Tim's Blog (Original, No?): 08/01/2005

Random Pic of the Day - "Happy memories, gentlemen."

Random Writing of the Day

New Air Force Guidelines Discourage Promoting Religion

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: August 29, 2005

The Air Force issued new religion guidelines to its commanders today that caution against promoting any particular faith - or even "the idea of religion over nonreligion" - in official communications or during meetings, sports events or ceremonies.

The guidelines discourage public prayers at official Air Force events or meetings other than worship services - one of the most contentious issues for many commanders. But the guidelines allow for "a brief nonsectarian prayer" at special ceremonies such as those honoring promotions or in "extraordinary circumstances" such as "mass casualties, preparation for imminent combat, and natural disasters."

The Air Force developed the guidelines after receiving complaints from cadets at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs that evangelical Christians in leadership positions were using their positions to promote their faith.

The new guidelines apply not just to the Academy, but to the entire Air Force. They will be completed later this year when Air Force generals meet and consider any recommendations they hear from their commanders.

"We support free exercise of religion, but we do not push religion," said Rabbi Arnold E. Resnicoff, a Navy veteran who was hired this year as a special assistant to the secretary and chief of staff of the Air Force and who helped write the guidelines. "I think many of the people I spoke to maybe should have known this already, but they were operating based on misperceptions."

He said that some Air Force members he had spoken with "mistakenly assumed" that because the military encourages "spiritual strength as a pillar of leadership," they were given license to promote strong belief in Christianity within the military.

Two Congressional Democrats who had criticized the Air Force Academy, Steve Israel of New York and Lois Capps of California, cautiously welcomed the guidelines.

"It's actually a refreshing acknowledgment by the Air Force that it had real problems that needed to be corrected. It's a good step forward," said Representative Israel, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

But one Academy graduate who is an outspoken critic, Mikey Weinstein of Albuquerque, said the guidelines meant nothing because the Air Force refused to discipline officers who overstepped the boundaries. "All this does is increase the level of confusion," he said.

The guidelines try to balance the Constitutional guarantee of free religious expression with Constitutional limits on government endorsement of religion.

The guidelines say, "Supervisors, commanders and leaders at every level bear a special responsibility to ensure their words and actions cannot reasonably be construed as either official endorsement or disapproval of the decisions of individuals to hold particular religious beliefs or to hold no religious beliefs."

Some of the guidelines remind commanders of the need to accommodate the rights of Air Force members to practice their religion, either with the clothes they wear or the foods they eat, or by having time off to attend worship services or to observe holy days. "Requests for accommodation should be approved except when precluded by military necessity," the guidelines say.

Lt. Gen. Roger A. Brady, Air Force deputy chief of staff for personnel, said the military's religious diversity is one of its greatest strengths "at a time when many nations are torn apart by religious strife."

B. Jessie Hill, an assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law who has studied religious expression in government institutions, said the guidelines are "an attempt to comply with what's constitutionally required and may even go beyond what's required."

For example, the United States Supreme Court has in the past upheld military prohibitions on wearing religious headgear, like a Jewish yarmulke, Professor Hill said. "It seems like there's room to argue here that the Air Force is holding itself to a higher standard" by permitting more religious expression than it even needs to.

She added, "What will be interesting is to see how it's put into practice."

Random Pic of the Day - "Patriarchal leadership."

Random Writing of the Day

Although I fundamentally oppose Ms. Brooks' conclusion about science, I heartily assent to her logical extrapolation of the argument to teach intelligent design in our public school system. When absolute truth is denied for the sake of "a seat at the table,"greater access," "intelectual respect," etc., it is only just that our glaring inconsistencies be stripped bare and revealed for what they are: pragmatic compromises based upon fallible, human reasoning.

August 27, 2005

Not your daddy's creationists
ROSA BROOKS
SOMETIMES IT seems like secular intellectuals just can't win. In the 1980s and '90s, they were attacked by the right for their "relativism" — an alleged refusal to accept the existence of absolute truth. Today, they're under attack once more, only this time the right is mad because secular intellectuals aren't relativist enough.

At any rate, that appears to be the charge put forward by conservatives who advocate the teaching of so-called intelligent design.

These are not your daddy's creationists. When scientists and other members of the reality-based community declare that evolution is the only valid and provable account of our planet's natural history, intelligent design boosters don't cite the Bible. Instead, they earnestly insist that no one ought to claim a monopoly on truth, and that in the interests of intellectual and moral pluralism, "alternatives" to evolution should get a fair hearing in schools.

This week, Arizona Sen. John McCain became the latest Republican politician to urge that "all points of view" be presented to students studying the origins of life. He joined President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who argued recently that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution because people in "a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith."

It's the new relativism: when scientific truth can't be squared with your religion or ideology, wax eloquent about the value of pluralism and intellectual diversity.

The new relativism marks quite a shift from the arguments normally employed by the right. Remember the "culture wars" of the late '80s and early '90s, when conservatives in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, such as William Bennett and Lynne Cheney, inveighed against the "relativism" that allegedly dominated the thinking of American intellectuals?

Their critique drew on the work of prominent conservatives in the academy, including the late University of Chicago philosopher Allan Bloom, who condemned multiculturalism, postmodernism and relativism in his influential 1987 book, "The Closing of the American Mind." And, speaking to American students in 1987, Pope John Paul II denounced academic pluralists who think that "ultimate questions about human life and destiny have no final answers or that all beliefs are of equal value."

In the United States, prominent evangelical Christian authors such as Frank Peretti and Chuck Colson also joined the chorus, warning that relativism would undermine American society.

So it's a tad ironic that conservatives and the religious right are now arguing that intelligent design should be taught on the grounds of intellectual pluralism. Needless to say, from the perspective of virtually all reputable scientists, evolution isn't just one theory among many, it's the only scientifically proven account of the origin and development of life on Earth. Denying evolution isn't merely "another perspective." It's like insisting that the sun revolves around the Earth, or that the moon is inhabited by little green guys. Whatever happened to truth?

Of course, maybe we secular types are wrong to keep resisting the right's new relativism. What would happen if we embraced it? Sure, we'd have to tolerate a lot of claptrap about intelligent design in the classroom, but think of the potential benefits. If the right is sincerely dedicated to supporting pluralism and openness, surely they'd have no further objection to sex education classes that urge condom use, for instance, as long as abstinence-only arguments get equal time. And presumably they wouldn't mind if teachers tell kids that homosexuality is a legitimate form of human behavior, as long as teachers also explain that some people consider it a sin. Nor would conservatives have any basis to object to education about abortion rights, as long as their perspective is also represented.

Granted, there are problems with this approach. For one thing, the school year would need to be lengthened to accommodate all the new curricular material. Because if intelligent design must be taught just because a few crackpot scientists are on board with it, we'll also have to teach about the UFO landings at Roswell and the numerous Elvis sightings that occur each year.

We also would have to brace ourselves for the long-term consequences of the free-for-all ushered in by the right's new relativism: the hospitals that would guarantee equal employment opportunities to faith-based cardiac surgeons who eschew anatomy classes for prayer, and the airlines that would allow faith-based aeronautics to replace modern physics during the design phase of their aircraft.

Never mind. For now, I'm going to stick with old-fashioned thinking. At least when it comes to science, there is such a thing as absolute truth.

Random Pic of the Day - "Eatin' some leafy greens."

Random Pic of the Day - "Joining the Clee Clan."

Random Writing of the Day

I have made it a habit to regularly post a random picture on a more or less daily basis (usually less). This has been much fun, provoked many comments, and been the impetus for remembering many wonderful occasions. As the saying goes, "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it." Therefore, I intend to continue my "Random Pic of the Day" feature for a long time to come.

Because life isn’t static, and because I do not believe that blogs should be either, I am adding a new feature to my blog: the "Random Writing of the Day." On a more or less daily basis (probably less) I will post something that has been written by someone else. This could be an essay I read, a news story, an editorial, someone else’s blog post, etc.

I will repeat, with a few modifications, the disclaimer I offered when I commenced my random picture postings:

"Due to the fact that these will be random writings, please do not draw any inferences or make assumptions based upon an individual writing's subject matter. If I do in fact have specific reason on occasion for selecting a writing to post for the general public, that is my prerogative."

The "Random Writing" feature is not intended to replace postings authored by yours truly. Rather, I am well aware of my journalistic and knowledge-base limitations, as well as my time constraints, and hope to provide through these random writings material I enjoy or find interesting that otherwise would not make my blog.

Enjoy, profit, laugh, consider, mull, act, and/or respond, depending upon the nature of the day’s "Random Writing."

Please find the initial "Random Writing of the Day" below.

BUSINESS WORLD
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.

When Robots Blacken the Skies
August 24, 2005; Page A11

A Cypriot 737 that crashed last week apparently flew on autopilot for a considerable period after its flight crew was incapacitated for reasons that remain a mystery. It crashed when it ran out of fuel. Here's a puzzler. Autopilots are computers, which fly planes. Most modern airliners are capable of fully automatic landings. In "fly-by-wire" aircraft, even when "manually" flying the aircraft, the pilot is really just sending instructions to computers that operate the controls.

Q: Why can't these instructions be sent from the ground?

A: All those computers in the cockpit are still the equivalent of the un-networked IBM PC of the 1980s. Vital information is carried to the flight deck instead by radio voice, at a speed and accuracy that would make a Cisco engineer choke on his pocket protector. Indeed, as airlines roll out Internet access for passengers, a laptop jockey in coach soon will be more networked than the flight crew up front.

This anomaly will grow more pressing as traffic grows, leading to more accidents of sufficient drama to make the evening news. Boeing predicts a major crash a week by 2010. And we already have a pretty good idea what will cause these crashes: Four out of five today are "controlled flights into terrain" -- the crew malfunctions, not the airplane. We also know the single biggest cost item for the struggling airline industry -- wages and salaries, especially those of pilots.

OK, send those letters accusing us of wanting to automate pilots out of their jobs. Folks, we're halfway there. Cockpits haven't been equipped with Dobermans yet, but airlines are growing keener to discourage pilots from touching anything. This development feeds on itself, as noted by a British Airways pilot in a widely discussed article for the British pilots' association, prompted by his employer's policy of banning manual-thrust control by its Airbus pilots in normal operations.

Wrote Captain Malcolm Scott: "This ban is likely to lead to further deskilling and further increase in errors. Without a significant change in the airline's policy, the inevitable response will be a complete ban on manual flying. . . . The public will accept fully automatic aircraft once they have been shown to be safer than human controlled aircraft. It is just a matter of time."

It's also a matter of air traffic control, the key factor in keeping an airline cockpit the most technologically backward cubicle in corporate America. Under the current ATC architecture, the pilot's one irreducible function is to provide a pair of eyeballs to prevent collisions with small planes that flit around the skies without the radar transponders that would make them visible to the automatic collision-avoidance systems installed in jetliner cockpits.

Sept. 11 offered the FAA a respite from pressure to radically upgrade this system, and also from demands that its ATC functions be surrendered to a private corporation that could deploy new technology before it becomes old technology. But this holiday may soon come to an end.

By 2008, Europe will have launched its own satellite system to compete with the Pentagon's GPS, galvanizing a now-dormant competition finally to develop a new navigation system that will tell every plane where all other planes are heading and automatically keep them from colliding. Traffic is growing again, testing the limits of the current system, thanks to a proliferation of smaller planes flying direct routes between secondary airports.

With general aviation manufacturers starting to make a computerized "glass cockpit" standard equipment, private flying is also on the verge of a renaissance. A NASA project aims to fully automate the small plane of the future, making personal aviation a possibility for those not gifted with the money and time to master flying skills. Expect the skies to get more crowded still.

But the biggest wrinkle may be pent-up demand from government and private operators for access to the national airspace for unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. A Homeland Security official estimated that his agency would, in a few years, be operating 10,000 unmanned birds to patrol the borders, pipelines, electric grid, etc. The Coast Guard wants them for fisheries protection, the Forest Service for fire fighting, and so on.

The military is already steamed because it takes months to get clearance to fly one of its Predators in U.S. civilian airspace, and frequently the FAA requires a chase plane. Not least of the problems are rumors, such as when a Cessna cargo plane was downed in Alabama after colliding with an "unknown object," pointing a finger at the Pentagon for allegedly conducting unauthorized flights.

This is to say nothing of a frustrated clamor for civilian UAVs for similar monitoring and security purposes, but also to provide telecom coverage over wide areas more cheaply than a satellite. The technology is ready to go but investors aren't, because the FAA hasn't found a way to permit these craft into its airspace. Once such civil operators enter into the mix, the skies could fill with 25,000 UAVs -- more than twice the number of aircraft operating at any single moment today.

Unmanned aerial vehicles offer too many benefits to be held back because the country doesn't want the expense or hassle of upgrading our ATC system for the networking age. In turn, gadgetry developed to allow unmanned vehicles to operate safely and eyeball-free in the national airspace will inevitably find its way to commercial carriers. Already, separate French and Japanese projects are investigating pilotless cargo and passenger planes, while Northrop and Boeing plan next year to fly full-sized unmanned fighter prototypes for the U.S. military.

You can be sure, too, that long before passengers are willing to climb aboard an unmanned airliner, they'll be demanding planes that can be controlled from the ground -- as any entry level UAV can be -- in an emergency.

Random Pic of the Day - "The eyes say it all."

Phillies Retake Sole Possesion of 1st Place in NL Wild Card Race with 10-2 Victory over Giants

Random Pic of the Day - "Verily it doth appear that Caleb Hayden knows how to eat."

Random Pic of the Day - "Personality."

Phillies Retake Sole Possesion of 1st Place in NL Wild Card Race with 6-1 Victory over Pirates

Phillies Take Sole Possession of 1st Place in NL Wild Card Race with 2-1 Victory over Nationals

Random Pic of the Day - "Biker Baby and her sidekicks."

Working in the Woodlands

After exhibiting at ten conferences in seven states, my home school conference traveling season is now complete for the year 2005. Last weekend Perry Coghlan and I traveled to The Woodlands, Texas (located outside of Houston), to exhibit at the THSC conference on behalf of Vision Forum. We immensely enjoyed our time there, conversing with customers, visiting fellow vendors, etc. Many thanks to THSC for allowing Vision Forum to exhibit, and for running a great vendor hall.

Working with Perry was great fun. His first time representing Vison Forum at a home school conference, Perry proved to be a natural, easily picking up the nuances of a vendor book table. I look forward to working again with Perry in the future (he is also a very understanding front-seat passenger, choosing to laugh rather than complain about my directionally challenged driving).

For the past two conference seasons I have had many occasions to interact with the Farewell family, owners of Lifetime Books and Gifts. Pioneers and standard bearers, the Farewells have been traveling the country for eighteen years, exhibiting their family-encouraging resources at home school conferences from sea to shining sea. This past weekend’s THSC conference marked the final home school conference with the Farewells as owners and operators of Lifetime Books and Gifts, the end of an era in the home school world. I shall miss seeing the Farewells in the Lifetime Books and Gifts booth, but hope for continued fellowship with them on the trail as they do more speaking at conferences.

Perry and I departed The Woodlands at approximately 8:00 p.m. on Saturday evening so that we could attend our respective assemblies on Sunday. However, our modest road trip started off with us driving thirty exits in the wrong direction, an action ill-conceived to aid us toward our goal. This was followed by us getting stuck behind accident-caused traffic, the same traffic about which I had earlier that evening verbalized my delight in not encountering as we blissfully drove away from San Antonio. The Woodlands would not let us go, it appeared.

We reached San Antonio well after midnight, stopping at the office to get our respective vehicles. I headed back to my house, stopping by Krispy Kreme for my weekly donut trip (my after-Sunday service food line offering). As usual I went through the drive through, the second vehicle in line. I proceeded to wait twenty minutes in the drive through, unable to leave because of the van in front of my vehicle and two cars behind me. I had a few words of advice for the cashier when I finally reached the window at 1:28 a.m., primarily relating to how one can move a drive through line forward even when one is late in delivering the order of the first vehicle (a little tricked I learned from McDonald’s). After departing Krispy Kreme, I drove toward the house, breaking down about five minutes from said destination (gratefully I was able to make it off of 1604 E and into the Academy Sports parking lot, at about which time I lost my power steering and my brakes). Boy, was I having a fun night. I called Peter Bradrick, got some car advice, waited for approximately ten minutes, and then putt-putted my way back to my house. With the Lord’s help I made it there without further incident.

To end my evening I took a shower and then went into the kitchen for a drink of water. Unbeknownst to me, the dishwasher had overflowed and there were suds everywhere. It would have been apropos for me to have slipped and cracked my skull, but I only skidded a little bit on the wet floor. I mopped up the water, got my drink, and then retired from further activities until waking up the next morning. I am in no hurry to repeat a similar night any time soon.

All in all the weekend was great fun and throughly enjoyed by yours truly. Enjoy the pictures below.

Perry started off a little slowly during setup. The price stickers go on the books, good sir.

Perry enjoys conversing with customers.

One never knows what one will find for sale on the conference trail.

Someone did a fine job with that display.

Bob and Tina Farewell, pioneers and standard bearers on the home school conference book trail.

Random Pic of the Day - "Life."

Random Pic of the Day - "The 'other' meeting."

Random Pic of the Day - "Spaghetti and meatballs: Italian, American, or otherwise?"

On the Road Again

This past weekend found yours truly back on the "conference trail," this time exhibiting at the NTHEN conference. Nathan Barnes was my traveling companion and fellow booth worker, and together we spent three days away from "house" in the great city of Plano, Texas (located about twenty miles north of Dallas).

Arriving at the Plano Centre around 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, Nathan and I unloaded our wares (with the gracious of assistance of some fine ALERT men) and set up our booths. To our happy surprise, we found ourselves located across the aisle from Books on the Path. We made the most of this arrangement, visiting with the McDonalds throughout setup and the conference as time permitted.

More friends were to be found at the NTHEN conference, with Josh Erber and his family on hand as Resounding Voice to record the conference messages. Both Nathan and I immensely enjoyed our interaction with the Erbers, a God-glorifying, fun-loving, hard-working family if there ever was one. At the close of the conference on Saturday night, the Erbers graciously invited the McDonalds, Nathan, and I back to the their hotel room and served us a delicious meal of barbeque chicken, bread, and two types of salad, with delicious Bryers ice cream for dessert. When a family can entertain and show hospitality from a hotel room, they have a genuine gift!

Many thanks to the NTHEN organization for running a smooth conference and for allowing Vision Forum to attend as an exhibitor. Nathan and I were blessed by many wonderful conversations with conference attendees, and we are grateful to NTHEN for making this past weekend possible.

Following are a couple of photos from our time in Plano.