the moment that the mutilation is carried out, all kinds of side effects may occur such as intense pain, bleeding, shock and damage to the organs surrounding the clitoris and the labia. After the operation, urine may be left behind which may cause nasty infections. Complications which frequently occur are long-lasting infections, recurrent bleeding, abscesses and small benign tumours on the nerves which can result in discomfort and serious pain.

....In Somalia, circumcision of the clitoris and sometimes the labia as well is not punishable by law. According to women of Nagaad, the Somalian umbrella organisation with 32 members, it will take a very long time to change cultural views on this matter – not only among men but among women as well. The age at which girls are circumcised is being lowered all the time. Children who are sometimes no older than six are operated on by private doctors or traditional healers. The circumcision ceremony usually takes place within the family circle.

European summer holidays

‘In Somaliland (the northern part of Somalia that declared itself independent in 1991), an estimated 98 percent of Somalian girls are circumcised. But no-one talks about it’, says Asmara Abdelsaksam, chairman of Nagaad....

Holy cow! That's even more gross than drinking blood! And as young as six?

Is my unenlightened cultural bias showing? Perhaps I should recognize that children should be taught to get over these Western cultural hangups, and learn to be, er, daring!

Should I, like, get with the program?

OK, just for today I'll stick with the lesson in culture:

"This is very stimulating," he said. "Some children are very daring. Some hesitate. They are so honest. Their attitude is 'Let's find out more!' It isn't 'Oh, that smells funny' or 'That smells different' or 'I don't want to have anything to do with it.' "

Then he told the children the same thing.

"Your questions are great!" he said. "Just keep asking!"

Actually, considering that only seven percent of Somalian girls receive primary education, it must truthfully be acknowledged that very few schoolgirls are sexually mutilated. 90% of 7% would be only 6.3% of the total elementary school-aged population.

(Another example of how right wing, culturally bigoted bloggers exaggerate?)

Well, to show how fair I am, I'll bend over backwards and remind readers of the argument for female circumcision: it's done to enhance the status of women. (More here.)

Enhance the status of women? Obviously such lessons on advancement of the status of women should be taught at an early age.

(So should the notion that the West is inferior to cultures of blood drinkers who circumcise eight year old girls.....)

Everyone's talking about Star Wars, including me. Only I haven't seen the latest entry in the series, which makes me more objective. Justin's doing a good job of keeping readers informed, which lets me completely off the hook -- not only as a reviewer, but even as a spectator. I don't need to see it. Besides, who would go with me? I have no children, and most of my friends (the people I might normally go to the movies with) are saving this one for their own kids.

From what I've read, it's definitely about kids. About child development -- especially what happens when that process in which a boy becomes a man is contaminated.

Contaminated by what? Hell, I don't know. I haven't seen the damned thing (which I had assumed was about the evil, Imperial-mongering Bushitler Vader or something). But Dean Esmay has, and he offers some intriguing insights:

I remember all too well being a surly, angry, resentful, rebellious teenager (and early 20-something). Me? I bought into the whole thing as a refusal to grow up and face your own demons--which to me is the ultimate in cowardice.

It was made pretty clear to me that Anakin never really loved Padme--he loved the idea of her. She, on the other hand, really did love him even though she often found him incomprehensible.

Maybe this all because I grew up with what they call "father issues." Growing up, I didn't really have a father so much as a series of men who sort of tried to fill that role in various half-measures.

With the hope that this isn't getting too personal (I don't think I'm talking out of turn or saying anything secret here) I note that Solomon Mason loved Episode III as much as I did, and grew up in a similarly broken home. I suspect that as a result we both related to Anakin and his dark side almost instinctively. After watching Episode III I felt like I totally "got" Darth Vader. I thought, "Damn, yeah, if I were who I was back when I was 21, and I'd had that kid's powers, I could well have turned into Darth Vader."

That moment after Obi-Wan had defeated him in battle, and Anakin screamed, "I hate you!!!"--man, chills ran down my spine. He was filled with rage at Obi-Wan for not validating everything he wanted to believe about himself.

It does help if you keep in mind that Anakin was young--very young--and quite conflicted and alone most of his life. The Jedi Council was probably right that he was waaay too young for the responsibilities he was being given. But it wasn't just his youth: it was obvious from day one that Anakin was kind of a mess.

Maybe others who didn't grow up like that, or know anybody like that, can't relate. I don't know. Me, I thought it was beautiful. Especially in seeing how his son Luke, faced with many of the same problems and limitations, overcame them and became a better man.

To be painfully self-revealing here, I often hope my sons will be better men than I was at their age. In truth, I often guage my effectiveness as a father with that as my yardstick--not to push them or bully them or try to make them someone they are not, but because I was a train wreck back then. My boys are not me, and they have to make their own way and discover who they are. Indeed I often marvel at how wonderful they are as people, even in their imperfections. I am only an imperfect (to say the least) guide when it comes to being a good person.

Still: it was obvious to me that the self-conflicted mass of insecurities that was young Anakin was like clay in the hands of Palpatine. It was so obvious to me I didn't feel it needed any further explanations.

Childish issues frighten me because of often-repeated myths associating childhood with innocence. (When I was two, I learned that children are not innocent, and it's a lesson I never forgot.) What if the "Dark Side" is childish after all?

The innocence of evil is probably the worst kind of innocence. And evil.

Not that any of this would matter to a child.

Rand Simberg of Transterrestrial Musings posted this link weeks ago, but I've been too lazy to point it out. Till now. Cause I know you want it.

The Jedi Order’s mistakes in dealing with Anakin Skywalker are numerous and damning. First, the Order was aware from the very start that Anakin missed his mother, yet did nothing to free her from slavery, nor did they arrange to keep an eye on her.

Second, while acknowledging that Anakin might be “The Chosen One”, the Jedi entrusted his training to Obi Wan Kenobi, who began training Anakin just after having graduated from being a Padawan learner himself. Surely if the Chosen One was important enough to potentially bring balance to the Force, he was important enough to receive instruction from their best teacher...

Third, the Jedi Order did not realise that they should have instructed Kenobi to be more flexible in his approach. Obi Wan was a strictly rules-based Jedi who forced his rebellious young charge to adhere to the letter of the law...

Fourth, the Jedi Order did not allow Anakin to follow his premonition regarding his mother’s torture and death. He was merely told, “dreams pass in time”; the Jedi did not send anyone to investigate, nor allowed Anakin to go to his home planet to check. It was not until Kenobi was otherwise occupied that Anakin actually disobeyed orders, and by then, it was too late.

Arrogance has deep roots in the Jedi Order: as their librarian Jocasta Nu showed in her disregard of the absence of the planet Kamino from her records (“if a planet does not show up in our records, it does not exist”) the Jedi believe their knowledge is perfect. This was by no means an isolated incident...

Don't be shy, there are nits enough for all. My own efforts begin to look amateurish. Perhaps I can redeem my geek reputation by pointing you toward this amusing livejournal entry by Maya. I found it at Brian Tiemann's blog, Peeve Farm.

From time to time I'll mention that you should "read the whole thing". This time I really, really mean it. Really. She's very funny.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

...it amazes me how much people love it. There was an enormous queue of people who already had tickets but wanted really good seats! Two queues!

MAYA: Muahahahahahaha. I mock you all.
MY FRIENDS: You. Write. Harry Potter. Porn.
MAYA: ... now the Star Wars fans are laughing at me. This is rock bottom.
MY FRIENDS: I dare you to kiss that lifesize cardboard cutout of Angelina Jolie!
MAYA: And behold, we drilled through rock bottom and struck humiliation oil!

And then... wonder of wonders, I... think I liked it...

OBI-WAN: Right then, it's time to fight General, er... (Ewan nobly controls himself) Grievous.
ANAKIN: Grievous? Seriously?
OBI-WAN: Yes. General Grievous. Seriously. Because that is what his name is.
ANAKIN: You know, if I was evil, I'd want something with a more sinister ring to it. Not that I'm evil. Totally not evil.

COUNT DOOKU: I will fight you both, Jedi! I am leader of this rebellion, and I could completely have a higher rank, but you see how Duke Dooku would be an unfortunate name, don't you?
ANAKIN: Don't even care. Killing you like whoa.

EVERYONE: God, Anakin, you are one hot piece of ass.
ANAKIN: Well, yeah, I've been lifting weights... Oh, hey. There's my secret wife, to whom I am secretly married. I have to go passionately embrace her behind a pillar a couple feet away from the Senate leaders right about now, because it's a secret...

PALPATINE: I want you to be my special friend.
ANAKIN: Jedis aren't allowed to do that kind of thing.
PALPATINE: Special representative on the Jedi Council.
ANAKIN: Really? Oh my God, what an honour! I'm not ready!
PALPATINE: Sure you are. You've been working out.

OBI-WAN: Now that you're pissed you weren't made Master, is this a good time to ask you to go against the Jedi way and spy on Palpatine, who you really like?
ANAKIN: *does a very good impression of an angry, vain kid who doesn't understand about moral shades of grey*
AUDIENCE: That's weird. It looks like Hayden Christiansen, but it's acting.
OBI-WAN: ... that'd be a no, then?

DOCTORS: So, Padme's fine and all, but she's dying of a broken heart, just like in a Victorian romance OMG! Who here has read Richardson's Clarissa?
PADME (faintly): Oh la, sir, I do believe I have the vapours...

There's plenty more where that came from, and believe me, I was sorely tempted to post it here.

But that would be wrong.

Walking through Valley Forge National Park, I came across a rotting greenhouse, which is being taken over by disorderly vegetation.

There are probably some wild flowers growing inside of it, but I preferred the tiny buttercups in the field of tall grass nearby.

I'm still using the lazy old clunker Epson camera. One of these days I'll upgrade. (I consider myself very green as a photographer and I only wish there weren't so many confusing choices!)

MORE (05/31/05): Later last night, Coco contemplated fire for the first time:

A lot of people are probably traveling, and I'm not going to be around much today. So I'll leave a travel tip based on something that happened yesterday when I wasn't looking.

When you're packing, be sure to check the trunk before you slam it and leave!

Otherwise, this might happen:

Without making a sound, Coco (who's always trying something) slipped stealthily into the trunk. I'm sure there would have been mysterious noises hours later on the PA Turnpike, but fortunately, she was caught, and dragged out, but only after I allowed her to pose for this public service photo.

Happy Memorial Day!

ONE OTHER REMINDER: while you're remembering stuff, please remember that this day is also about something important: remembering the veterans and all members of the Armed Forces.

MORE: Are you looking for ways to support the troops? Here's how.

Reader Clint thinks that I should devote more time to the political elements in "Revenge of the Sith", and forget about the engineering shortcomings. I am mildly rebuked for focusing on minutiae. He further maintains that the secessionist, tax-dodging villains might have been the real heroes of the piece.

It’s an intriguing notion. That interpretation would of course cast the Jedi as the morally bankrupt enforcers for an oppressive, corrupt regime. On the other hand, the Jedi never indulged in orbital mass bombardment of noncombatants or the indiscriminate execution of juveniles, did they? And the invasion and blockade of Naboo look more like a mercantilist power grab than a quest for libertarian free trade. Clearly, mistakes were made on both sides.

De Gustibus, Clint. It takes all kinds.

Meanwhile, let’s just step back a bit and think. Sure, there was plenty more wrong with the movie, but my lack of commentary doesn’t mean I didn’t see it. It just meant that this particular flaw tickled my fancy. Equally egregious (good name for a general, huh?) examples abound.

For instance, why is there never an escape pod right there on the bridge in these sorts of movies? It’s always at least two decks away and down a burning corridor. Bad design philosophy, yet again.

The blowout shutters were a nice touch, and long overdue in my estimation, but then they went and forfeited my warm good feelings when I remembered the shutters on the hanger deck were sliding shut along the portal’s lengthiest possible dimension. Instead of racketing along from left to right, any sane designer would have had them close from bottom to top, or better yet, bottom and top.

I can hear your objections. It’s just an adventure movie. We need jeopardy to provide the thrills. We need fast paced, harum-scarum action, with pitfalls, booby traps, and skin of our teeth escapes. Therefore, the demands of the narrative absolutely require that Anakin pilot a disintegrating juggernaut all the way to the surface, that he dive his starfighter through the closing shutters with inches to spare, that he be subjected to much humorous elevator travail. Lighten up fanboy, it’s only a movie!

Sorry. That is not the fanboy way. Would you really have this or any other movie be immune to criticism? Of course not.

Leaving the trivial criticisms behind us for a moment, I have a more sensible objection to this kind of thing. If a movie is trying to produce a given effect on its audience, perhaps to sweep them up in a grand tide of emotion, it would seem prudent for it to avoid distracting them at crucial dramatic moments with annoying incongruities. The audience shouldn’t start questioning things too much, so the movie should avoid giving them things to question. For me, the auto-destructing civil engineering was a real mood breaker.

In fact, the whole idea of auto-destruct in general has always struck me as an iffy proposition. Why would you even want it? It’s just one more thing to go wrong.

Now if you had been raised in the Federation, where auto-destruct sequences seem to be a way of life, you might be able to explain the value to me. Federation kids grow up around auto-destruct mechanisms, so naturally they respect them and handle them properly. A Federation kid will commonly have an auto-destruct on his first tricycle. It's not unusual to see rural children toting surplus auto-destructs out to the woods to hunt squirrels with.

For that matter, if anyone remembers "Forbidden Planet" there's a planetary auto-destruct located in the Krell Machine control center. It looked very much like a bicycle pump. Now why would they have put that there?
It was in plain sight, without even a guard rail. Auto-destructs. Ha!

You know, I wanted to go along with The Lucas's promptings, but I just spun out and lost momentum. Why aren’t Obi-wan and Anakin being toasted by the lava’s heat? Why do those little floaty-droids have such dinky lava-buckets? Why doesn’t Obi-wan do the right thing, the merciful thing, and finish Anakin off?

Well, it had to be that way. There’s that next trilogy to keep in mind.

Others may have their own hot-buttons. Fine, it’s a big tent. How about an illicit love affair, carried out in a transparent penthouse apartment? An apartment surrounded by, I don’t know, maybe a million windows? Ah, but maybe it was tunable one-way glass. Space glass.

Okay. I can’t prove it isn’t. But what about Padme’s terrace? The Republic can build flying surveillance droids smaller than a basketball, but nobody seems to give that fact a second thought. I guess they’re illegal or something.

My mother once told me that it isn’t so much the big, expensive mistakes that kill a marriage. Those are usually forgiven (even if never forgotten). No, she said it’s all the little stupid mistakes, piling up day by day.

I want a divorce.

The sculpture above (with its glaringly empty eye socket) reminded me that yesterday, just as I was brushing up on sympathetic ophthalmia, I checked my yahoo email, and a reader sent me a biographical essay mentioning the visual problems of Paul Linebarger, aka Cordwainer Smith:

Linebarger was reared in a High Church Episcopalian family. Alan C. Elms's sketch of the older Linebargers does not lead one to believe either was particularly devout. Paul's father was evidently rather overbearing and placed many demands on his son. His mother was apparently rather self-centered and controlling. At the age of six, young Paul was blinded in his left eye as a result of an accident while playing, and the resulting infection damaged his right eye as well, causing him distress throughout his entire life. A sensitive, introspective, and apparently rather lonely and sickly youth, Paul Linebarger was to develop into a remarkable scholar, thinker, and writer.

Sympathetic ophthalmia is a potentially blinding, immune-mediated, inflammatory condition, which usually follows severe trauma to one eye. It is the fellow to the injured eye (the sympathizing eye) that is affected by the disorder, and the risk of the condition is approximately one in 500 severely traumatized eyes. The traumatic ocular event must be a penetrating or rupturing injury of the eye, typically involving a large laceration, which involves the region of the ciliary body of the eye. The immune system is then exposed to antigens in the eye, which had never previously been "seen," and subsequently mounts an inflammatory response to the fellow of the injured eye. The immune-mediated attack on the fellow eye may be relentlessly progressive, despite all attempts at control, with eventual complete vision loss.

It just never struck me as fair that a blind eye could lead a good eye to ruin, but I guess I shouldn't confuse value judgments with human physiology.

The result might be the "visualization" of values.

MORE: Here's Paul Linebarger/Cordwainer Smith on truth:

Propaganda vs. Truth. How can I tell the apart? The answer is simple: If you agree with it, it is the truth. If you don't agree, it's propaganda.

Does the war on terror now include a federal war on unlawful Star Wars downloads?

United States law enforcement agents raided a series of servers allegedly hosting file-sharing servers. Operation D-Elite targeted sites supporting files using the BitTorrent protocol, focusing especially on the EliteTtorrents site. "Torrents" make files available in many small sections, which increases uploading and downloading speeds.

The action follows a well-publicized complaint by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), who criticized the wide availability of torrent versions of the new Star Wars movie.

ICE, the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, spearheaded the investigation because of its international scope.

The raids came less than a week after the Motion Picture Association of America publicly slammed BitTorrent for accelerating the spread of a pirated copy of Revenge of the Sith. According to the government, the third Star Wars prequel was available through Elitetorrents.org more than six hours before it was first shown in theaters, and was downloaded more than 10,000 times in the next 24 hours. A Google cache of the site's front page taken May 19, the day the film was released, shows administrators complaining that the site was creaking under the load of the sudden influx of Star Wars fans, and requesting donations to help fund a server upgrade.

Elitetorrents.org granted users varying levels of access depending on how much of their bandwidth they shared with other downloaders, with generous uploaders getting first crack at newly released content.

The Justice Department wouldn't comment on how officials zeroed in on Elitetorrent's biggest players, but ICE's Sevel credited the MPAA, which somehow got a line on the site's server logs.

"The MPAA provided us with information that led us to the logs and data for the servers ... the logs for the users as well as the uploads and downloads," said Sevel. The organization did not just provide a list of IP addresses of file swappers -- which is easy to get on any peer-to-peer network -- but found some of "the actual records from the server," Sevel said.

But I find myself forced to ask whether the federal government really believes such bullshit should be in any way a part of the war on terrorism.

I hope not, because I don't want to have to rethink my support for the war.

(No word on whether the Patriot Act might be applied.....)

MORE: It's worse than I thought. Via Glenn Reynolds, I found this trumped up nonsense on stilts, which would be comical except that certain poseurs are pretending to take it seriously:

Counterfeit DVDs and cigarettes may be funding terrorists.

That's what the Senate Homeland Security committee heard Wednesday from John Stedman, a lieutenant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department who's responsible for an eight-person team of intellectual property (IPR) investigators.

"Some associates of terrorist groups may be involved in IPR crime," Stedman said. "During the course of our investigations, we have encountered suspects who have shown great affinity for Hezbollah and its leadership."

Even though Stedman's evidence is circumstantial, his testimony comes as Congress is expected to consider new copyright legislation this year. An invocation of terrorism, the trump card of modern American politics, could ease the passage of the next major expansion of copyright powers.

(You'd almost think they were afraid that pretty soon there won't be any more!)

Today, DVDs and cigarettes.

If we're not careful, the supporters of Hezbollah will go into in the oil business!

More hate crimes! And here's the proof:

If that's not hateful, I don't know what is. And for a city like San Francisco to allow hate crime like the above to go on is shocking!

While it remains to be determined what actual crime was committed, the victims clearly were selected because of their race and/or nationality:

SAN FRANCISCO - An exhibit showing Chinese bodies and organs is drawing protests from Chinese-Americans who say the display of corpses is offensive to their culture.

Fiona Ma, a Chinese-American San Francisco supervisor, said Friday she is working with city attorneys to draft legislation that will keep exhibits like "The Universe Within" out of the city unless organizers can verify the consent of people who donated the bodies or their families.

"Chinese culture has very strong beliefs about death," said Ma, who represents a heavily Chinese district. "Chinese people are very private and wouldn't want to have their bodies displayed for commercial purposes."

The "Universe Within" — now on display in San Francisco — is among a string of exhibits touring the country that have been wildly successful. The collection of bodies and organs was once used to instruct medical students in Beijing.

The corpses were preserved through "plastination," which replaces body fluids with liquid plastic. The plastic is hardened, leaving tissues intact. The bodies can then be displayed without formaldehyde or glass containers.

A recent visit showed bodies propped up like department store mannequins, and individual organs displayed with veins and capillaries intact.

Francisco Hsieh, a retired Chinese-American who visited the exhibit, is advising his friends and family to stay away.

"Chinese people want to keep their whole body when they pass away and no one would want their bodies displayed," he said. "I feel disgusted and terrible ... some parts look like cuts of meat."

Ma is asking the district attorney's office to investigate the promoter, Gerhard Perner of Austria. The city's Department of Public Health also is investigating.

It is a hate crime if the perpetrator "intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." While I'll leave it to better minds than my own whether a corpse could be considered a "person," [or whether death is a form of, um, disability] a corpse is certainly property! And in the event that any crime is found to have been committed with that property, it's certainly because of the race and national origin -- for the simple reason that only China allows easy trafficking in human remains. It's simple logic, really. If trafficking in live humans because of their race and national origin is hate crime, then so is trafficking in their remains.

All that needs to be shown is that some kind of crime occurred. In San Francisco, they're looking into public health violations.

Archaeologists should think twice before digging! And so should purchasers of ethnic artifacts.

Illegal purchasers of Indian arrowheads beware!

I was talking about hate crimes so much that I never stopped to ask some basic questions.

What is hate?

Is hate just another loaded term, or does it mean something? I always thought of hate as an emotion. The opposite of love, perhaps. Something that makes you lose control.

When I was in law school I learned that crimes of passion are treated differently than crimes not involving passion. If, for example, a man discovers his wife in bed with another man, is overcome by passion and shoots the guy, the heat of passion involved normally reduces the murderer's culpability, so that instead of first degree murder, he's only guilty of second degree murder (or even manslaughter).

But let's say the same man never experienced marital infidelity, but merely tires of his wife. After reflecting on the matter, he decides he'd be better off with the proceeds of her life insurance policy than the wife, so he poisons her.

There's no heat of passion, no sudden quarrel, no hate of any kind.

The law recognizes that as the worst kind of murder: first degree murder, with premeditation and deliberation.

So what is it about hate that has made it suddenly become transformed into a more, not less, criminally culpable mental state than being possessed of a clear, reflective, sober, rational mind?

Might it be that "hate crime" isn't the correct phrase to be used in describing crimes motivated by racial prejudice? Let's look at hate crime in the context I mentioned. Suppose a white man had an absolute, irrational, blinding hatred of race mixing, and that this was driven by the sexual aspects of his hatred.

There's the well known phenomenon of sexual racism -- people unable to have sex with anyone except members of certain races.

It's racially prejudiced to rule out someone for a job based on their race or to keep them out of a pub. Ruling out someone as a potential partner based on their race is just as prejudiced.

(Nah! Sexual sexism is off limits, and will remain that way! Achtung baby!)

Let's return to hard facts of life. I once knew a white man who not only was turned off sexually by other races, but he claimed to be unable to have sex even with white women if he discovered they'd ever had sex with members of other races. (In my unprofessional opinion, that's true sexual pathology!) But let's suppose a guy like that found his wife in bed with a black man, went absolutely berserk, and shot the black man to death. Absent any racial prejudice, such a killing would traditionally be seen as second degree murder, but now the added factor of uncontrollability (assuming the passion involves racism) adds to the guilt. Presumably hate is to be more severely punished than cold, emotionless states. Assuming that the hate means less control, and not more control, how much judicial sense does this make?

And what about fear? Is that the same thing as hate? If crime is motivated by fear, from where do we obtain the supreme confidence of knowing that this is a thing which should add to criminal culpability? Suppose a man (or a woman) was raped as a child, and as a result of the rape develops lifelong fears manifesting themselves against sexual offenders. If he lashes out against a child molester, is this a hate crime? Is the sexual attraction to children a form of sexual orientation? If the relevant hate crime statute includes "sexual orientation" on its list, then why wouldn't the deliberate murder of a child molester be a hate crime? Shouldn't the protected sexual orientations be listed? Not that I'm advocating the murder of child molesters or rapists, but are these hate crimes? Or does hatred based on sexual orientation necessarily involve only some sexual orientations? While the statutory language is very general, and most likely is intended to give protection to homosexuals only, laws invite this sort of technical squabbling.

Parenthetically, I'm wondering whether a nexus of fear and hate can be found in the term "homophobia." In the normal usage of that word, fear and hate are all but synonymous; those who hate homosexuals are said to be afraid of them.

What if fear is at the root of the kind of crime which is being punished here? Should prejudice crimes properly be called "fear crimes?" Some yes; some no. I think there is such a thing as calm, calculating, cold-blooded hatred. Maybe that's what the laws aim to punish.

But that still begs the question of what is hate, and I'm afraid I haven't answered it at all.

Here's Dean Esmay:

....Hate is a healthy emotion. An utterly appropriate emotion, in fact, so long as, like all other emotions, it is kept in its place.

Indeed, I go further: if you cannot hate, then there is something fundamentally wrong with you. If you tell me that you cannot or will not feel hatred, then there are only two possibilities: you are either a liar, or there is something dark and twisted about your soul.

.....if you cannot or will not ever feel hate, then I assert that, ultimately, you are perverse. Because hate is an entirely normal, entirely healthy emotion. When, like all other powerful emotions, it is kept in its appropriate time and place.

I can't shake this feeling I have that hate is not a thing decided, any more than people decide to love. Hate is very, very tough to define. There isn't agreement on whether it is good or bad, much less what things or people should be hated, or who should get to decide these things. That's why I think making hate a target for legislative regulation will ultimately create more problems than it will solve.

A race-based society full of the hate that dare not speak its name?

MORE: Since I so love hypotheticals, here are a few more:

Hacking and vandalism? Or hate crimes?

MORE: The best working definition of hate crime I can come up with is found in Section 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

UPDATE: Here's a New York Times report about a bank executive who allegedly jumped naked from the bushes along a New Jersey nature trail and exposed himself to a woman.

If it is determined that the banker "intentionally select[ed] [the] victim because of the actual or perceived .... gender," (i.e., he wouldn't have done this to a man) then under the statute, it's a hate crime!

Am I alone in thinking this a bit ridiculous?

Did Starfleet tender the low bid, or what?

Given that we're talking about a lava refinery (or whatever) that is probably worth millions, you would think a smidgen of redundancy would be built into the system, right?

So we're supposed to just accept that a single swipe with a light-saber through a single console will cause a massive girder array to hoot like a herd of wounded Mûmakil and trundle itself into the lava?

And naturally, the room containing such vital equipment is used to warehouse a gang of corrupt politicos. "What does this switch do, Nute?"

Have these people never heard of detents? Emergency power cutouts? FUSE BOXES?

Yeah, right.

Of course, the rot only went deeper with time. How else to acount for the loss of "Executor" at the Battle of Endor?

A single A-wing snubship hit the bridge and the entire ship was destroyed.

The ship was twelve point eight kilometers long and they couldn't find room for an auxiliary bridge. Some design philosophy.

I guess we know where Leah Brahms ended up.

Here's something for all you manhole cover lovers (and I know you're out there, because if you can think of it, it's out there somewhere):

That's from this vast collection of Japanese manhole covers.

I love the idea of making even such a mundane thing as a manhole cover an object of beauty. The Berkeley City Council never cared much about the appearance of their manhole covers; instead what they did was argue over the appearance of language (what the manhole covers should be called). The arguments went on and on, and finally they began to realize that "personhole cover" had an even dirtier sound to it:

"[Personhole] is not an acceptable de-sexed word."
--Shirley Dean, councilperson from the Berkeley, (California) City Council, explaining why the Council changed the wording in a sewer equipment request back to manhole cover

If you read Winds Of Change regularly, you may have come across the work of John Atkinson. He's the fellow who compiles their monthly feature "New Energy Currents"and he makes a pretty good job of it too. I haven't missed one since he started them and they have never yet failed to put me on the trail of an unexpected and pleasing development.

This latest effort is no exception. It's a real grab bag, so I can't give you an exhaustive recap, but a couple of my personal favorites involve sun and wave power.

Nanosolar is hinting that their printable plastic solar cells will be ready for deployment within the year. Mr. Atkinson provides a link to Monkeysign, who was justifiably sceptical of some of the figures he's seen quoted, primarily because they don't account for balance-of-system costs. It's a good thing to be wary of outrageous claims.

On the other hand, I find myself agreeing with a comment by Engineer-Poet.

I think this is only a small issue in the long run. NanoSolar may indeed be blowing smoke, but there are so many developments along so many avenues (semiconductor nanoparticles with conversion efficiencies up to 60%, to name just one) that something is certain to lead to a breakthrough.

To borrow a term Virginia Postrel is fond of, there is a plenitude of fascinating research going on behind our backs. Our boffins are plumbing the depths of natural arcana with a subtlety and craft that must surely astonish the receptive observer. One would hope so, anyway.

But I digress. Returning to our narrative thread, we find a putative nanosolar VIP leaving a comment at Monkeysign.

Hi there -- thanks for your interest in what we're up to at Nanosolar. We very much share your passion about this topic and surely wish we could tell you all right now. But I obviously cannot preannounce our product/technology/solution here. Still here's a few hints: - The balance-of-system argument made above is a popular one. But one that turns out to be wrong too. Or said differently: There's more innovation than you assume. - We've heard "impossible" so many times from so many people -- fortunately often only after we made it happen already. - Solar electricity will be dirt cheap, yes. Soon. Very real. And when we launch the product, you're going to read about it in the WSJ.

Good news, if true. I'll strive earnestly to hold my enthusiasm in check. More on this here and here.

Now for those waves...

UK company Ocean Power Delivery has signed a contract to build the world's first commercial wave energy project off the coast of Portugal. The project will begin with a 3-machine, 2.25 MW capacity test installation that, if successful, will be followed by the addition of 30 more machines with 20 MW capacity by the end of 2006.

Huh. They all look so happy and Scottish don't they? Let's see what the dour Northland is up to...

A Norwegian company has developed a new wave energy device called the Seawave Slot Cone Generator (SSG). Details are sketchy on both, but there's certainly a lot of technical innovation going on in this relatively young field.

This energy concept is based on storing potential energy of the incoming waves in several reservoirs placed one above the other. The incoming wave will run up a slope, and on its return it will flow into the reservoirs. After the wave is captured inside the reservoirs, the water will run through the multi stage turbine.

The multi-stage turbine has the advantage of using different heights of waterfall on a common turbine wheel.

This technology will prevent any start/stop sequence on the turbine even if only one reservoir is supplying water to the turbine. From tests carried out by this company, a 500m long full scale SSG construction along a coastline with a 15kW/m wave climate will be able to produce 18 GWh/year. And this without any plume of smoke in sight.

Let's give thanks for our enthusiasts. We have them here in America too. Check out the permanent magnet linear generator buoy.

An electric coil surrounds a magnetic shaft inside the buoy, and while the coil is secured directly to the buoy, the magnetic shaft is anchored to the sea floor. When waves cause the coil to move up and down relative to the fixed magnetic shaft, voltage is induced and electricity is generated. Each buoy could potentially produce 250 kilowatts of power, and the technology can be scaled up or down to suit a variety of energy needs...

Mr. Atkinson is a credit to the Winds of Change team, as are so many others. Yesterday was his one year blogiversary, so mosey on over and check out his place. There's much more than tech there.

If you can spare the time, here's a bit of Kunstler bashing from another Winds of Change contributor, Cicero.

Mr. Kunstler leaves out human ingenuity in his dire predictions. He discounts how well Americans respond to crisis and change when confronted with it. Crises are history's great motivators, forcing humanity to adapt and leap forward. Modern technology, such as it is, has convinced me of one thing: Anything's possible. We shouldn't be so smug as to presume we can predict the future in this era.

Precisely my own thoughts. Thank you. They're echoed (to a degree) over at Peak Oil Optimist. I very much enjoyed his post on Peter Gordon. The Optimist refers to Kunstler as his bête noir and links to this article, which contains the following Gordon quote about Kunstler and the New Urbanism.

"This Doomsday stuff is always wrong...People who are ignorant of the previous track record of Doomsday forecasts blithely go on making them, which is fine. But it's when they prescribe harsh measures for the rest of us to live by that we ought to take serious notice."

Gordon says the New Urbanist model of living has one crucial flaw: People actually like suburbs.

"What I define as a livable city is where real people are choosing to go. That's the only way I can define it...That may not jibe with the image of what's livable to certain writers..."

Peak Oil Optimist has a couple of other posts that are well worth a fellow optimist's while.

First up is a new (to me) mode of electrical power storage that might someday be useful for load leveling and off-grid power storage. For some commercial applications it's useful today. It uses an electrolyte of sulphuric acid and emulsified vanadium, generating electricity (and recharging the electrolyte) with a proton exchange membrane. The system is sealed (no effluent), and the electrolyte is re-usable more or less indefinitely.

Very sweet. It would be nicer if it cost less. Wouldn't everything?

Also available is this post on latter day ocean thermal power in Hawaii, linking back to an article in Wired.

I've never really thought OTEC was a realistic primary power source, but if you check out the project website, you'll find that power is almost an afterthought.

... the initial site-specific developments of CHC have been focussed on an integrated deep ocean water system...of which electricity is only a small part.

This facility now demonstrates air conditioning, industrial cooling, agriculture, and desalinization. A vineyard and a chill house are now under construction and an aquaculture facility will soon be initiated...all of the components of any possible Cold Ocean Water system that CHC is advocating can be examined at...NELHA or at the CHC demonstration facility.

These include the commercial production of spirulina, lobster, various sea "vegetables", shrimp, shell fish, flounder, a cold bed aquaculture garden, the "hurricane tower" for desalinization, industrial cooling and air conditioning, etc.

From the Wired article...

Running the frigid pipes through heat exchangers produces unlimited air-conditioning that costs almost nothing. Draining their sweat yields an endless supply of freshwater for drinking and irrigation. The cold water also creates a temperature difference between root and fruit that Craven believes speeds growth. And by turning the flow on and off, Craven has found he can further accelerate the plants' growth cycle by forcing them in and out of dormancy - he can get three crops of grapes a year and pineapples in eight months instead of the usual 18...

"What the world doesn't understand," says Craven... "is that what we don't have enough of is cold, not heat."

Fascinating stuff.

A thermal gradient between root and fruit is produced which pumps nutrients into the plant at a rate which is perhaps three times greater than that produced by nature in spring or fall. Although the experimental scale of operations has not permitted quantification of the cost of this form of agriculture, the cost of water for the half acre demonstration farm is negligible.

Amortized costs for deep ocean water will run about 10 cents for 1000 gallons. This compares with about $1.00 per 1000 gallons in dry climate areas. Of greater significance is the fact that once chilled the ground loses very little heat and the water flow required to maintain this temperature is consequently small.

More than 100 fruits, vegetables and herbs have been tested in the CHC garden. All have rapid growth, high yield with high sugar and aromatic content. One ought not make any decisions with respect to the value of this subsystem without a visit to the CHC garden. Although much evidence appears on the CHC web, the description of the nature of this agriculture tests credulity unless a site visit is made.

This Craven guy reminds me somewhat of my dad. Just another retired navy guy, pottering happily about in his garden. Also, they have the same regrettable taste in poetry. Lucky is the man who can retire as a mad scientist in Hawaii.

I honestly don't think this technology is going to save the world. I never have. The notion of sipping electrons out of the oceanic thermal gradient always seemed impractical to me. Just as well then that it won't have to, that we have better options available. However, for certain limited applications it looks promising. And fun.

Not to beat the subject to death, but there is a vast number of passionately engaged enthusiasts in the world, beavering away at a remarkable assortment of pet projects. This profusion of hopeful creation that we see around us is one of the main reasons I find the Kunstlers, Ehrlichs, and Rifkins of the world so distastefully misguided.

Whether it's flying cars, or salt water farming, or electronic retinas specifically, isn't so very important, its the sheer relentless amount of originality that clinches the argument. Our "fragile" civilization is an adaptive system, to a degree unknown and unachievable by any precursor culture of which I am aware. We really are living in a golden age.

Of course, it could be better.

Last on my itinerary today is a former fan of hydrogen powered cars. Like so many others, he thought they made good sense in terms of cleanliness and renewability, but no longer. These days, he favors a more exotic auto fuel.

He thinks we should be burning boron. And he makes a great case for it.

The case for boron as fuel begins with a safety advantage. Although very combustible, it also is very hard to light. Spools of boron fibre like those shown could not be lit even if a loose end were attacked with a blowtorch. Not in air.

Risk reduction through the use of this fuel that won't burn can be realized if combustors provide an unearthly environment where it will: pure oxygen, high pressure. Hard though this may be, it will yield other benefits.

In a four-mile, sub-four-minute dash a hydrocarbon car might produce 1.43 kg of carbon dioxide. That's most of a cubic metre, enough to make many cubic metres of air unbreathable. But if it could be reduced in volume a thousandfold, and made to cohere in a lump that wouldn't stale any air, it might begin to resemble the equivalent shown here: 1.25 kg of boria. This 184 mm piece of glass is near in size and mass to an Olympic women's discus...

Ash in boron cars would start out as similarly lustrous, transparent ingots. They wouldn't be thrown anywhere, rather, they would go back to nuclear or solar power plants to be de-burnt. "Boron Decombustion" proposes a thermal method. The boron would be sent forth to be fuel again...

What is unusual, and helps make this alternative fuel truly an alternative with a difference, is its high energy density, per pound and especially per gallon. A chamber for it plus a bin for all the glass ingots it will become would together be not much larger than the liquid hydrocarbon tank they replace. Sections "Boron the Dense" and "If a Car Retains All Its Ash" give comparative data.

A compact energy reservoir should mean plenty of range. Release of the energy in a hot flame at high pressure should mean good ratios of power to mass in boron motors, and quickness in boron cars. People who read about global warming will want them, but so will people who don't read the papers at all. Voluntary customers will line up around the block.

Hmmm. No Effluent. Total Enclosure.

My uninformed intuition tells me that it's too radical a shift for society to buy into. Too much change is required, too quickly. Still, it's fun to think about. I would bet that if we don't end up burning boron, it will be because we found something else that's as good or better. Someday.

From the pages of Mossback Culture comes this must see piece of visual persuasion.

Please press here. Do it now.

Personally, I'm not too keen on either side.

It is kind of funny though.

This bit from Tom McClintock is good too...

Across California, children are bringing home notes warning of dire consequences if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's scorched-earth budget is approved -- a budget that slashes Proposition 98 public-school spending from $42.2 billion this year all the way down to $44.7 billion next year...

The governor proposed spending $10,084 per student from all sources. Devoting all of this money to the classroom would require turning tens of thousands of school bureaucrats, consultants, advisers and specialists onto the streets with no means of support or marketable job skills, something that no enlightened social democracy should allow.

So I will begin by excluding from this discussion the entire budget of the State Department of Education...I also propose setting aside $3 billion to pay an additional 30,000 school bureaucrats $100,000 per year...

This leaves a mere $6,937 per student, which, for the duration of the funding crisis, I propose devoting to the classroom.

To illustrate how we might scrape by at this subsistence level, let's use a hypothetical school of 180 students with only $1.2 million to get through the year.

We have all seen the pictures of filthy bathrooms, leaky roofs, peeling paint and crumbling plaster to which our children have been condemned. I propose that we rescue them from this squalor by leasing out luxury commercial office space. Our school will need 4,800 square feet for five classrooms (the sixth class is gym). At $33 per foot, an annual lease will cost $158,400.

This will provide executive washrooms, around-the-clock janitorial service, wall-to-wall carpeting, utilities and music in the elevators. We'll also need new desks to preserve the professional ambience.

Next, we'll need to hire five teachers, but not just any teachers. I propose hiring only associate professors from the California State University at their level of pay...

Since our conventional gym classes haven't stemmed the childhood obesity epidemic, I propose replacing them with an annual membership at a private health club for $39.95 per month...

Our bare-bones budget comes to this...

Read the whole thing. It would be funnier if it weren't true.

For many years I have heard Second Amendment supporters ridicule gun control opponents by calling for kitchen knife control -- a concept so absurd on its face that the analogy should send liberal gun grabbers scurrying back to the drawing board.

I now see that in England (which has had total gun control for years), they did scurry back to the drawing board, and are now demanding knife control:

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.

The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

Well, just as I don't hunt with my guns (or hunt at all, for that matter), I don't need my so-called "sporting" or "hunting" knives to cut up meat or skin carcasses. These are all legitimate tools for self defense, and the call for knife control highlights that the real agenda is an anti-self defense one.

Self defense is all but illegal in Britain, and many people want it to be illegal here.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if the knife control advocates in Britain called self defense a form of hate crime.

MORE: Actually, self defense might easily be construed as a hate crime were prosecutors able to show that the defender was racially prejudiced. La Shawn Barber analyzes the recent case of a Laotian who hated white hunters and killed several of them:

Chai Vang, a Hmong immigrant (who’s actually an American) is accused of shooting eight people and killing six of them. He claims he shot the white people because they called him bad names and fired a shot at him, but the two survivors of the slaughter said Vang shot first. And get this: four of the people he murdered were shot in the back. One was shot four times in the back. Vang was trespassing, hunting on someone else’s property, and he’d been warned before by these same hunters. Vang also has a history of trespassing on private property and getting into “confrontations” with other hunters.

Let’s see. A so-called hate crime is one motivated by someone’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, gender, age, blah, blah, blah. Based on all the stories I’ve read about this massacre, it looks and smells like a hate crime, given the fact that all the victims were white and Vang may have expressed hatred of whites. If so, will the prosecutor charge him with a hate crime?

I'm in a quandary. I don't know whether blogging is interfering with my life or whether life is interfering with my blogging.

The more I ponder this question, the more unanswerable it seems.

I had a very unsettling dream about a blogger who because of an accident of birth, turned out to have two right hands (in addition to the left hand, of course). It sure as hell wasn't my fault, and I don't know why I would be blamed for noticing it in a dream. (Obviously, much is being concealed.)

So I woke up and saw some architectural news:

MIT assistant professor of architecture J. Meejin Yoon has designed a self-defense dress that mimics a porcupine, protecting its wearer from attacks and unwanted advances. The “quills” on the dress are stiff piano wires that are controlled by proximity sensors, although it’s not clear if they’re actually designed to stick into the attacker or just scare them off.

Why that sounds comforting, I'm not sure.

I must have overlooked whatever I'm missing.

I've been incredibly busy and incredibly absent, both mentally and physically. Yesterday I accompanied guests to see the Dalí exhibit for the second time, which was good, because there's so much there I had to hurry through the last half of the exhibit the last time. I mean the first time, because the first time was the last time. (But now the second time is the last time.)

A problem with analyzing Dalí is that anything he did can be made the subject of much conjecture and interpretation, none of which can be satisfactorily resolved. That's because the nature of surrealism is that the artist usually has at best only a fuzzy idea of what his art depicts, and the meanings are even less clear.

You'd almost have to be a shrink. And as we all know, shrinks are notorious for being wrong. Interestingly, Dalí and Freud hooked up late in Freud's life. I think it's fair to say that Dalí was more fascinated with Freud than vice versa, as Freud was no fan of surrealism.

Until (in 1938) he met Dalí:

This fantastic meeting between Dali and Freud, which took place in London in 1938, was one of the most important in Dali’s life. Dali considered Freud one of the most vital influences in his life and on his art. The surrealist had considered Freud their patron saint. Dali had unsuccessfully tried to set up meetings with Freud in Vienna. In London, Dali was finally successful in arranging a meeting through the intervention of a mutual friend.

Freud was always of the opinion that the surrealists were "complete fools." His taste was classical and Freud was not easily dissuaded from his opinions not to mention that he was very resistant to meet with a man he considered a "lunatic."

The meeting was a significant one. Dali claimed that the founder of psychoanalysis, as a result of their encounter, was forced to reconsider his view of Surrealism. Freud wrote "that the young Spaniard with his fanatical eyes and his undeniable technical mastery" did indeed change his view of modern art. Freud recognized in Dali a combination of passion and control, which he himself also possessed.

This can create problems when the surreal meets the political. Political surrealism is contradictory, because politics takes itself so seriously that surrealism is abhorrent. Manipulation of the emotions (by clever dissembling of the manipulation istelf!) is the stock in trade of politics. Surrealism, a direct nosedive into the emotions and the unconscious, would almost seem to be at war with politics. Yet the surrealist movement had a distinctly leftist bias, and Dalí was criticized for not leaning to the left. (Whether his leanings were genuinely towards fascism is much open to debate, although I think the inherently chaotic and uncontrollable nature of his art is at once anti-communist as well as anti-fascist.)

Hunter Thompson warned of the danger of artists becoming involved with politics. And of course, we know that Hitler was an artist, although a rational one whose tastes in art were undoubtedly more in line with Freud's than Dalí's.

One of the things I did yesterday was to attempt to unfocus my mind as I focused on one of Dalí's most controversial paintings -- The Enigma of Hitler.

Here's the view of the Dali exhibit's curator:

ASK: Would you say that The Enigma of Hitler is a political painting?

MT: I would say that's probably one of the greatest damnations of fascism that I've ever seen. Hitler, if you notice in that painting – which of course the Surrealists interpreted as being, "Oh, he's glorifying Hitler" – is a scrap of a magazine...He's in the middle of a plate with boiled beans, and the plate is sort of circular, almost like he's being flushed down a toilet, and all around him are bats, images of Chamberlain's umbrella. It's gloomy, that room is incredibly gloomy. This is Dalí realizing that, unfortunately, what he was predicting in 1934 is actually happening. Hitler's going to invade Poland, he's going to take Czechoslovakia, and it's going to lead to a world war. And Dalí hated that because we also have this idea of artists being heroic like Hemingway, but Dalí was a coward. Dalí didn't want to fight. He really felt that European and, indeed, worldwide civilization would come to an end with a world war. He really thought that was Hitler's aim: to destroy everything and be killed with Wagner playing in the background. So I find that a very moving painting. I think it's the damnation not just of the Munich Pact, although that was clearly referred to in the telephone being disconnected, but also I think it's kind of about the end of his life as he knows it. In the next year, he's expelled from the surrealist group.

At least, that was my interpretation of it. I'm unable to discern any sympathy for Hitler, although I suppose that any attempt to understand him might be seen that way by Communist sympathizers. The latter often forget that the Communist strategy towards Hitler (aka the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) was even worse than appeasement; it bordered on an outright alliance, and mutual engulfing and devouring of helpless countries. At any rate, Communism is forgiven, and to dwell on its horrors risks a charge of redbaiting.

I was also intrigued by the enigma of Dalí's last painting -- The Swallow's Tail (1983) -- in which I think the artist anticipates his own death:

When he painted that, Dalí was 79, his wife Gala had died the year before, he'd been diagnosed with Parkinsonism, and he was to become seriously burned the next year in a fire in his home which some have called a suicide attempt. The painting's ostensible theme is catastrophe, and it is part of a series he did partly in homage to Rene Thom, the father of catastrophism:

It studies and classifies phenomena characterized by sudden shifts in behavior arising from small changes in circumstances.

Catastrophes are bifurcations between different equilibria, or fixed point attractors. Due to their restricted nature, catastrophes can be classified based on how many control parameters are being simulataneously varied. For example, if there are two controls, then one finds the most common type, called a "cusp" catastrophe. If, however, there are move than five controls, there is no classification.

Mr Thom's theory may have been treated unfairly. It was philosophical as much as mathematical. The theory continues to be cited occasionally in discussions of how catastrophes have suddenly intervened to reshape history. Mr Thom was keen to explain how the theory worked in the history of his own country. The French revolution was the big bang of catastrophe theory, he said, and its effects had not yet been exhausted.

If Europe is cracked because of catastrophe, how and why? I guess this was left open to futuristic interpretations, but when was the future? I hope it's not now, as I'd avoid it like hell.

Avoiding the future? That may be the real theme of Dalí's last painting. Notice that the edge of the canvas is dark, but there's a white sheet tacked over it.

An obvious coverup? By death? Of hidden mysteries?

The tacks are crudely obvious, and while neat mathematical chaos (a contradiction if ever there was one) overlays the sheet, there's no way to avoid the figure underneath. I can barely see the bent, frail, knee on the right which exists in so many of his paintings. Is the figure Dalí? Is it a butterfly? (The Swallowtail is a butterfly, and Dalí likens himself to a butterfly in this interview.) The butterfly is of course the end stage of life, as well as the beginning (assuming reproduction is that.)

I think it's fair to conclude that for most of us, death is the ultimate catastrophe.

Consider another painting done the same year, Pieta.

I suspected the sheet was a shroud symbolizing death, but in my mind Pieta confirms it.

Like Dalí, the future remains under a shroud.

We'll never be able to pull it off.

Not now.

UPDATE: I found a picture of Dalí in his last years, posing in front of his last painting (The Swallow's Tail). What really stands out in this photo is not only Dalí's shround-like attire, but the apparent piercing of the shroud-like canvas. Because of the way the painting is cropped, it really looks as if the catastrophe graph has pierced it, (echoing Pieta again, I think), even though it's just painted on.

Style meets and greets death?

David Neiwert recently left a comment to a post I wrote last week, which touched on the hate crime issue. Because I try to at least make a stab at being fair (possibly a bad idea in blogging) and I'm afraid readers might miss it, I thought it should be addressed in a new post.

Here's Mr. Neiwert's comment:

The Supreme Court has always been quite clear in its rulings that hate-crimes laws do not violate the equal-protection clause of the Constitution.

It's pretty clear why: The laws are written in a way that applies them across all sectors of society.

To illustrate: The four chief categories of bias motivation listed under most hate-crimes laws are race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation.

It doesn't take much to realize that these are universal categories: everyone has a race, an ethnicity, a religion, a sexual orientation.

And indeed, if you check the FBI's annual hate-crime statistics, you will see that they are indeed generally applied evenly. Out of the 9,000 or so hate crimes reported every year, nearly 1,000 of them are anti-white hate crimes. Others include a large number of anti-Christian hate crimes, etc. The list goes on. The majority is protected by these laws just as assuredly as minorities.

Raging Bee, you have a very solid handle on this issue. And you argue well too. Thank you.

I keep saying that I am not running a debate forum here, but people who enjoy debates (which they probably imagine that people "win") don't seem to hear me.

And now I seem to be tasked (at their insistence) with arguing not with their position, but with that of the Supreme Court.

This is really a bit much. At the risk of being redundant, I do not write this blog to engage in debate or to be told what I must write about (least of all by someone best known in the blogosphere for his repeated attempts to tar Glenn Reynolds with a charge of racism). I don't have to address anyone's opinion, answer any commenter, and I am not here to be "accountable" to anyone. Nor is there any rule which says I should. If people disagree, they can say so, and if they don't like me, they can go elsewhere. I'm not obligated to do anything, even write this blog. I just say what I think, and what I think is my opinion. My opinions are not altered because someone has an opinion to the contrary.

I don't care whether the opinion to the contrary is held by a commenter, another blogger, or even the Supreme Court.

What David Neiwert accomplished above, by reciting what the Supreme Court may have held (and I am not about to wade through their opinions) was to advance an argument to authority. It ignores the point I am trying to make, which is that I think hate crime laws are tyrannical, and violative of Americans' right to equal protection under the law. At the risk of stating the obvious, I already know that those in authority disagree with me about hate crime laws. Otherwise, how could there be hate crime laws? Telling me that they disagree with my position on hate crimes is about as relevant as telling me that Leon Kass or his Commission disagrees with me on longevity or stem cells. It's the sort of thing which might interest people who enjoy debating, but I find it a little tedious.

Without getting into the endless nuances of the Supreme Court's holdings (which I have no intention of reading), I do think it's at least fair to point out why I don't attach much value to their interpretations of the Constitution. Time after time, the Supreme Court has upheld tyranny. Most people are familiar with the infamous Dred Scott decision, which upheld slavery laws, and held that the black man has no rights a white man must respect. There's Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld deliberate segregation in accommodation by race. Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the internment of Japanese Americans based on their race. Most recently, in McConnell v. FEC (the McCain-Feingold case), the court upheld restrictions on free speech which had been passed by Congress in direct contravention of the First Amendment.

I recognize that the Supreme Court is an authority, and an authority with great power. But that no more makes them right than Leon Kass's position makes any of his opinions right.

Interestingly enough, even Neiwert has acknowledged that the Supreme Court can be wrong. In an individual case, what does its wrongness depend on? Apparently, not the "authority" of the Supreme Court itself. The variable seems to be whether or not Mr. Neiwert (or others he thinks are right) agree with it. Such a factor might be persuasive to him and to those who agree with him, but to me it's superfluous.

I'm sure that if Michelle Malkin (or someone taking a position in favor of internment) were to cite Korematsu in support of such a position, Mr. Neiwert would exclaim that the Supreme Court was wrong. That it reversed itself. Fine. I have just as much right to think the Supreme Court is wrong, and should reverse itself. For what it's worth, I think they were wrong in Korematsu, wrong in Dred Scott, wrong in Plessy, wrong about McCain Feingold, and wrong about hate crimes.

Let me illustrate by simple example why I think hate crime laws are wrong. I can't think of a simpler example than one used by David Neiwert: a swastika painted on a synagogue. Neiwert scoffs at the idea that this is mere vandalism:

Harsher sentences traditionally have been assigned to crimes committed with intentions and motivations considered more harmful to society at large.

Now, you may ask, are hate crimes more harmful than the crimes for which, as the editorial points out, there are already laws on the books? Well, ask yourself this: Is a swastika painted on a synagogue the same thing as graffiti scrawled on a downtown wall? Is an assault in which the perpetrators sought out gay or black people to send a "message" the same thing as a bar fight?

Are hate crimes truly different from their parallel crimes? Quantifiably and qualitatively, the answer is yes.

In the absence of hate crime laws, these factors are sorted out by a judge as he decides what sentence to impose. Hate crime laws, though, would require an examination of the political views of the offender not in determining his sentence, but in determining his guilt. Politics becomes the basis of the offense. Thus, the anti-Nazi prankster would not be charged with a hate crime, while the skinhead would. I think they're both equally revolting and stupid, and equally offensive to the congregation so victimized.

How about a swastika or "God hates Republicans" painted on a Republican Party office? Who is to say that wouldn't be just as upsetting to them as "God hates fags" painted on a lesbian gay center would be to the occupants of the latter? (For what it's worth, I happen to think the "God hates fags" people are so ridiculous that they are discrediting the cause of anti-gay bigotry, and I am not intimidated by that silly slogan in the least. Who the hell has a right to tell me that I am, or should be?)

Suppose someone spray-painted a swastika on my house. Do I have to be Jewish in order to be a hate crime victim?

And why should the criminal have to be in actual sympathy with Hitler, anyway? Might it not be at least as offensive for a swastika to be intended to falsely associate someone with Hitler as it would for the same swastika to be proclaiming the author's solidarity with Hitler?

I think it is better to punish the crime, and not get into the politics behind it. To give another illustration, the ACLU defended the right of uniformed Nazis to march -- in full Nazi regalia, with Nazi flags, through the heavily Jewish retirement community of Skokie, Illinois. I would be willing to bet that some of the elderly Jews felt just as terrorized and oppressed as they would have felt had one of those same Nazis spray-painted a swastika on their synagogue. In fact, a good argument could be made that a uniformed marching group is far more oppressive than a lone coward wielding a spray can at night. Yet the elements considered off limits and irrelevant as protected free speech become an integral element of a new crime even though they are otherwise protected by the First Amendment? Am I alone in thinking this is an anomaly?

In ordinary life, however, there just aren't that many Nazis. But there are plenty of people who hate other people for a wide variety of reasons, and who might be inclined to commit crimes. Why should only some of these offenses be treated hate crimes, but not others? Typical hate crime laws limit their use to crimes committed out of hatred for a race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or gender. But why stop there? Isn't it just as hateful to assault someone for being old as for being gay or for being a woman?

In the recent movie Crash (discussed infra), a pair of carjackers targeted only members of the white race, yet this was portrayed sympathetically, as if it made them morally superior to criminals who'd just carjack anybody's vehicle. Despite my problems with the film's credibility, assume for the sake of argument that a criminal only preyed on white people because he didn't want to harm members of his own race. Is this a hate crime? The fact is, many criminals select only those they consider weak -- meaning less capable of defending themselves. Is this hatred? Suppose a big tough guy deliberately selected women because he was convinced they were "easy" targets. Does the picture change if he only selected homosexuals for the same reason?

I think these laws invite institutionalized victimization, in which victims who can show they are "better" victims have a better chance at seeing their attackers punished. Old people and disabled people have to wait in line for now, as they just didn't make the grade.

If that isn't discri