Since when do we have "approved" religions?

The Pentagon has finally approved the pentacle, the Wiccan symbol of faith, for tombstones. In the New York Times' account of this decision, President Bush was quoted--from a 1999 interview regarding a decision back then to "allow" Wiccans stationed at Ft. Hood to worship--as saying, “I don’t think witchcraft is a religion, ... I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made.”

I find two aspects of this story troubling.

The first is the then governor/now president's quote. I don't think an elected offical should be deciding what is or isn't a religion. I also wonder what else he might not consider a religion. Atheism? Deism? Islam? Judaism? Catholicism? Who knows?

The second troubling aspect isn't quite that the government took so long to approve the pentacle as a symbol of faith--but rather that it could approve or disapprove at all. Doesn't Article VI of the Constitution pretty much cover that? That bit that goes "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." seems pretty clear to me. If not, what about the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."? The Constitution is crystal clear--there is no official or unofficial religion in the United States--it's a matter of conscience, the government stays out of the issue. I would think the proper course would be that each individual soldier decides what his or her symbol of faith is, and that that's what's used on his/her gravemarker.

Something fishy? Is a sponsor all wet?

I just note the irony: ABC's "20/20" last Friday (April 20) was all about the environment in honor of Earth Day. One of the problems they mentioned, albeit very briefly, was overfishing. One of the show's sponsors (at least locally) was Captain D's--a seafood restaurant.

Does global warming mean FEWER hurricanes?

Conventional wisdom had been that global warming would mean warmer ocean temperatures, and therefore more hurricanes, although there is some doubt as to whether or not this is happening.

However, I began to privately question that aspect of the theory last summer. Something I'd heard on the Weather Channel last summer made me put together facts I hadn't considered in relation to each other--though I should emphasize that I don't believe it was an idea of theirs as such. Global warming theory predicts that northern Africa will get drier. However, storm systems coming off of Africa are what ultimately form Cape Verde hurricanes. It seems logical to me--though no one else has said this, to my knowledge--that if Africa is drier, there should be fewer storm systems, and, ultimately, fewer Cape Verde hurricanes. It's worth pointing out that that not all hurricanes are Cape Verde systems, many severe storms are. (Gloria, Hugo, Andrew, Frances, and Ivan are notable, recent Cape Verde storms.)

It seems I'm not alone in thinking that global warming doesn't mean more storms are certain--though my Cape Verde-African drought hypothesis is not what the scientists thought of. There are some scientists who think global warming may increase wind shear--which could counteract the effects of warmer ocean temperatures.

If you've read my blog, you'll know I'm cautious on the issue of global warming--both on Earth and other planets. These new questions about the hurricane predictions of global warming theory undercut one of the most alarming aspects of the theory. The bottom line here is what I've always been saying--panicking about global warming is counterproductive. Environmental policy should be based on facts, not alarm.

Will this joke put me in Jeopardy?

Tonight's "Final Jeopardy" category on Jeopardy was "A Real Renaissance Man." If the category had been "A Reel Renaissance Man," I'd have bet money the answer would have been "Izaak Walton."

(I know--you're probably saying there's something fishy about that pun. I'm always angling for puns. Call it stream of consciousness writing. I refuse to pole everyone on whether I should keep casting out puns.)

Reflections on the Duke case

The Duke lacrosse rape case--still called that for lack of another term, even though it's a misnomer since the students from the Duke lacrosse team were innocent and it's likely there was no rape--is one subject that makes my blood boil.

I'm not sorry to hear that the two of the accused who didn't graduate are not going back to Duke. The way that the University turned on its innocent students, it deserves to have it's name besmirched by this case--unlike the accused, whose names I have chosen to withhold here because even false accusations bring infamy. (I also withheld the name of my mother's friend in the anecdote below for that same reason--that was a little more difficult a decision, since he has passed away and there is--as far as I could tell--little other information about his case online.)

Why does the case make me so angry?

Partly, it's because I bought into the accusations early on. I bought the rhetoric about privileged college athletes thinking they could get away with anything. It happens sometimes, but it didn't happen in this case. I was duped into believing them guilty, and I echoed the condemnations of their non-cooperation--non-cooperation I now see as an appropriate reaction to an attempt to throw innocent men in jail for political expediency. When Attorney General Roy Cooper said, "A lot of people owe a lot of apologies to other people," I feel I'm one who owes an apology to the accused for not believing in their innocence from the word go. I feel I, in a small way, wronged people who didn't deserve it.

Partly, it's because it could happen to any guy. There is no evidence a rape even took place, and the accuser never had sex--consensual or otherwise--with the accused. It's scary to think that all a man needs to do is offend a crazy woman, and he may spend the next year stigmatized by the press and fighting for his freedom--if not the rest of his life.

Partly, it's because this is an egregious, obvious, and famous example of the sort of

prosecutorial corruption that I know really happens frequently. The case of Tulia, Texas comes to mind. So does the case a photographer who was a friend of my mother's; in that case, my mother's friend took nude pictures for a pediatric anatomy textbook--I'd add, with the consent of the children's parents and with the parents present for the photography. That did not stop the D.A. from prosecuting and sending her friend to prison for child pornography charges. (My mother's friend passed away a few years before she did--I'm vague on the details; I don't even remember if she told me when this happened; when I met her friend in 1988, he was living in New Orleans, but I don't know if that's where the prosecution took place or not.)

Those cases, as with the Duke case, make me wonder how many people are sitting in prison right now because they couldn't come up with video footage of themselves somewhere else at the time of the alleged crime, a friend of the accuser saying the accusation was a crock, and more than $1,000,000 for legal fees.

I'm glad that Crystal Gail Magnum has been named. She deserves it. In the words of A.G Cooper, "...in this case, the inconsistencies were so significant and so contrary to the evidence that we have no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night." Apparently, now that details about Magnum's life are coming out, she seems even more unstable. There is a possibility she made a false rape accusation in the past, and it's known that she stole a taxi and fed in a high-speed chase while drunk in 2002.

I hope Nifong is disbarred. There is a possibility that it could happen today (Friday, April 13). I would further hope that every case touched--even if he just looked at the file--gets a new trial. Expensive? Consider it the bill Durham should pay for electing and reelecting this nimrod.

I would also hope that Nifong and Magnum both wind up in jail and penniless from the civil suits. Sadly, I'm not even sure it's possible--Nifong may be protected by prosecutorial immunity, and Cooper's statement implied that Magnum won't be prosecuted.

The Duke case promises to have two very different types of fallout--both chilling. It's not hard to imagine that somewhere out there, an unstable woman has heard about this case and will be inspired to take revenge on someone she hates through a false accusation. Nor is it hard to imagine that somewhere, there is a woman who'll really be raped--but because of little evidence and a dubious background, will be unable to find justice. I don't see how it's possible to prevent one of those things from happening without making the other more likely. About all that can be done is to come down hard on Nifong and Magnum for creating the problem, and for doing real and great harm to three innocent men.

They fixed the crossing, finally, I hope

Well, after several instances of CSX or the country (I'm not sure who was doing the repairs) "fixing" the Woodland Dr. railroad crossing, only to have the potholes reappear in a matter of weeks--if not days--they started more extensive work on it yesterday. I've been worried about the safety of the crossing (on the theory that if sinkholes kept appearing in the asphalt, the tracks couldn't have been supported well enough either). I'm hoping that the repairs will be more thorough this time.

Travel as a citizen or fly like a turkey.

“You ride a train because you can get on a train as a citizen. You can only get on a plane as a subject of the government.”

Those are the words of Kirk Thompson of Montana, as quoted in an online Missoulan article about activism for a new Montana train route.

It's not completely true--after all, passenger trains are heavily subsidized.

It's also partly true for cars--there's a freedom to driving, but I at least always get a little uneasy when I see a police car on the road--second guessing my driving decisions and actions for the past few blocks when one appears.

All that said, I enjoy flying, but I so hate and fear airport security so much that it's a no brainer for me--if I can, I stay on the ground when I travel.

Quick thoughs about the Quiznos coyote.

As you might have heard, one coyote in Chicago seems to prefer Quiznos subs to the Road Runner.

I imagine it's far from uncommon for animals to wander (or be brought) into businesses. When my dad was still teaching, he also worked part time in a movie theater. One night, someone released a number of bats into the theater. It took days to get all the bats out of the multiplex.

In the case of the bats, the only news accounts we saw were a story in the local paper, and, about six months later, a supermarket tabloid that incorrectly claimed they were six-foot vampire bats. Other cases, such as the coyote and the recent case where rats that took over the KFC/Taco Bell in New York get wide nationwide coverage with commentary. (Case in point, I'm writing about the coyote!)

So, why some stories like that get little or no press? To me the explanation of the different levels of coverage lies in whether someone got pictures. As the old saying goes, "seeing is believing." The picture of coyote in the drink cooler is memorable, funny, and arguably cute. No one got a picture of the bats in the movie theater. So, the world knows about the coyote, and the bats are a family anecdote.

Police Radar and iPod FM Transmitters?

When I was coming home tonight, I was crossing the Buckman Bridge and something interfered with my iPod's FM transmitter. It was the same kind of interference I get when I get a call on my cell phone. Anyway, I got off the bridge, I saw that the car right behind me was a police car. (The transmitter was on 90.3 FM--if that means anything.)

My guess is that the cop was using the radar gun on me, and that's what was interfering with the iPod. Anyone know if my guess about what was going on is right? Has anyone else observed this phenomenon? I'd wonder if it's reliable enough to serve as a stand-in for a radar detector (one that would be legal in places where radar detectors are illegal). It also make me wonder about the safety of police radar--though I do tend to think most of the fears about cell phones, radar, and related EM emitters strikes me as baseless technophobia.