Click here to view the embedded video.

First she was one of the 20 worst CEOs of all time. Now she’s angling to be one of the 20 worst film producers of all time, too. Talk about versatility!

Part 2 of 2. (Read part 1…)

It’s Time to Separate Church and State, Once and for All

If you recall, anti-Catholic prejudice was once a problem for Catholic politicians in the US. John F. Kennedy went so far as to address the issue head-on in his 1960 campaign – probably because he didn’t feel he had much choice. Here’s what he told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12 of that year:

I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me.

He went on to assert his respect for the separation of church and state and vowed that Catholic officials would not dictate policy to him. As noted in part 1, the times, they have a-changed.

In 1960 it was “anti-Catholic prejudice.” In 2010 it’s “empirical evidence of improper behavior by the Roman Catholic Church.” And it’s time it stopped. Cold.

If I were a Congressman, I’d introduce a bill yesterday stripping all US operations of the Roman Catholic Church of their tax-exempt status. At the press conference announcing the move I’d also say something along these lines: “I won’t be running for re-election – what could possibly be the point? However, between now and the day I leave office, I’m going to raise hell 24/7/4ever over this issue. I know that I’ll probably never get my bill into a committee hearing, let alone get it out of committee, but if Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens can draw as much attention as they have, I feel certain that I, as a sitting member of the United States Congress, can get booked on every talk show in America. Rest assured, my fellow citizens, this is going to make for some epic television.”

Of course, I’m not Congressional material. If you want to know what Congressional material is, recognize that representatives of a foreign theocracy are inside Congress shaping policy … and not a damned one of the spineless sacred whores on Capitol Hill has uttered a fucking syllable in protest.

Did I miss something?

“America is a Christian nation.” It certainly is. Sort of. It’s a Christian nation in the same way that it’s a white nation, a heterosexual nation, a right-handed nation and a nation with brown hair. That is, “Christian” is the majority position. Boy howdy, is it the majority position, with a majority of the population saying it believes angels and demons are active in the world and 80% saying they believe in miracles. Hell, even our atheists and agnostics sound a little religious. A snapshot of American religious affiliation that I offered up back in 2007 is instructive:

• Polls show the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Christian ranging as high as 85% or beyond.
• The president is a Christian…
• …as is the VP.
• The Speaker of the House is Catholic…
• …and the Senate Majority Leader is Mormon.
• Well over 90% of our Congressional representatives are Christian, with a majority of the remainder being Jewish.
• The Supreme Court features seven Christians and two Jews.
• All of our major presidential candidates in both major parties.
• Almost all of our past presidents; depending on how you count Unitarians, you have to go all the way back to Lincoln (ironically enough, the founder of the GOP) to even find one to debate over;
• Hell, even sports franchises are starting to build their operations around the evangelical litmus test.
• It seems unlikely that a similar review of the legislatures and courthouses in the 50 states would reveal too much variation from this overpowering Judeo-Christian norm.

There’s no denying that we’re a Christian culture – in many ways, that’s a simple math question and it’s about as controversial as noting that whites of European descent are the racial majority. But Christian culture and Christian government aren’t the same thing, and the United States is most emphatically not a Christian state. Not yet, anyway.

Reflecting back on my “if I were a Congressman” fantasy from above, I suppose I’d spend the remainder of my time in office asking the audiences of those TV shows to think about a proposition: to wit, while most Americans are Christian, “Christian” describes a lot of different things and not one unitary thing. Dr. Sid’s “modest proposal” from a couple of months back was more about provoking than persuading, but at its core there’s an important question. If you’re a Christian, you may want to see a more Christian government. But if you’re a Baptist, do you want to see a more Catholic government? If you’re Catholic, how are you going to react when the Texas School Board is co-opted by Mormons and all of a sudden the nation’s textbooks are filled with lessons that transform the hallucinations visions of The Prophets into stone cold fact? If you’re a member of the Foursquare Bible Congregation in Smallpond, Alabama, you probably agree with the Stupakers on abortion, but how do you feel about the idea that your duly elected representatives are keeping counsel with that German eunuch in the pointy hat?

Think about it, Christian supermajority. Think hard.

Crawling Toward a More Rational Future

Evidence suggests that there may be hope in the long run.

From USA Today:

The percentage of people who call themselves in some way Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation. The faithful have scattered out of their traditional bases: The Bible Belt is less Baptist. The Rust Belt is less Catholic. And everywhere, more people are exploring spiritual frontiers — or falling off the faith map completely.

These dramatic shifts in just 18 years are detailed in the new American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), to be released today. It finds that, despite growth and immigration that has added nearly 50 million adults to the U.S. population, almost all religious denominations have lost ground since the first ARIS survey in 1990.

“More than ever before, people are just making up their own stories of who they are. They say, ‘I’m everything. I’m nothing. I believe in myself,’ ” says Barry Kosmin, survey co-author.

From FutureMajority:

The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) also found that a movement towards claiming no religious affiliation is “a general trend among younger white American.” The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reported “people not affiliated with any particular religion stand out for their relative youth compared with other religious traditions.”
…
The National Journal profiles a growing faction of non-religious youth – the Secular Student Alliance (SSA). Their motto is “Mobilizing Students for a New Enlightenment.” The SSA’s chapters have grown from 42 in 2003 to 129 this year and they currently have a network of over 14,000 students. Their mission is “to organize, unite, educate, and serve students and student communities that promote the ideals of scientific and critical inquiry, democracy, secularism, and human based ethics.”

From AlterNet:

We are on the verge — within 10 years — of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the “Protestant” 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I’m convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.

So perhaps in the 2020s and beyond the Bible-thumping Jesus Jihadi yahoo will be a thing of the past – or at least, his inexplicable influence on the course of government will be. But that’s of little comfort today. Just because the good guys win the war eventually doesn’t mean they don’t lose battles along the way, and lost battles mean casualties, measured in lasting damage to real human lives. Even if it’s just ten years until we’re free of these crusaders, understand that a lot of mischief can be done in a decade. If I might put it in more meaningful terms, remember how long George Bush was in office? Add two years to that.

Not that it will do any good, but your Senators and representatives need to hear from you that it is not acceptable for the Catholic Bishops to be meddling in the people’s business. Separation of church and state. Today.

When Jesus attacks, the proper course of action is to smack him in the nose with a crowbar. It says so, right there in the Constitution.

Part 1 of 2.

I tripped across a provocative headline in the Wall Street Journal the other day: “They Need to be Liberated from Their God.” Turns out the story was about Mosab Hassan Yousef and his spying on Hamas. Which was a little disappointing. There’s no doubt that Palestinian Muslims need to be liberated from their god, but given the recent explosion in documented attacks by US Christians on their fellow Americans (as well as on reason and basic common sense), I thought perhaps the WSJ was going to be the first mainstream “news” outlet to do a story on Jesus Gone Wild!

I keep a running tab of stories that strike my interest. Taken individually, each might suggest a particular narrow social pathology, which is to be expected in a nation of 300 million. But over time they accumulate into a gestalt, with all the small pictures adding up to a disturbing big picture. For instance:

Item: Pope warns against witchcraft in Angola

(AFP) – Mar 21, 2009

LUANDA (AFP) — Pope Benedict XVI issued a warning against witchcraft Saturday during his visit to Angola, after calling on African leaders to battle corruption and drawing a tough line against abortion.

Item: Pope in Africa reaffirms “no condoms” against AIDS

YAOUNDE, March 17 (Reuters) – Pope Benedict on Tuesday reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS as he started a visit to Africa, where more than 25 million people have died from the disease in recent decades.
…
“It (AIDS) cannot be overcome by the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem,” he said in response to a question about the Church’s widely contested position against the use of condoms.

The disease has killed more than 25 million people since the early 1980s, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, and some 22.5 million Africans are living with HIV.

Item: Rape row sparks excommunications

By Gary Duffy
BBC News, Sao Paulo

A Brazilian archbishop says all those who helped a child rape victim secure an abortion are to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

The girl, aged nine, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, became pregnant with twins.

It is alleged that she had been sexually assaulted over a number of years by her stepfather.

The excommunication applies to the child’s mother and the doctors involved in the procedure.

The pregnancy was terminated on Wednesday.

Abortion is only permitted in Brazil in cases of rape and where the mother’s life is at risk and doctors say the girl’s case met both these conditions.

Police believe that the girl at the centre of the case had been sexually abused by her step-father since she was six years old.

Item: Did the Mormons baptize Obama’s mother, after her death, without his knowledge or consent? A: Yes, they did.

A reader contacted me last week, saying that last year, in the heat of the presidential campaign, the Mormons had posthumously baptized Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Baptizing the dead of other faiths, secretly and without the consent of their families, is a common Mormon practice. For the past fifteen years the Mormons have caused quite a stir by forcibly baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims – in other words, converting them to Mormonism – despite strong objections from the Jewish community.

Thus, it’s hardly a stretch to imagine the Mormons’ doing this to Obama’s mother. Still, I had no proof. Then yesterday, I received a document. It’s allegedly a screen capture of the registration-only section of the Mormon-run Web site, FamilySearch.org. In that screen capture, excerpted above, is clearly the name and correct date of birth and death of Barack Obama’s mother (Stanley Ann Dunham, born 29 Nov 1942 in Kansas, died 07 Nov 1995) and the date of her alleged post-death baptism by the Mormons.

Item: Catholic schools bans child whose parents are gay

Last week, a standing policy of the Archdiocese of Denver denied a child from enrolling in the Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School for kindergarten next year because the student’s parents are lesbians.

Currently the student is in the school’s preschool program and will be allowed to finish the year, according to Jeanette DeMelo, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese.

“It’s clear if they only accept students with perfect parents, they would have almost nobody,” said Beth Osnes, an organizer for the protest. “I know they have the right to, but why would they want to?”

Inside the church, the Rev. Bill Breslin addressed the issue in his sermon. He also posted his comments on his blog.

“If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad,” Breslin said on his blog. “We don’t want to put any child in that tough position.”

Please note: this is happening in the People’s Republic of Freakin’ Boulder!

That’s some big picture, huh? It’s gotten so bad that even former president Jimmy Carter, a man as responsible as any for introducing the poison of evangelical influence into the mainstream of modern politics, has had enough.

Of course, you live here. You read the news. That a lot of Christians are out of control isn’t a real revelation, is it? But lately, the goddamned Catholic Church has been making an unusually immoral and anti-Constitutional nuisance of itself. For instance:

• The Catholic Church is ending its long-standing relationship with St. Charles Medical Center in Bend over a surgical birth-control technique. Note, that’s Saint Charles the place is named after.
• The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a directive for Catholic health care that insists on inflicting artificial “life” sustaining techniques on dying (or functionally dead) patients despite the wishes of the patients or their families.
• And it doesn’t matter whether you’re even Catholic or not – all you have to do is be in the building.
• 300,000 Terri Schiavos, anyone? Let’s face it, the opinion of one reactionary geezer in Rome has now trumped centuries of ethical progress.

Still, we’re talking about their facilities and they’re paying the bills, and they have the right to control their operations the way they see fit, no? Well, maybe, maybe not. Ignoring the wishes of the patient, especially when those wishes are legally expressed in something like a living will, that’s pretty appalling, but I guess you could make the argument.

Even if you won that argument, though, get a load of the latest shenanigans from our friendly Catholic Bishops, who have now offered their “help” in wrangling an outcome in the Senate. You know, because that would make democracy better and stuff.

The Roman Catholic bishops signaled Thursday that if agreement is reached with House leaders on anti-abortion language, the church would work to get the votes needed to protect the provisions in the Senate — and thereby advance the shared goal with Democrats of health care reform.

“We would strongly urge everyone, Democratic and Republican, to vote to waive the point of order,” Richard Doerflinger, an associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told POLITICO. “Whether it would be enough to get to 60 votes, I can’t predict. We would certainly try.”

“I think it’s something we should explore,” said Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), a longtime opponent of abortion. “It could be something that could carry out the bishops’ objective.”

And why not? The Bishops have “helped” before, after all.

In November, the bishops drove a tough bargain, winning an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) that would severely restrict the ability of even private companies to provide abortion coverage under new state insurance exchanges. That House deal — since weakened by the Senate — is what the bishops want to revive now as part of Obama’s final push on health care. But to survive the Senate, any revisions would need 60 votes to overcome points of order under the expedited reconciliation procedures being contemplated.

David Dayen observes, astutely enough, that “the Catholic bishops want to show a measure of dominance over the US government.” His nuanced look at the tactical knife fight of this particular backroom liturgical drama is helpful to those trying to understand how sausage law gets made.

Meanwhile, those of us out here beyond the Beltway can perhaps be forgiven for saying “wait a sec – back the truck up.” An organized cabal of Roman Catholic aparatchiks are so far up Congress’s ass that they’re openly discussing how they’re going to inject Vatican dogma into a US health care bill?

Excuse me?

The Constitution is clear that what you believe is your business, and I have no problem with that. But when your beliefs inspire actions that hurt the innocent, that systematically victimize those who believe other things, then I start to care. When those beliefs fuel actions that harm me and impinge on my freedoms, well, that’s the point where it becomes self-defense, isn’t it?

Tomorrow: Divide & Conquer

Oh, and now there’s a Scholars & Rogues persona. Because you just can’t be one of the hip kids without it, I suppose. Here’s the how-to:

• Get Firefox 3.6
• Add Personas
• Get your scrogue on with the S&R persona

Y’all have a nice day.

First, from TPM:

And this bit of genius from the Times.

Consider yourself shown.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

Reactions have been all over the place, but there’s been strong suspicion of the findings from both “liberal” and “conservative” corners (especially conservative, as you’d expect). Which is good. These kinds of results may tell us something important, but we’re always advised to proceed cautiously and critically, especially when the findings of science are reported in the popular media. And double-dog especially when that popular media outlet is FOX or  CNN. Understand – their criteria for reporting on research (there are thousands of studies published each month, and if you’re not an academic you hear about maybe three of them) have nothing to do with the social value of the research itself and everything to do with whether or not they think you might click on the link (and perhaps even on one of the ads on the page).

So, the critical reader should automatically pause and consider the following with respect to this story:

• Who is the researcher? What’s his expertise? Is he a pure academic or does he receive funding from sources with an axe to grind? Has his past research been unduly driven by concerns that appear, to the informed observer, to be more ideological than scientific? And so on.
• Is the story written by a reporter who understands science and research and statistics? (The answer here is usually no.) If not, then we need to find the actual study and see what it really says.
• Further, has the reporter bothered to ask him or herself any of the questions in that first bullet point? (Again, the answer is almost always no.) If not, what does it mean for the story (and the reader’s understanding of it) that the reporter can’t tell the difference between a Nobel laureate and a corporate PR hack?
• In this case, the story addresses IQ, but what does this really tell us? IQ is not a comprehensive measure of intelligence. It tells us some things (and these are important things) but it comes nowhere near telling us everything that we’d want to know when considering the “intelligence” of an individual or population.
• The definitions used here are beyond useless. “Conservative” and “liberal” are as artificial as labels come, for starters (the Political Compass test illustrates a small part of the problem), and when you add in the fact that the study probably relied on self-identification (hardly the most objective measure in the world) there is every reason to be cautious about the very way in which the two groups were constructed. What would it mean for the results if we learned that a good number of the liberals were gun owners or that a significant portion of the conservative group had serious misgivings about the Bush administration’s pro-torture activities?

This last point is crucial, because while self-report in studies like this tends to problematic under the best of circumstances, your margin for error explodes when the researchers and the participants don’t agree on the terminology.

The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.

“Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with,” he said.

Now, is that what you think of when someone asks you if you’re conservative or liberal? Do a less educated and a more educated subject define those terms for themselves in the same way? Even if you explain what you mean by the term, do they each process it and respond the same way (after all, regardless of whether they’re conservative, liberal, libertarian, green or fascist, a less educated respondent is less likely to have the sophistication needed to parse a definition that’s not really like any they’ve encountered before).

Not to belabor the point, but we’re talking to Americans here, and we’re trying to exclude abortion, gun control and gay rights from how these respondents evaluate whether they’re conservative or liberal? Seriously? I’d argue that for huge portions of the population, abortion, gun control and gay rights are what the words liberal and conservative mean.

Hopefully by now it’s clear that I have significant reservations about the actual study and that I don’t trust the CNN story to get the story right, regardless of the actual findings of the study or the actual objective reality that the study may or may not have accurately described. As it turns out, my hesitation may be justified.

As I snooped around some other commentary on the study, I came across further reason for skepticism (interestingly enough, from an apparently “liberal” source that was linked by another liberal source). Dr. PZ Myers, a bio professor in the Minnesota system, stomps a mudhole in Kanazawa and walks it dry.

And then look at the source: Satoshi Kanazawa, the Fenimore Cooper of Sociobiology, the professional fantasist of Psychology Today. He’s like the poster boy for the stupidity and groundlessness of freakishly fact-free evolutionary psychology. Just ignore anything with Kanazawa’s name on it.

By all means, click on the links Myers embeds in that passage at his site, because he’s just getting warmed up. I don’t know much about Myers as a source himself, but he’s an academic, he’s a self-described agnostic and he links to the Richard Dawkins network (Dawkins being the Great Liberal Evolutionist Atheist Satan from Hell), so we might at least view his assault on Kanazawa as worth exploring, being as neither is exactly coming off as a conservative apologist.

So, to the question: are liberals smarter than conservatives (or vice versa)? Somewhere out there is an answer, and I for one would love to know what it is. I have my suspicions, based on my own experiences, but those suspicions are hardly science. If I’m right, I’d welcome the support of hard research, and if I’m wrong I’d like to know so I can reevaluate and get my opinions more in line with the facts. Hopefully you feel the same way.

In order to find that answer, though, we’re going to need a better study than Kanazawa’s (which seems horribly flawed, although I won’t know for sure just how much so until I see the actual study). Here’s what I think a more conclusive study would look like.

• For starters, it would need a more comprehensive measure of intelligence. IQ is a piece of the puzzle, but we’d also want to factor in creativity, associative thinking, critical thinking and problem solving. We’d like to be clear about the importance of memory vs. processing power in the equation, and before we get started we’ll want to decide whether to integrate newer concerns like “social intelligence” or whether social skills are better classified as something other than intelligence.
• We’ll want a much better handle on that whole conservative vs. liberal quagmire. Doing the study so as to render a verdict on those two categories is useless. We’d be better served by evaluating intelligence according to which political party people identify with, and even this would be problematic (what do you do with all those independents who are independent for wildly divergent reasons, for instance). I don’t have a satisfying frame in mind right now, but unless we can get to some meaningful definitions about political beliefs (definitions that make sense to the participants as well as the researchers) we’re wasting our time and money.
• It needs to be longitudinal and will ideally have mechanisms for evaluating how perspectives shift over time. More to the point, it would be important to know what factors shift those positions. Does education make you more X? If so, are there certain kinds of education that do so?
• It would be nice to know how these factors vary according to demographic variables. Are you more prone to the liberalizing effects of education if you’re working class from the South than if you’re middle class from the Upper Midwest?
• This study needs to be funded by a non-partisan entity of some sort and should be conducted by researchers with no particular ideological master. Under no circumstances should it receive funds from corporate sources. Whether there’s any actual biasing effect or not (and by the way, there is – research most often serves the interests of those writing the check), the value of such a study would be badly kneecapped by the appearance that its results were bought. It goes without saying that the study should be headed by a person or team with a track record that makes clear their commitment to academic rigor and uncompromising ethics.
• Methodologically, the study should employ both quantitative and qualitative instruments. You’ll obviously need the quant to generate a broad statistical basis, but this should be augmented by interview and observation phases to add depth and texture to the findings.
• For fun, it would be nice if there were an intercultural component. Is what we see happening in the US like what happens in other countries? If not, how are we different and what factors seem to account for the variance?

There are probably more issues we’d want to see addressed, but these represent at least a decent foundation for discussion. If we conduct such a study, and if it produces results similar to those reported by Kanazawa, then we’ll have something interesting to factor into our policy making.

One note, though. Let me call your attention to this passage from the CNN story:

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning — on the order of 6 to 11 points — and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say.

This is among the most ludicrous statements I’ve heard in some time. Assume we were to find that intelligence between two political groups varied by as much as 10 points, and assume that these findings were significant at the .95 level (and assume for the heck of it that the qualitative segments of the study supported the findings and provided richer insights into them) – you’re going to suggest that an overall intelligence difference of 10%, considered across a population of 300 million, isn’t stunning? I beg to differ. A variance of that magnitude would be positively staggering.

A difference of 10% between individuals is the difference between an A and a B, a B and a C. It’s the difference, in many cases, between the guy you want operating on your child and a guy you wouldn’t let anywhere near your child. In a financial advisor it could be the difference between comfort and borderline insolvency. If you’d like your teenager to go to the best school possible, it’s the difference between a highly ranked national university and a good, but not spectacular state system school.

What if half the population suddenly became 10% smarter? When you think about highly competitive business deals, for instance, deals where one company gets the contract by a hair’s breadth, would you take a 10% boost?

Make no mistake, the degree of difference we’re talking about here, even if it’s at the low end of the variance instead of the high end, is massively significant when we’re talking about the collective intelligence of a society the size of the United States.

In the end, I don’t know what, if anything, we really learn from Kanazawa’s study. But it’s an interesting question, and knowing the actual answer could do us a lot of good. It’s just a shame that we can’t count on our intrepid press to get the damned story right, if and when it ever happens.

Scheduled to testify before a congressional committee overnight, Toyoda linked his company’s problems to its expansion in the past few years.

“We pursued growth over the speed at which we were able to develop our people and our organisation, and we should sincerely be mindful of that,” he said in a transcript of his testimony. “I regret that this has resulted in the safety issues described in the recalls we face today, and I am deeply sorry for any accidents that Toyota drivers have experienced.”

When you grow too fast you outrun your expertise. I watched in horror as one of my hometown’s flagship enterprises, Krispy Kreme, went from world-class case study to world-class debacle seemingly overnight for this very reason (well, this plus some competence and ethical issues at the top), and if you’ve ever seen a great local business (restaurant, brewery, you name it) go national, you’ve probably experienced a small-scale version of what Toyota is going through. (Although when Krispy Kreme rolls a bad doughnut off the conveyor belt, nobody dies. Not right away, at least.)

When an organization loses control the way Toyota apparently has, bet the farm that it’s going to be awhile before the revelations finally stop trickling out. And let’s be clear: when the CEO acknowledges that the company has prioritized growth over safety, you have the corporate equivalent of a roofie, Red Bull and Viagra cocktail-addled Tiger Woods hurtling through a lounge crowded with cocktail waitresses. For instance, did the company know about the problems and cover them up? Did they make a cost/benefit decision to ignore customer safety? Who knew what and when did they know it? Congressional minds want to know.

One of the best takes on the Toyota predicament I’ve seen comes from my old friend and colleague John Cavanaugh at his new biz blog, The Tap Tap Tap. John is one of the smartest business guys I’ve ever worked with, and he knows a thing or six about the car business, having grown up as the son of a very successful retailer. He observes that Toyota has finally become an American car company, although I don’t think he means that in a good way.

Cavanaugh thinks Toyota can bounce back, and he offers a brief roadmap for how that might happen (both from an operations and communications perspective). However, their recovery is anything but certain. As he notes in the comment thread:

…yesterday it was leaked that Toyota has been internally critical of the “Democratic administration” since they fear it will be tougher on regulation. If it’s revealed that Toyota sat on incriminating data, they’re in a heap of trouble. And if they sat on it after doing a cost/benefit analysis…well, let’s just say they’d better be ramping up production for China.

If for no other reason than the fact that it would be a tragedy to see all of Toyota’s hard-working people out of jobs, my fingers are crossed. But right now, they’re looking a little too Crouching Tiger to suit me, you know?

I was pretty hard on Bode Miller after his no-show in Torino four years ago, about as hard as I’ve ever been on anyone who wasn’t in a position of political authority. Looking back, I don’t regret a word of it. He established himself as the archetype of American sports marketing, and his all-hype no-results performance was about as embarrassing as anything in the history of the US Olympic team.

And while I didn’t write about her, my friends certainly heard some choice words on the subject Lindsey Jacobellis, who decided that showing her ass was more important than winning.

Lately, as I watched both athletes seeking Redemption^® (Copyright 2010 by NBC; all rights reserved) in the Vancouver games , I’ve thought back on their various self-indulgences. Both are four years older. Miller has a kid now and seems a little more responsibly minded. Jacobellis seems duly chastised (and why not – for the last four years she’s been the sports world’s version of Miss Teen South Carolina, such as). The truth is that I was rooting for her to win this year. I’ve also been pulling for Miller, and was really happy when he finally won a gold yesterday in the Super-Combined. Unfortunately for Jacobellis, she crashed again (this time while actually racing).

Still, I’ve been thinking less about them per se than I have my own reactions to them. After all, the worst you could possibly believe about Miller and Jacobellis is that they’re just two clueless jocks. They haven’t killed anyone. They haven’t ruined the economy. Heck, as far as I know they haven’t even used steroids (and given the rigors of Olympic drug-testing, they’re probably cleaner than an obsessive-compulsive’s lunchbox). In an average day I come across stories about people a zillion times worse than they are, what? … a hundred times? A thousand?

And yet, all you have to do is read one of my Bode posts, linked above, to understand that their behavior damned near twisted my nipples off. I think I’ve figured out why.

It has to do with opportunity. The fact is that these two kids have been blessed with fantastic opportunities. They were born athletic and they were fortunate enough to find themselves in situations where they could develop their skills. There’s no question that they worked hard – I don’t care how gifted an athlete you are, you don’t get to the Olympics without working. Finally, as a result of this rare cocktail – native ability, a context that allowed them to practice, and lots of hard work (pretty much the archetypal trifecta that Malcolm Gladwell talks about in Outliers, in fact) – they found themselves on the brink of glory. And what did they do?

When opportunity knocks, piss on it.

Bode and Lindsey together were presented with more opportunity in a few short days than all the residents of some American towns and cities put together see in a lifetime. And they didn’t respect the opportunity. They didn’t recognize the gift before them. So instead of jumping it like a starved alley cat on the last fishstick on Earth, they blew it off. They partied. They hotdogged. And when they were called on their stupidity, each treated America to an epic exhibition of whatever.

I’m like a lot of people, I guess. What wouldn’t I have given to have that kind of talent and to get that kind of crack at Olympic success? What wouldn’t a lot of us give for a gold medal?

Better yet – what wouldn’t a lot of us give for a fraction of the money that comes with athletic success? How many people could feed their families for a week on what Bode flushed in Torino’s nightclubs the night before an event? What could a lot of poor school districts do with the endorsement dollars a gold would have brought Jacobellis (or that she got anyway, because in that culture, some assign street cred to that kind of “rebellious” fucking around)?

In short, there aren’t enough incredible, life-changing opportunities to go around, and to a guy who’s worked pretty hard for the chances he’s gotten, it’s simply unfathomable that you’d treat one of those golden tickets with anything short of pure reverence. They weren’t actually cheating me, but my feelings about opportunity are such that I couldn’t help taking it personally. And yes, I know that says more about me than it does them.

I can’t say what Bode and Lindsey really think deep inside, although I imagine Bode is probably pretty happy about that redemption meme that NBC has worked so hard to establish. Maybe some of the media pose we’ve seen in the past was a defense mechanism. Maybe they were beyond humiliated and they’re just trying to cope. I know I’d be, but who can say what others are thinking? And like I say above, I wish them both well. There’s a narrow window for an Olympic athlete, and Miller’s was probably damned near shut when he jumped out of the gate yesterday. Jacobellis will be 28 in four years, and it’s hard to say whether she’ll still be at the top of her game at that point. A lot can happen in four years.

More than anything, the message here is for the rest of us, and especially for those who are still young enough that most of their lives (and opportunities) lie ahead of them.

When opportunity knocks, open the door. And treat it with the respect it deserves, because this may the only time it comes to see you. Ever.

I believe we’ll all remember Martin as committed and passionate, and his many followers and friends have set up a Facebook page where everyone can pay their respects.

We encourage our readers to take a few minutes to review Martin’s contributions to the blogosphere.

• Posts at original S&R Wordpress site.
• Posts at current S&R.com site.
• Boztopia, the site he established when he left S&R.

The staff of Scholars & Rogues extends its deepest sympathies to Martin’s family.

In Saturday’s tribute to Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili I noted the heartwrenching beauty of kd lang’s rendition of “Hallelujah” at the Olympic opening ceremonies in Vancouver on Friday night. I’ve long thought Leonard Cohen’s masterpiece, which binds together untold depths of hope, joy, sadness and loss, was as perfect a song as it is possible to write. It seems to bring out the absolute best in every singer who covers it.

Today we’re taking a few minutes to honor Cohen and “Hallelujah.” I hope you enjoy these performances, which are simply transcendent in their beauty.

We begin with kd lang at the 2005 Juno Awards:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The song’s greatness isn’t just recognized in North America Espen Lind, Askil Holm, Alejandro Fuentes and Kurt Nilsen are four talented Norwegians who get its magic, as well. The kid who sings the anchor leg here is Nilsen, who I guess was a World Idol contestant. And as bad as I hate the prefabrication those Idol put-up jobs, he can absolutely sing.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The late Jeff Buckley turned in one of the most famous versions.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As Alexandra Burke demonstrates, “Hallelujah” is so beautiful it can even momentarily transcend the cynicism of a Simon Cowell dog and pony show.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Cohen’s Canadian countrymen, and Canadian artists in particular, seem to take particular pride in “Hallelujah,” and that’s certainly the case for Allison Crowe.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here Il Divo perform “Hallelujah” live at the Arena at Pula, one of the most well-preserved Roman Coliseums in the world.

Click here to view the embedded video.

John Cale’s intimate chamber arrangement takes the song to a slightly different, and perhaps even more melancholy place.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Imogen Heap does a haunted little a capella take.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I’ve never had much time for Justin Timberlake, but his duet with Matt Morris at the Hope for Haiti concert was quite nice.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The most famous version, by virtue of its prominent placement in Shrek, is probably Rufus Wainwright’s. If you don’t think that Jeff Buckley or kd lang have the greatest cover, then odds are good you favor this one. Here’s Wainwright performing “Hallelujah” live.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here’s a quiet acoustic version from Myles Kennedy of Alter Bridge.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Finally, let’s close with the man himself.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Happy Tunesday.

Last night I was watching the Men’s Moguls competition from Vancouver. Absolutely fantastic fun, lots of drama, the thrill of victory, apeshit Canadians, etc. But this particular event, probably moreso than anything this side of parkour, drives me bonkers. (No, figure skating and synchronized swimming aren’t sports. Anytime you can trigger controversy because your tutu is trimmed in fur, whatever you’re doing isn’t a sport. Period. Let’s move along.)

Here’s the problem.

What part of hurtling a zillion miles an hour down a double-black mogul field isn’t good enough for you? I mean, powder, skis, a steep mountain and a stopwatch – that sounds like a pretty good sport to me. In fact, it sounds like some other time-tested sports, plus the complication of all those cruciate-buckling bumps. Pass me a beer and turn up the volume, eh?

So why do they have to add the gratuitous element of judging? Seriously. Why, at various intervals, is it necessary to insert jumps – which are to skiing moguls as beat poetry is to yak-dressing – unnecessarily complicating the affair with style points?!

Imagine if the same pot-addled hippie slackers had invented track and field. You’d have an event where you sprint 30 meters, then do a ten-yard tumbling run. 30 more meters, then you do a couple backflips off a minitramp. Then you sprint the rest of the way. Six judges (at least one of which hails from a nation you’re at war with) score your tumbling from zero to six points each (factoring in degree of difficulty and artistic impression – so fur is a plus here), and that number is combined with your time to the finish line to yield your final score.

We call it the “100-meter dash.” And you don’t even want to think about what these people would do to the 5,000-meter steeplechase (but it involves a stop at Starbuck’s).

Look, bitches. We let all your wack-ass skate-punk X Games derivations into the real Olympics (granted, this was mainly because the TV folks desperately needed something that Americans could win at), baggy pants, bad posture and all. And admittedly, the results haven’t been all bad. Hell, we freakin’ love snowboard-cross, and it’s hard not to jam on a guy whose nickname is “The Flying Tomato.”

But can we please leave well enough alone? I get that some sports require judges (half-pipe, freestyle, etc.), but when you have an event that works just fine as a real hell-for-leather race, can we just, you know, race?

Next time around, I want the moguls to involve young people with no instinct for self-preservation whatsoever jumping off the side of a mountain, and the first one to the bottom who doesn’t explode one or more knees wins. Period.

Thank you. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming, already in progress.

This isn’t some wholesome, Focus on the Family-friendly Thomas the Train, folks. No, sir. This is the toxic, Viagra-addled nuclear dumpster grease fire Johnny the Train from Hell, and it came that close to plowing headlong into the unshielded nards of American democracy.

Have I subjected this particular metaphor to enough “enhanced interrogation” already? Good. Let’s move on.

I’ve been thinking a bit lately about the rise and fall of Sen. John Edwards in light of his recent Infidelity Triple Crown (babydaddy, divorce, engagement to babymama). Mainly the fall. If you’ve been reading S&R for awhile, you might remember that at the outset of Campaign 2008 Season I was an enthusiastic Edwards supporter and I was pretty torqued when he finally bowed out.

Edwards is an outsider, and there’s not much the establishment likes less than uppity lower-class trash trying to shoehorn their way into the country club. Why? Well, you can trust people like you. If another guy grew up a fortunate son just like you did you have things in common. You share cultural experiences. He’s one of you. But if he’s one of them, you have to deal with something you don’t understand and can’t count on. Hell, what if the crazy bastard wants to, you know, start helping the poor? How is that good for you, exactly?

Am I being inflammatory? Maybe. Am I painting with an awfully broad brush? No doubt – you can’t talk about class factors house to house. But tell you what – prove me wrong. And you won’t do that by providing me with a couple nice exceptions, because for every Horatio Alger story you show me I’m going to respond with a few million hard examples of folks who didn’t manage to overcome their modest means. Life is a 100-yard dash and your chances of crossing the finish line first are greatly enhanced if you begin the race with a 90-yard head start. You may like the rhetorical flourish of the stirring example, but I’m a lot more persuaded by the 99.9% rule than I am the .1% exception.

Or maybe it’s wrong to say I was an Edwards supporter, per se. Rather, I was a supporter of his platform. I’ve been around long enough to know better than to confuse the message with the campaigning man. Still, who knew it was going to go this wrong?

Recent events have led all kinds of people to offer all kinds of opinions on the man, and since I was pretty vocal before the train jumped the tracks, I thought it might be appropriate for me to wade in and comment on the wreckage. At the very least, it will give folks a chance to tell me what a doofus I was, right?

So, here are the thoughts that occur to me.

1: STFU. A lot of people seem to know a remarkable amount about the marriage of John and Elizabeth Edwards, and since America was founded on self-righteous Puritan priggery, they feel a dour sort of Onward Christian Soldiers! obligation to pronouncements and public prudery and pontification that’s breathtaking in its Hawthornesque audacity. The problem is this: the only two people who know what’s going on inside a marriage are the people in it, and sometimes they don’t even have a clue. I didn’t used to know this, but it’s a lesson I learned the hard way. No, I’m not providing details, but trust me.

Elizabeth Edwards may have been Mother Teresa in public, Paula Deen in the kitchen and the Whore of Babylon in the sack. Or not. Some who have better knowledge than any of us have described her as a woman driven by even greater political ambitions than her husband – in other words, they’re saying she had a whiff of the Hillary about her – and that’s not an odor associated with the kind of universal sympathy she’s received of late. She may also be colder than the walk-in freezer at Applebee’s and John may have forgotten what sex was like long before cancer struck. Or she may have condoned his Willy Walkabout act. Or she may have had affairs herself. The truth may be such that if we knew all the details we wouldn’t wonder how he could cheat on her, we’d wonder why it didn’t happen sooner.

The point is that I don’t know, and neither do you. We like to assume the best about a woman who seems so very sympathetic – I know, and I’m with you on this – but knowing and assuming are very different propositions, aren’t they? So you and I and all our self-appointed morality police need to sit down, kick back and enjoy a nice tall glass of Shut the Fuck Up Juice.

You have strong principles? Good. Live by them. Let your actions be a beacon to all who gaze upon you. If y’all are like me, though, you have all you can do to manage your own damned lives, let alone somebody else’s.

2: Do the Right Thing (Politically), Dumbass. All that said, we do know that Edwards cheated on his wife, and moralizing aside, it is fair to nard-stomp him for being a goddamned idiot. You’re a politician. You’re running for president. That’s a path you chose, it’s a path with certain rules, and those are rules I’m sure they explained to you when you signed up. Membership has it privileges, of course, especially membership in the House of Lords United States Senate. But it also comes with a couple of drawbacks, not the least of which is a 24/7/4ever spotlight following you everywhere you go. And there’s also the large pack of rabid jackals eager to rip you into small, easily digested chunks. Don’t forget the jackals.

Jesus H. Tebow, John – you touched off a debate over whether or not the fucking National Enquirer is deserving of (or eligible for) a Pulitzer Prize! Nothing you ever did or ever will do can top that for legacy: may vandals spray paint it on your tombstone every year on the anniversary of your death until the end of time.

Does any of this really need saying? Really? If the marriage wasn’t working, fine. It happens. Get a divorce, then move on. But don’t put your entire party – hell, the entire free goddamned world – at risk.

What would have happened if Edwards had somehow landed the nomination and then the story had broken? I’ll tell you what. Right now Sarah Palin would be one chicken bone away from the shiny red button.

3: It Wouldn’t Have Made Any Difference. Of course, Edwards was never any real threat to win the Democratic nomination, and as such his hijinks never posed any threat to party or country. Unless Obama had decided pick him as a running mate, which wasn’t going to happen because Barry O’s people probably knew more about John and Rielle than the whole Enquirer staff put together.

Which leaves me reflecting on what if. As noted above, whatever I may have thought about Edwards at the time and whatever may have transpired since, I felt like he was pushing a very important message (although he was slanting it the wrong way). Inequality of economic opportunity is a disease that is slowly but surely sucking the life out of America, and I fear that even if, starting today, we did absolutely everything right, it would still be too late. We were once The Greatest Nation on Earth^®, but thanks to a long bout of pathological self-interest (the I got mine and fuck you type instead of the “rightly understood” variety) and persistent anti-intellectualism, our days at the forefront of the world are numbered.

Would Edwards have made a difference? Hard to say. For starters, who knows if he’d have followed through on his promises? He may have turned out just like the guy who eventually won. If he had insisted on making poverty the centerpiece of his administration, well, this is DC we’re talking about. Making a big deal over the plight of poor people would have gone over about as well as inviting a leper to a Obsessive/Compulsives Anonymous pot luck. If you think the GOP is waging a campaign of unbridled obstructionism now, understand something: the stink Edwards was raising on the campaign trail was, in principle, several miles to the left of Obama’s “socialist” agenda. Within two weeks of the inauguration the Minority Party would probably have fetched out every musket they could find and barricaded themselves in the Capitol broom closet.

Would he have been up to the task? Maybe not. On one of my lists, the estimable Guy Saperstein recently recalled meeting Edwards and talking with him, and his conclusion was that he was a bit of a lightweight. “Of course, there were things I liked about Edwards: His pugnacity, his background, his concern for the poor, etc.,” Guy says. “But in the end, I thought he was becoming too one-dimensional, not building out his critique and, in the case of health care, not substantive enough for my tastes.” Guy is pretty darned sharp, and his opinion here is enough to cast some doubt.

On the other hand, nobody knows as much as you’d like on every important issue, and a guy who’s a bit of lightweight can hire some intellectual juggernauts to follow him around and do the heavy lifting as long as you know enough. Besides, what guarantee do you have that the job will get done if you elect the heavierweight? Obama is allegedly rock-solid on the details of health care plans, but ask me how happy I am with the job he’s done so far. Go ahead, ask.

So there it is. John and his new family are setting up house in a $3.5 million extravaganza by the sea. I wish them well, I suppose, and hope that whatever they do in the future makes them better people. I also wish the very best for Elizabeth Edwards. There can’t be anything about this Hollywood-sized hubrispalooza that’s easing her life-and-death battle with cancer.

I also wish the best for America, because whatever becomes of that train on the outskirts of town, somewhere an even nastier bullet train metaphorically packed with pocket nukes, PCPs and mutant anthrax is probably headed our way at top speed.

Welcome to the Fall of Rome.

First, The Fabs remind us what really matters.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Next, Rob Dickinson offers up a gorgeous, slightly off-center little love song from our 2008 CD of the Year.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here’s something special for our readers who live and love outside the lines.

Click here to view the embedded video.

We’ll close with a powerful live performance of one of the prettiest love songs we’ve ever heard from one of the greatest concerts ever recorded. We hope you appreciate the tip of the hat to Elvis at the end.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Happy Valentine’s Day. The staff of Scholars & Rogues hopes that you love someone, and that they love you back.

There is no good way to die, especially when you’re only 21.

I’m like the rest of you: before yesterday, I’d never heard of Nodar Kumaritashvili. But something about his fatal crash in Vancouver hit me just so, at once blindsiding a place inside me where the beauty of life, the exhilaration of competition, the glory of human achievement, the searing pain of sudden death, and the dull ache of a lost lifetime of opportunity all improbably intersect.

There is no good way to die when you’re 21. But if you have to go at such a young age, I suppose the best way would be quickly, while doing the thing you love.

And later, to have the world bow its head for you for a few seconds. Finally, to have KD Lang offer up a heartbreaking rendition of Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” in benediction…

Rest in Peace.

Because any economic growth right now increases the prices of oil, which then strangles the economy, you must reduce dependence on oil, or you can’t fix your problems.

Because banks aren’t lending, and because they are a net drag on the economy having destroyed more wealth than they created, you must break up the major banks or take other similar actions to the same ends, or you don’t fix your problems.

Because defense spending is essentially un-productive you must end the American empire, cutting “defense” spending by at least half, and “intelligence” spending by three-quarters, or you don’t fix America.

Because education is the backbone of modern economies and good education is what allows democracies to work, as the founders understood, you must fix education, so that everyone who is qualified can get a degree without being burdened by a decade of debt and so that the the lower class is able to get through university again, or you don’t fix your problems.

For the same reasons you must fix education at the primary and secondary levels by removing it from the property tax base, or you don’t fix your problems.

Because oligopolies strangle innovation, produce inferior services and soak up oligopoly profits they haven’t earned break up your major oligopolies outside the banks, starting with the telecom companies, or you don’t fix your problems.

It’s not like he doesn’t raise some good points, you know.

Give it a read. Discuss.

Wilson was primarily famous for two things: fucking anything he could catch, and funneling arms to the Afghani mujahedeen during the country’s war against the Soviet Union. Those of us unfortunate enough to be stuck in the room during Wilson’s speech were regaled by tales of how he ignored the law, bullied, end-ran, lied and cheated to get what he wanted, and I mean all this literally. Wilson was as proud of flaunting the law as he was of his lifelong pursuit of women with obvious esteem issues.

I desperately wanted, when the self-aggrandizement ended, to force my way to the microphone. Of course, by this point in time the recession was in full swing and it struck me that getting turfed wasn’t necessarily in my best interests. So I held fire. But here’s the comment I wanted to make:

Congressman Wilson, if I understand your remarks correctly, then I suppose we have you to blame for 9/11.

I neither advocate nor condone grave-dancing, but it is nonetheless true that there are bad human beings in the world. And the world is a better place when these people move on.

Maybe I’m going to Hell for saying so. But if I do, at least I’ll finally get a chance to talk to Charlie Wilson.

Despite reports to the contrary, Scott McCarron would like to clear up his thoughts on Phil Mickelson: He never called his fellow player a “cheater.”

In a statement released Monday, McCarron discussed his original comments to the San Francisco Chronicle regarding Mickelson and other players using Ping-Eye 2 clubs that have grooves which no longer conform to USGA and PGA Tour standards, but are still considered legal because they were grandfathered in two decades ago.

“I responded, ‘It’s cheating and I am appalled Phil has put it in play,’” McCarron stated. “I never called Phil Mickelson a cheater. That being said, I want my fans, sponsors, and most importantly, my fellow players, to know that I will not be silenced and I will continue my efforts to get the groove issue resolved.”

So, if you’re keeping score, McCarron didn’t call Lefty a cheater. He said that what Lefty is doing is cheating.

By the way, I want it understood that if, in the future, I say that someone here is fucking pigs, that does not mean I’m calling you a pigfucker. Big difference.

Here’s one they didn’t do last night.

Click here to view the embedded video.

There’s more here. Happy Saturday.

Let’s begin with the Mnozil Brass:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Then there’s the Muppets:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And the UC Men’s Octet (2003):

Click here to view the embedded video.

This bit of silliness is for Brian.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Ummm, not sure what the hell to make of this.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Ten Tenors:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Old School Computer Mix (this is just feckin’ brilliant):

Click here to view the embedded video.

Another a capella take, this time from FORK:

Click here to view the embedded video.

This, from Hayseed Dixie, was completely uncalled for:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And there’s more, oh so much more. But let’s close with the original:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Happy TunesDay, folks.

Thanks to bella ragazza for the inspiration.