brainrow

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert on the 60th anniversary of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death:

Last week – April 12, to be exact – was the 60th anniversary of the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

…

That more wasn’t made of this anniversary is not just a matter of time; it’s a measure of the distance the U.S. has traveled from the egalitarian ideals championed by F.D.R. His goal was “to make a country in which no one is left out.” That kind of thinking has long since been consigned to the political dumpster. We’re now in the age of Bush, Cheney and DeLay, small men committed to the concentration of big bucks in the hands of the fortunate few.

…

Roosevelt was far from a perfect president, but he gave hope and a sense of the possible to a nation in dire need. And he famously warned against giving in to fear.

The nation is now in the hands of leaders who are experts at exploiting fear, and indifferent to the needs and hopes, even the suffering, of ordinary people.

“The test of our progress,” said Roosevelt, “is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

Sixty years after his death we should be raising a toast to F.D.R. and his progressive ideas. And we should take that opportunity to ask: How in the world did we allow ourselves to get from there to here?

Washington Post writer Dana Milbank:

lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that [Supreme Court Justice Anthony] Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, “upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law.”

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his “bottom line” for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. “He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: ‘no man, no problem,'” Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don’t recognize it, is “Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.” Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush’s judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in Chicago were murdered in recent weeks. After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that “the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to “engage in violence.”

“The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up,” [conservative activist Phyllis] Schlafly said to applause yesterday.

(You can listen to Vieira’s invocation of Stalin here. The audio quality isn’t very good.)

New York Times columnist Frank Rich:

It’s not for nothing that Mr. DeLay’s nickname is the Hammer. Or that early in his Christian Coalition career, Ralph Reed famously told a Knight-Ridder reporter that he wanted to see his opponents in a “body bag.” The current manifestation of this brand of religious politics can be found in the far right’s anti-judiciary campaign, of which Mr. DeLay is the patron saint. As he flew off to the pope’s funeral in Rome, the congressman left behind a rabble-rousing video for a Washington conference on “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith” staged by a new outfit called The Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. Another speaker, a lawyer named Edwin Vieira, twice invoked a Stalin dictum whose unexpurgated version goes, “Death solves all problems; no man, no problem.” The reporter who covered the event for The Washington Post, Dana Milbank, suggested in print that one prime target of the vitriol, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, might want to get “a few more bodyguards.” It wasn’t necessarily a joke.

You can see why Dick Cheney and President Bush in rapid succession distanced themselves from Mr. DeLay’s threats of retribution against judges who presided in the Schiavo case. If an Eric Rudolph murders a judge in close chronological proximity to that kind of rhetoric, they’ve got a political Armageddon on their hands.

Republican Senator and video diagnostician Bill Frist joins the jihad:

As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as “against people of faith” for blocking President Bush’s nominees.

In the 1970s, there was a late-night television commercial for a correspondence school offering training for an exciting career as a game warden or park ranger. Toward the end of his spiel, the announcer held up a leather badge holder with a gleaming metal badge, and said, “Carry a badge! Enforce the law! Arrest violators!”

Somewhere out in the vast television audience, there were people who were stirred to their very soul by those words—people ravenous for the power to push someone around. These folks are the real-life counterparts of Barney Fife and Eric Cartman, but in real life, they are all mean spirit, not at all cute or funny.

One of the first tasks of good police training is to weed out people like that. I hope it’s tough for them to become game wardens and park rangers, too.

I thought of that old commercial when I saw this:

The State Department’s former intelligence chief yesterday described John R. Bolton, President Bush’s nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, as a “bully” who abused his authority and power, intimidated intelligence analysts, and damaged the integrity of the agency.

Bolton’s behavior “brings real question to my mind about his suitability for high office,” said Carl W. Ford Jr. He told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is considering Bolton’s nomination, that he is a loyal Republican, a staunch supporter of Bush and a “huge fan” of Vice President Cheney. “I’m as conservative as John Bolton is,” Ford said. “But the fact is that the collateral damage and the personal hurt that he causes is not worth the price that had to be paid.”

…

Ford called Bolton “a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy. He’s got a bigger kick, and it gets bigger and stronger the further down the bureaucracy he’s kicking. And he stands out. I don’t have any other example to give you of someone who acts this way.”

Much of the world thinks all Americans are like this. Only the Bush Administration would think of sending someone like Bolton to the United Nations to prove them right.

Some fun George W. Bush videos, found via This Modern World.

Thirty-five years ago this evening, a spherical oxygen tank in the Apollo 13 spacecraft exploded, with a loud bang that rocked the spacecraft.

Flight controllers on the ground didn’t hear the bang, but they noticed sudden changes in numbers displayed on the computer terminals where they monitored the many systems that made up the spacecraft.

The controllers talk to each other with headsets wired into a communications channel called the loop. Many of the controllers are listening to two loops: the main flight controller loop, and a second loop connecting specialists in a particular mission sub-system. Thirty-five years ago tonight, the real action was on the EECOM loop, where the experts monitoring the environmental and electrical systems of the spacecraft’s command and service modules worked to understand the most serious problem America had yet faced in space.

Astronaut Swigert: Okay, Houston, we’ve had a problem here.

Unidentified voice #1: What’s the matter with the data, EECOM?

Unidentified voice #2: We’ve got more than a problem.

EECOM: Okay, listen, listen, you guys. We’ve lost fuel cell one and two pressure.

Unidentified voice #2: We lost O₂ tank two pressure. And temperature.

Astronaut Lovell: Uh, Houston, we’ve had a problem.

EECOM: Okay.

Unidentified voice #2: Standby, they’ve got a problem.

Astronaut Lovell: Main B bus undervolt.

Capcom: Roger, main B undervolt.

Later, EECOM Sy Liebergot realized, with dread, exactly what had happened:

Unidentified voice #3: I want to psych out what those fuel cells are doing here. We might have a pressure problem in the fuel cells, it looks like.

EECOM: Yeah, I see the N₂…

Unidentified voice #3: Two fuel cells simultaneously.

EECOM: That can’t be.

Unidentified voice #3: I can’t believe that, right off the bat, but — but they’re not feeding current.

EECOM: Yeah, if you believe that N₂ pressure, we blew a sphere.

Apollo 13’s lunar landing mission was doomed from the moment the oxygen tank exploded. Through the heroic efforts of the astronauts and the ground crew, the three astronauts were returned safely to earth.

For years, NASA considered the Apollo 13 mission a failure, and tried to sweep it under the rug. It took years to understand that Apollo 13 was not a failure. It was the most severe test imaginable of the people and the processes of the Apollo program; they passed the test. The other Apollo missions were engineering triumphs. Apollo 13 was more than that. The safe splashdown of the Apollo 13 command module was the greatest moment of the entire Apollo program.

Years later, Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell wrote a book about the experience, called Lost Moon. Hollywood turned the book into the blockbuster movie Apollo 13, and Lovell’s book was renamed Apollo 13 to take advantage of the publicity. The book is well worth reading. (The movie is entertaining, but overly melodramatic.)

The best book about Apollo 13 is 13: The Flight That Failed, by Henry S. F. Cooper. I think I’ve read it five times. It’s never taken me much more than a day to read it, because I just can’t put it down once I start reading. If you have any interest in the Apollo program, Cooper’s book is the best place to start reading.

Forty-four years ago today, Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human being to fly into space.

It’s been reported that after he returned, he said, “I looked and looked but I didn’t see God.”

Apparently he looked out the window, saw the curving horizon, the deep black sky above and the earth, blue and white, below. He watched the sun rise and set. And he thought, “Nope, no God here!”

That kind of blind certainty can come only from unquestioning faith, I think. Atheism was the official government-sanctioned religion of the Soviet Union, like Islam in Iran and Afghanistan, or Judaism in Israel. Gagarin, apparently, was a True Believer.

Space exploration has come a long way since Gagarin’s pioneering flight. Men have walked on the moon. Robotic explorers have visited every planet in our solar system except Pluto. We communicate via satellite; our weather reports include photos from orbiting spacecraft, and we take that all for granted. The Hubble Space Telescope has shown us astonishing images of the universe around us.

The Bush administration is cutting money for the Hubble telescope from the NASA budget, but they will include funds in the 2006 budget to de-orbit the telescope, sending it to a fiery death in the earth’s atmosphere. Many reasons have been given for that decision — the Hubble Telescope is too expensive, a maintenance mission is too dangerous, new technology will make better alternatives available. I can’t help wondering whether there’s another, unspoken reason.

Biblical literalists can find it difficult to reconcile images of things a billion light years from earth with their certainty that God created the heaven and the earth about 6,000 years ago. Blinded by certainty, they can look and look at the Hubble pictures, but they don’t see God. So, down with the Hubble telescope!

This administration embraces the literalists on many issues. Was Hubble, too, sacrificed to blind faith?

New York Times columnist Frank Rich watched the ’round-the-clock coverage of the papal funeral and saw A Culture of Death, Not Life:

Mortality — the more graphic, the merrier — is the biggest thing going in America. Between Terri Schiavo and the pope, we’ve feasted on decomposing bodies for almost a solid month now. The carefully edited, three-year-old video loops of Ms. Schiavo may have been worthless as medical evidence but as necro-porn their ubiquity rivaled that of TV’s top entertainment franchise, the all-forensics-all-the-time “CSI.” To help us visualize the dying John Paul, another Fox star, Geraldo Rivera, brought on Dr. Michael Baden, the go-to cadaver expert from the JonBenet Ramsey, Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson mediathons, to contrast His Holiness’s cortex with Ms. Schiavo’s.

…

What’s disturbing about this spectacle is not so much its tastelessness; America will always have a fatal attraction to sideshows. What’s unsettling is the nastier agenda that lies far less than six feet under the surface. Once the culture of death at its most virulent intersects with politicians in power, it starts to inflict damage on the living.

When those leaders, led by the Bush brothers, wallow in this culture, they do a bait-and-switch and claim to be upholding John Paul’s vision of a “culture of life.” This has to be one of the biggest shams of all time. Yes, these politicians oppose abortion, but the number of abortions has in fact been going down steadily in America under both Republican and Democratic presidents since 1990 — some 40 percent in all. The same cannot be said of American infant fatalities, AIDS cases and war casualties — all up in the George W. Bush years. Meanwhile, potentially lifesaving phenomena like condom-conscious sex education and federally run stem-cell research are in shackles.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman, on the beauty of a flower:

I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, “Look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. And he says, “You see, as I, as an artist, can see how beautiful this is, but you, as a scientist, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.” And I think that he’s kind of nutty.

First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people, and to me, too. I believe, although I may not be quite as refined esthetically as he is, that I can appreciate the beauty of the flower.

At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean, it’s not just beauty at this dimension — one centimeter — there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure.

Also the processes — the fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting — it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: Does this esthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it esthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

That was from a 1981 interview on the BBC program Horizon. The interview was broadcast in the United States in 1983, on the PBS science program Nova. That’s where I saw it. It’s hard to pick one favorite Feynman story, but I do enjoy the first chapter of his memoir, Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! The story is called “He Fixes Radios By Thinking!”

With science under attack from religious zealots, Feynman’s worldview is a breath of fresh air.