A grinding halt to high school dancing

: "Principal Gene Connolly is with the latter group. He said the school will cancel all remaining dances, including the upcoming homecoming dance, unless students step forward to help halt the 'grinding.'

"'This style of dancing is wrong,' Connolly told parents at a Parent-Teacher-Student Organization meeting Tuesday night. 'If you were to see it, you would be equally offended.'

"Asked by parents to describe the dance, Connolly offered this: The girl leans forward and the boy puts his pelvis against her backside. Then, he thrusts."

I have to admit to being a bit of an old fogey on this issue. In my day, slow dances involved a lot of pelvic contact while facing your partner. I also remember a short-lived dance craze of the 70s which involved bumping your partner. Hip-to-hip was the easy part; if you got good at it (and I did), you and your partner might take turns dipping to bump elbow or shoulder to hip.

No doubt parents, if they knew about it, were outraged then. Just as they had outraged their parents with the Jitterbug or the Tango in the 30s and 40s. I even had a few jitterbug moves in my repertoire courtesy of my mother's efforts to teach me to dance.

But there is something to be said for "slippery slope" arguments. "'Eventually, things may change and this may be considered mild,' said parent Cheryl Hunter. 'But right now, it's inappropriate.'" The trouble with this rationale is, what will the high schoolers of the future have to do on the dance floor to make simulated doggy-style look "mild"?

Chavez speech: the pot calling the kettle black

BREITBART.COM - Chavez extends anti-Bush tirade on visit to Harlem:
"Chavez emphasized that there was a clear difference between the US government and the American people. 'One thing is imperialism and another thing is the people, the American society,' he said."

It is remarkable that, among all his other criticisms of America and its policies, Chavez objects to our "imperialism." The man boasts that not only is Simon Bolivar his hero, but his role model, that he intends to fulfill the dream Bolivar was unable to realize - the conquest of all the Latin American republics and their union in a single dictatorship.

Nun slain, churches burned - and they don't even know what the speech was about

Italian nun slain in Somalia, Pope link speculation - Yahoo! News:
"... doctor Ali Mohamed Hassan told Reuters. 'She was shot outside the hospital, going to her house just across the gate.'"

Muslim goons, in the wake of the controversy over B-16's remarks at the University of Regensburg, shot an Italian nun in the back in Mogadishu. In the logic of Islam, this is the appropriate punishment for the crime of teaching nurses to help save the lives of Muslims. Sister Leonella Sgorbati, 66, was murdered despite the presence of a bodyguard, also killed in the attack, to escort her in crossing the street from the hospital to her dwelling.

At least the Mogadishu goons managed to attack a Roman Catholic. In another story from Palestine, two churches were the target of arson attacks - neither of them were RC.

All this because the Bishop of Rome made an unfortunate choice of a quotation to use as a launching point for a speech about the relationship of reason and science to faith.

I have read the speech. It may read better in German, but it is a bit dry and wanders a bit in the official English translation.

Benedict began his speech with some reminiscences of his appointment to the Catholic theological faculty of the university in 1959. When he spoke of the relations of the parts of the university to one another and how they create the experience of universitas (italicized in the original) I was reminded of that wonderful work by another Catholic scholar - John Newman - The Idea of the University.

Then, he mentioned an early occasion when he had made use of the recorded dialogue between the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos and a Persioan Islamic scholar. He even mentions that the dialogue appeared to have been recorded by the Emperor, or at least from his point of view, and that the Muslim perspective in the debate gets rather short shrift.

Now we get to the meat of the argument. The Emperor explores with the Muslim what are the characteristics of the three witnesses - Old Testament, New Testament, and Quran - and what do they add to our understanding of the nature of God. The Emperor, a man of Greek culture approaching the material from the general perspective of Greek culture that pervades the New Testament, declares that all that is innovative in the Quran - that is to say, all the parts of it that are distinct from the Old and New Testaments - are of a character that is very different and not compatible with the others in its spirit.

Here, the selection of material gets out on truly dangerous ground. The Emperor objects specifically to the idea, central to the concept of jihad, that conversion can be compelled by force - an idea the Emperor finds repugnant to his Greek notions of who God is.

This is the point at which the Muslims in the wider audience appear to have stopped reading. They ascribe the Emperor's attitude to be that of Ratzinger and condemn him (i.e., Ratzinger) for insulting their religion by finding it repugnant. Never mind that they find much that is repugnant in Christianity (not to mention Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. - every thing that isn't Islam - plus a considerable number of sects of Islam itself) and never tire of saying so in word and deed.

Lawyers, of course, will recognize that the assertion by the Emperor about jihad is not offered for the truth of the statement but for its illumination of the speakers state of mind. And this is Ratzinger's point.

The very Greek gospel of John, he points out, opens with a formulation that parallels the opening of Genesis, "In the beginning," says John, "was the Word ..." And word (logos in Greek) implies both the ideas that words stand for and the use of words to reason about the world around us. All those old ideas about natural law and natural reason and ability of reason to reveal some, though certainly not all, truths about God are a part of this Greek idea which has informed the Western perspective for millenia.

And this is far from a narrowly Catholic view. The American Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) sell a book entitled "Things in which it is impossible for God to lie" (which is a quote from the Old Testament). But the Emperor's Muslim debating opponent asserts quite the contrary position and says that, ultimately, reason can tell us nothing about God.

This is what the speech is ultimately about ... not Islam, not jihad. What is the role of reason? Is there a role for reason apart from the natural sciences? Can the scientist and the theologian have any dialogue at all, or have we entirely lost the common ground that once held the West together?

These are important matters and the debate that Josef Ratzinger intended to spark with his speech at Regensburg is an important one and should not be sidetracked by the furor raised by the self-appointed Muslim watchdogs who have attacked the speech without beginning to understand it.

The lesson to be drawn from this affair, it seems to me, is that it is utterly useless to try to engage in dialogue with Muslims on matters of faith because so many of them will intentionally misconstrue what you say.

Fearless Fighters for Faith Protest Pope

Italian nun slain in Somalia, Pope link speculation - Yahoo! News:
"... doctor Ali Mohamed Hassan told Reuters. 'She was shot outside the hospital, going to her house just across the gate.'"

Muslim goons, in the wake of the controversy over B-16's remarks at the University of Regensburg, shot an Italian nun in the back in Mogadishu. In the logic of Islam, this is the appropriate punishment for the crime of teaching nurses to help save the lives of Muslims. Sister Leonella Sgorbati, 66, was murdered despite the presence of a bodyguard, also killed in the attack, to escort her in crossing the street from the hospital to her dwelling.

At least the Mogadishu goons managed to attack a Roman Catholic. In another story from Palestine, two churches were the target of arson attacks - neither of them were RC.

All this because the Bishop of Rome made an unfortunate choice of a quotation to use as a launching point for a speech about the relationship of reason and science to faith.

I have read the speech. It may read better in German, but it is a bit dry and wanders a bit in the official English translation.

Benedict began his speech with some reminiscences of his appointment to the Catholic theological faculty of the university in 1959. When he spoke of the relations of the parts of the university to one another and how they create the experience of universitas (italicized in the original) I was reminded of that wonderful work by another Catholic scholar - John Newman - The Idea of the University.

Then, he mentioned an early occasion when he had made use of the recorded dialogue between the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos and a Persioan Islamic scholar. He even mentions that the dialogue appeared to have been recorded by the Emperor, or at least from his point of view, and that the Muslim perspective in the debate gets rather short shrift.

Now we get to the meat of the argument. The Emperor explores with the Muslim what are the characteristics of the three witnesses - Old Testament, New Testament, and Quran - and what do they add to our understanding of the nature of God. The Emperor, a man of Greek culture approaching the material from the general perspective of Greek culture that pervades the New Testament, declares that all that is innovative in the Quran - that is to say, all the parts of it that are distinct from the Old and New Testaments - are of a character that is very different and not compatible with the others in its spirit.

Here, the selection of material gets out on truly dangerous ground. The Emperor objects specifically to the idea, central to the concept of jihad, that conversion can be compelled by force - an idea the Emperor finds repugnant to his Greek notions of who God is.

This is the point at which the Muslims in the wider audience appear to have stopped reading. They ascribe the Emperor's attitude to be that of Ratzinger and condemn him (i.e., Ratzinger) for insulting their religion by finding it repugnant. Never mind that they find much that is repugnant in Christianity (not to mention Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. - every thing that isn't Islam - plus a considerable number of sects of Islam itself) and never tire of saying so in word and deed.

Lawyers, of course, will recognize that the assertion by the Emperor about jihad is not offered for the truth of the statement but for its illumination of the speakers state of mind. And this is Ratzinger's point.

The very Greek gospel of John, he points out, opens with a formulation that parallels the opening of Genesis, "In the beginning," says John, "was the Word ..." And word (logos in Greek) implies both the ideas that words stand for and the use of words to reason about the world around us. All those old ideas about natural law and natural reason and ability of reason to reveal some, though certainly not all, truths about God are a part of this Greek idea which has informed the Western perspective for millenia.

And this is far from a narrowly Catholic view. The American Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) sell a book entitled "Things in which it is impossible for God to lie" (which is a quote from the Old Testament). But the Emperor's Muslim debating opponent asserts quite the contrary position and says that, ultimately, reason can tell us nothing about God.

This is what the speech is ultimately about ... not Islam, not jihad. What is the role of reason? Is there a role for reason apart from the natural sciences? Can the scientist and the theologian have any dialogue at all, or have we entirely lost the common ground that once held the West together?

These are important matters and the debate that Josef Ratzinger intended to spark with his speech at Regensburg is an important one and should not be sidetracked by the furor raised by the self-appointed Muslim watchdogs who have attacked the speech without beginning to understand it.

The lesson to be drawn from this affair, it seems to me, is that it is utterly useless to try to engage in dialogue with Muslims on matters of faith because so many of them will intentionally misconstrue what you say.

Another entry for the "They get paid for this?" file

BREITBART.COM - USC Study: Celebrities Really Are More Narcissistic Than the General Public:
"The authors found that the celebrities participating in the study had statistically significantly higher narcissism scores compared to aspiring business leaders (MBA students) and the general population. Reality TV personalities had the highest overall narcissism scores when compared with actors, musicians and comedians."

I was particularly struck by this blindingly obvious insight reported from the research - celebrity does not seem to create narcissism, but narcissists seem to be attracted to celebrity.

DUH! People who feel a need for applause gravitate to careers where they can be applauded. "'Our research also shows that many celebrities exhibit narcissistic behavior prior to becoming famous, which could indicate a self-selection bias for the entertainment industry by certain personality types,' said Young ..." one of the study's authors.

That bit about self-selection may be more revealing than Dr. Young lets on. As the story explains, "The research data were collected anonymously and confidentially from celebrities selected at random during guest appearances on the nationally syndicated Westwood One radio show "Loveline," based at the KROQ-FM radio station in Los Angeles. The celebrities were administered the NPI test during breaks on the show, which Pinsky has hosted for the past 20 years."

First, even among celebrities, might one not reasonably expect that those willing to go on a radio program called "Loveline" might already be self-selected to an important degree. Second, there may have been some randomization of the asking of guests to participate in taking the Narcissistic Personality Inventory during program breaks, but did all asked agree to it? If not, there is another layer of self-selection. And, there is the question whether the validation of the NPI extends to its administration in a piece-meal fashion rather than at a single sitting.

Another example of the valuable contribution of social science research to our daily lives.

The Shrinking of Pakistan Continues

The Blotter:

"In addition to the pullout of Pakistani troops, the 'peace agreement' between Pakistan and the Taliban also provides for the Pakistani army to return captured Taliban weapons and prisoners.

"'What this means is that the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership have effectively carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan,' said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism director."

Mr. Clarke, I am afraid, misses the real point. What Pakistan does by this deal is acknowledge with deeds, if not words, that the tribal areas of the western borders are not subject to any serious assertion of Pakistani sovereignty.

Pakistan probably already held the record for territorial losses having lost East Pakistan to the independence of Bangladesh, and bits of Kashmir to India and China. Now the Taliban who have not ceded their claim to be the rulers of Afghanistan are recognized as the effective government of the western border regions.

This is also very bad news for US policy. Not the stuff about UBL being welcome in Pakistan so long as he plays elder statesman and not terrorist commander. The real blow is in giving the Taliban a free hand to arm and train on what Pakistan pretends is its own territory. The only thing the fiction of a Pakistan-Afghanistan border in its present location on the maps accomplishes is to give the Taliban a safe harbor.

If this begins to sound like the Viet Cong sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia, the analogy is not too far off the mark. All analogies are imperfect, but this one does catch the diplomatic and tactical, if not the political, dimensions fairly well.