Boycott Ellen!

In for a Penney, in for a pound

Ellen Degeneres and JC Penney have mortally offended me!

No, I'm not talking about that silly whining from the harpies at One Million Moms (who are no better at counting than they are at living in the 21st century). My objection is to the mathematically inaccurate television ad in which Ellen dons 19th century garb and asks a milliner the price of a hat. When the lady informs her that the hat costs “fourteen pounds and ninety-pence,” Ellen responds with, “Okay, so fifteen pounds.” The lady firmly disagrees, but Ellen persists and finally gets her to admit that the stated price is as good as fifteen pounds.

Not!

The British pound was not divided into 100 pennies (the “new pence” of 1971) until the 20th century. Before that, a pound was divided into 20 shillings, each of which was worth 12 pence. If you do the math, that's 240 pence (old pennies) to the pound. If 19th-century English hat shops had been in the habit of shaving off a penny to make prices look lower, a one-penny reduction in a hat costing 15 pounds would result in a price of 14 pounds, 19 shillings, 11 pence—or £14/19/11 in the notation of the day. My penpal in Birmingham (England) used to send me letters in the 1960s whose stamps were labeled in pence, e.g.,  4d (“d” was reserved to the old penny and was replaced by “p” when the new coinage was introduced).

My trust in Ellen is shattered and I will never again take her advice on matters monetary.

The sinless Santorum

An immaculate deception

As one might expect, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a lot to say about sin. Paragraph 1849 offers a definition:

Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

I like the part about sin being “an offense against reason,” especially given the recent argument from the Catholic bishops of the United States, who consider it religious oppression if they are not allowed to truncate the health insurance coverage of their employees—at least the female ones. Reason has never been their trump card.

The Catechism explains that sin comes in various flavors and that no one can sin grievously without full knowledge:

1859. Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

Therefore sin is a conscious and deliberate act. You can't sin accidentally. This is convenient for Rick Santorum, who skirts around the fringe of grave sin by the simple expedient of not quite understanding what he's doing. And, in the unfortunate event that he does know what he's doing, he gets one more shot at pleading not guilty:

The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders.

I'm putting some money down on “pathological.”

The former senator from Pennsylvania, defrocked of his senatorial toga in a landslide repudiation in 2006, is a fervent opponent of abortion. He regards it as a sin against the Fifth Commandment (in the Catholic numbering scheme), “Thou shalt not kill.” Rick Santorum wants abortion banned—without exception. Or mostly without exception. When his wife's life was threatened by sepsis during a pregnancy gone wrong, Santorum agreed to allow doctors to induce labor to expel the infected fetus. This step, however, was apparently not taken when Mrs. Santorum's body began a premature delivery on its own. (No doubt this was done by God to preserve Santorum from accusations of having obtained an abortion for his spouse. God works in grotesque ways.)

No mortal sin there! Just a family tragedy in which difficult decisions were made, some of which Santorum would sternly forbid others to make. (It would be hypocrisy if only he were self-aware.)

The Seventh Commandment is “Thou shalt not steal.” One can break this commandment in both venial and mortal ways, rather like the distinction between misdemeanors and felonies. Where would you put $73,000 on this scale? (Yeah, me too.) That's the amount the Santorums allegedly took from the state of Pennsylvania to pay for the education of their children via an Internet-based charter school. As reported by a CBS affiliate,

Pennsylvania law requires school districts to pay for resident students who enroll in cyberschools, and Santorum at the time of the controversy said that the Penn Hills house was his family’s legal residence and that he paid taxes on it.

The Senator and his wife apparently thought (or pretended to think) that the children were eligible because their parents owned a home in the Penn Hills School District—despite the fact that the Santorums and their children were actually living in Virginia. The Pennsylvania home was used to maintain Rick Santorum's residency and eligibility to represent the state as an elected official. While his children were manifestly not resident in the Penn Hills district, Santorum argued that his use of state tax dollars to defray their homeschooling in Virginia was legitimate under Pennsylvania law. Others were not so sure.

The matter was eventually settled when Pennsylvania's education department ponied up $55,000 to pay off the Penn Hills School District. No wrongdoing was admitted by any of the parties.

No sin here!

Again, this would be hypocrisy if Santorum were consciously transgressing his own position against public education, but he's not. In my humble opinion, Rick Santorum is the most sincere politician out there. He is steeped in the self-righteousness of the True Believer and can do no wrong. He's on a mission from God and God's minions are allowed to cut corners occasionally because, hey, God is on their side. It's those other people (you know, liberals, queers, atheists, minorities, union members, etc.) who wrongly seek entitlements reserved only to the elect of God. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.

So I don't call Rick Santorum a hypocrite or a sinner. I call him a dangerously sincere fanatic. When he has finished his current strut across the political stage, let us hope he fades into the obscurity he so richly deserves. I'd pray for that, if I thought it would do any good. I'm sure Rick will be praying when it's all over: “But, Jesus! You promised to make me president of the world!”

Sorry about that, Rick. God lies a lot. He's exempt from the Eighth Commandment (the one about bearing false witness). Just ask Harold Camping. Old Harold falls for it over and over again.

Godforsaken logic

Preachy prelate plotzes

You know it's a new era when a Tory prime minister in the United Kingdom is firmly on record as supporting same-sex marriage. What's more, it seems that David Cameron is not merely paying lip service. One of Cameron's government ministers—Lynne Featherstone, the equalities minister (I didn't know that cabinet position even existed)—is pursuing an investigation into the ways and means to extend civil marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Not everyone in the Conservative Party is delighted, which is to be expected. It's also unsurprising to hear objections from the First Estate—that is, the British clergy. A particularly interesting demurer was issued by Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Of course, as a Catholic prelate he is not seated in the House of Lords. That is a privilege reserved to the Anglican bishops of the Church of England and various lords temporal. Nevertheless, O'Brien is a particularly high-ranking member of the clergy in the United Kingdom, serving as head of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. The cardinal shared his views with the Sunday Telegraph:

Redefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools, and for wider society. It will redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society. The repercussions of enacting same-sex marriage into law will be immense.

Perhaps the padre has a point: the extension of uniform marriage rights to the entire population would be a historical milestone. But is that not a good thing? Let's see what bee is buzzing in O'Brien's bonnet:

If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?

The cardinal is serving up an easy one! The school should consider dismissing the teacher on the grounds of ignorance: The Bible itself (an authoritative source where the cardinal is concerned) serves up numerous counterexamples. Solomon's multiple wives serve as a case in point, to say nothing of Jacob's marrying both Leah and her sister Rachel (plus some dalliances with their handmaidens). Even today there are many nations in which polygamy is permitted, although the United States declined to join in the fun when the Mormons advocated plural marriage. O'Brien is rather severely overstating the case when he declares that “marriage” has never meant anything other than “the union of a man and a woman.”

Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father.

The cardinal's deliberate choice of the word “deprive” makes gay marriage sound like a direct assault on the rights of children—as he explicitly intended—but the Roman Catholic Church cares less about children than it pretends. It is perfectly willing to leave children in orphanages rather than let them be adopted by loving foster parents who happen to be gay. It has also demonstrated a perfect willingness to protect child-molesting clergy in its ranks. In brief, the Church has no standing or credibility when it comes to arguing on behalf of children. None.

Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another? If marriage is simply about adults who love each other, on what basis can three adults who love each other be prevented from marrying?

Heck, I'd let them do it even if they don't pledge fidelity to one another. Consenting adults may create such marriage constellations as they wish, depending on their own decisions and willingness to persevere in the face of likely befuddled reactions from society at large. (It would, I know, puzzle me why people would want to do that, but I wouldn't consider it my call.) But the cardinal is sending up a smoke-screen. Does the desiccated old bachelor really think polyamory is going to become all the rage, wreaking confusion on all of society's functions? Hardly. Let the adventurous minority work out their own preferences and issues. O'Brien need not worry about a clamor for Church-sanctioned gang marriages.

Disingenuously, the Government has suggested that same-sex marriage wouldn’t be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is staggeringly arrogant. No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage. Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave”.

The cardinal has gone all the way from specious argument to offensive polemic. He makes his point with an analogy that would be vapid for its irrelevance if it were not so noisome. But perhaps we should thank Cardinal O'Brien for offering an argument that compares approval of same-sex marriage with the revival of slavery.

It shows the cardinal to be a fool, and such people are seldom listened to. Decent people may now go about their business and pay him no further mind.

The pope is a liar

If only he were a better Catholic!

There is a peculiar strain of conservative Catholicism that manifests itself in such religious media as EWTN and Inside the Vatican. The former is a right-wing broadcast empire and the latter is a monthly magazine. A particular virulent form of Catholic extremism popped up in the letters printed in the February 2012 issue of Inside the Vatican. An unhappy correspondent expressed his dissatisfaction with the actions of the current pope and his immediate predecessors:

You are doing a great service and I find your magazine thought-provoking and stimulating. But I find it appalling that the Vatican's strategy is to sit tight for 20 years and hope the world comes to them when there are two simple things they can do to save millions of souls in the meantime.

When will the Pope follow Our Blessed Mother's order and reveal the Third Secret of Fatima and properly consecrate Russia? How many millions must be condemned to Hell due to his intransigence? How can he profess to be the leader of the faith when he and those around him lack faith themselves? I've heard the excuse that Russia has threatened the Church if they comply with her wishes. Have they no faith? Do they not believe the Blessed Mother is more powerful than an earthly nation?

If the Blessed Mother's request at Fatima is not fulfilled, the Church that will exist in 20 years will be two decades farther away from the Church Christ created, and that is a scary thought.

The Third Secret of Fatima? What's that? And why hasn't it been revealed?

There's a funny story to that. Funny, at least, if you find religion risible and human folly amusing. The so-called Third Secret was published by John Paul II in the year 2000. It was one of three private revelations supposedly given to Lucia Santos and her cousins in 1917 by the Virgin Mary during the Blessed Mother's apparitions at Fatima in Portugal. The first two secrets were trotted out in 1941, one pertaining to a vision of hell (surprise: it's nasty) and the other predicting a second world war (already conveniently under way at the time of the “revelation”). The third, however, was apparently too horrible to contemplate. That's odd, considering the infernal content of secret No. 1.

Lucia wrote out the Third Secret and said that it could be revealed in 1960, when people might be more prepared to understand it. Pope John XXIII, however, declined to release it at that time. Neither did Paul VI or John Paul I. Forty years after Lucia's original projected release date, the Third Secret was finally revealed to the world.

And the world was disappointed.

Sure, it contained a juicy but confusing account of a massacre of clerics and lay people, including a “Bishop dressed in White” easily identified with the pope, but overall it was a dull secret with no exciting revelations. It seemed likely that John XXIII thought it unwise to release a secret that seemed to predict the assassination of a pope—and his successors thought likewise; that is, at least, until John Paul II survived an assassination attempt and decided he was himself the “Bishop dressed in White.” He also gave credit to the Virgin Mary for sparing his life (although for some reason the Blessed Mother couldn't be bothered to spare the pope his grievous wounds) and thus the prediction of papal death was vacated by the one who had supposedly made it in the first place.

All neat and tied up with a bow.

Except for the rabid Catholics who refuse to accept it. A cadre of irreconcilable Catholics—all of whom seem to consider themselves even more Catholic than the pope—insist that the Vatican is hiding the true Third Secret and refuses to come clean. The letter-writer from Inside the Vatican is clearly one of their number. He doesn't hesitate to declare that the pope is a liar who has held back the Third Secret. As far as the writer is concerned, the Third Secret has not been published, no matter what the Vatican says.

It's quite a remarkable example of overwrought Catholicism (which is already pretty knotted-up in even its mainstream manifestations). This show has legs. Pass the popcorn.

Nobody here but us chickens

“I'm not a bigot, but ...”

The president of the United States is taking full advantage of social media to promote his political initiatives and his campaign for re-election. It's a natural evolution of his successful 2008 strategy, which included a strong Internet presence. The Obama campaign has an extremely active Facebook page titled “I will vote for Obama in 2012.” The site is routinely updated with miscellaneous items covering a wide range of topics—from supposed general interest to specific campaign pitches. The site's wall attracts comments from supporters and the occasional dyspeptic opponent. The Republican candidates come in for a generous portion of abuse and ridicule, but that's understandable when they constitute such easy targets.

There is, of course, a diametrically opposed Facebook page. Someone was inspired to create the highly original “I will NOT vote for Obama in 2012.” The limitation of ALL CAPS to only one word shows a restraint not always displayed by the site's enthusiasts. You can find the usual sludge pile of birth certificate nonsense, crypto-Muslim speculation, wounded religious privilege, and shallow anti-government rhetoric. Overt racism, of course, is all but absent. It's merely the pervasive subliminal backdrop to the entire site, occasionally visible when the mask slips.

Consider the state of mind that prompts an American citizen to write this complaint (with multiple uses of [sic] understood):

This man just today put out a call for all African Americans (Negro) to vote for hime because he is black. Can we say white people should vote for white people because they re white.

“Negro”? She really thought it necessary and appropriate to insert a parenthetical Negro to explain the meaning of “African American”?

Can you say crazy-ass racist white bitch? Not that you would, of course. Nor would I. I'm sure it was just a tiny Freudian slip at the keyboard. I mean, it's not as though she wrote the dreaded N-word. Still, it speaks volumes.

Did the other commenters on the site call her out? Did they gently say, “Oh, sweetie pie, you shouldn't use an outdated racial term like that. It'll cause unnecessary offense and distract from our political message”? Heck, no. They immediately piled on with a string of complaints about how they're upset as being viewed as racists.

Hmm. There could be a reason they're viewed that way.

Just sign here

Getting serviced by the financial sector

Most junk mail is pretty easy to ignore. Of course, when it comes bearing the label of your bank, it's important to give it a quick scan to ensure the “Important Information About Your Account!” is something significant (“We are pleased to inform you that we are raising our fees to serve you better!”) and not just another gimmick to sell you something you don't want (“And our protection service comes with valuable premium points that you can redeem for free gifts and services!”). This particular letter from Bank of America offered a streamlined mortgage refinance option. I had to consider it seriously.

As a fortunate survivor of the housing bubble, I'm in a home that hasn't lost value and isn't even close to being “under water.” (Hurrah.) A few years ago I did a refinance with BofA that shaved a point off my interest rate and took my monthly payment down a notch. Was BofA's offer an opportunity to do it again? I pondered awhile, but eventually called the 800 number.

“Barbara” was delighted to receive my call. She pulled up the information on my current mortgage, asked a few questions, and then gave me a tentative quote that would have a very nice positive impact on my bottom line. I could get my mortgage rate lowered by another full point. Since I used to have a two-digit interest rate in the “good” old days, I was duly impressed that my already-low rate could go even lower. Furthermore, it looked like the streamlined process was genuinely streamlined. My previous refinance had been recent enough that BofA was waiving the appraisal and a bunch of other potentially costly (and time-consuming) hurdles in the mortgage process.

I said “looked like.” Isn't it cute how naïve I can still be, despite my advanced years and allegedly keen intellect? The first detour from the refinance superhighway seemed innocent enough, as Barbara explained that she was not a BofA employee: “I'm an independent mortgage broker who does the initial processing on each account and then turns it over to an account manager at the bank. I'm a contractor rather than a bank employee.”

“Okay, I understand,” I said. “BofA doesn't have to provide you with any benefits since you're an independent contractor.”

Barbara laughed.

“That's right, but it also frees me from the bank's schedule and it's up to me how much time I put in and how many mortgage applications I process.”

Sort of like a piece rate in a sweat-shop. But I didn't say that.

Barbara told me I would receive a couple of application forms in my e-mail. I was to fill them out and return them to Barbara's account manager. The account manager, as an actual bank employee, would take the next steps.

And that's what “Deborah” did. She sent me a nice follow-up e-mail confirming that she had received the initial refinance information from Barbara and would appreciate receiving my responses to the information forms within a week, so as to expedite the process.

It still sounded good to me.

I quickly sent in the forms and then got a second message from Deborah: Could I please submit a notarized certification of my living trust and a letter of explanation concerning some confusion over my residence address? I didn't know what a “trust cert” was, but it didn't take long to get that straightened out and obtain one. The address matter was even simpler. I sent a letter explaining that my home was in the same neighborhood as the apartment complex where I had once lived. Thus I had resided in two different locations with very similar street addresses. The confusion in my address was apparent rather than real. Please disregard the earlier (but similar) address.

Done!

Then silence. I sent Deborah a message after a few weeks. What's up with my refinance application? She wrote back that she would find out for me. But then I heard from “Liu” instead. While Deborah was on the West Coast, Liu was calling me from the East Coast. She now had my refinance application and wanted me to know it was in good shape. However, she needed me to provide a “trust cert” and a letter of explanation about a supposed ambiguity in my residence address. I explained that these had already been submitted to Deborah. Weeks ago, in fact. Liu explained in return that she did not have these documents in her Florida office and would I please send them again? It seemed the course of least resistance, so I resubmitted the information.

More waiting. We were not simply off the refinance superhighway, we were chugging along on the local bus, stopping over and over again. I finally got another message from BofA: Had I renewed my homeowner's insurance policy? Was BofA the beneficiary?

They were concerned that I had less than 90 days before my policy would lapse, so the renewal was a matter of interest to the bank. I wrote back:

“While the existing policy is less than 90 days from its expiration (though I will not let it lapse), this is not my fault. I began this refinance process in December 2011, over 50 days ago.”

So there!

I had, of course, no idea what the bank's next response would be. As it turned out, it wasn't from the bank.

“Hello, Mr. Ferox. My name is Brenda and I'm following up on your application to refinance your Bank of America home mortgage. I need to ask you just a few questions before moving your application to the next step.”

“Yes, Brenda. Thank you. What are your questions?”

“First of all, I need to know if you have a notarized certification of trust and, second, I need to get some clarification about your residential address.”

I heaved a loud sigh into the phone.

“Brenda, I have already submitted both of those things. Twice.”

There was a short pause at the other end.

“Well, that figures,” she said.

“It does?”

“Oh, yes. Happens all the time. Where did you send the information?”

“First I sent it to a BofA office in San Jose and then I sent it to a BofA office in Florida.”

“Okay,” she said. “They're passing your application along, but they're not passing along the accompanying information. I suppose it's just simpler to keep asking you to send it each time. My company works for BofA in processing loan applications and I see this all the time. Sorry.”

“So what do I do?”

“If you give me your e-mail address, I'll send you a message that you can reply to. Attach the documents again and I'll get them directly.”

“So it's just simpler if I send them again?”

“Sorry, but yes. Exactly.”

I sent them again. Three times now. And counting. The financial “services” sector seems to bear an inappropriate name.

I hope that they keep using my phone number and my e-mail address. I'm afraid that if they mail anything they'll send it to my old address. (I should probably send them an explanation!)

Snow job

Odd man out in the cold

John Christy's research paper made it into the news media. Most scientists get to work in obscurity, but climatologists garner more attention from the press than your typical researcher. Especially if, as in Christy's case, you're going against the flow. That's news.

But not really. Not in Christy's case. It's not at all surprising—or particularly newsworthy—that he's going against the flow.  He does it all the time. While Dr. Christy is an honest-to-goodness climatologist with real credentials (unlike, say, Lord Monckton or John Coleman), he is avowedly skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. That makes him a precious resource to the climate-change denialists, since the vast majority of climate scientists hold that humanity is a key factor in the warming of the earth. What the denialists tend to ignore, however, is that Christy has no doubt about the warming trend. He agrees that the earth is heating up and that straightforward temperature measurement has established that fact. Christy just disagrees that humans have anything in particular to do with it.

The people chortling about the cold snap in Europe as disproof of the global warming prefer that you not listen to Christy in that case. The denialists can't be too choosy, however, so they'll clutch Christy to their bosom despite his unwillingness to embrace the warming-is-a-lie hypothesis. Besides, he just gave them something useful to cite.

As reported in Wednesday's edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, Christy has concluded that California's Sierra Nevada has remarkably resilient snowfall. He has analyzed snowfall data back into the 19th century and determined to his own satisfaction that snowfall on the Sierra's western slope has been consistent for well over a century. In particular, he sees no sign that Sierra snow has been on a downward trend during the recent half-century in which global temperatures have been inching upward.

His conclusion, though, is a bit of a puzzler. First of all, Christy apparently used snow depth rather than snow water content for his analysis. Critics like Mike Dettinger of the U.S. Geological Survey declared that water content and snow density are crucial factors that should not be ignored. In addition to Dettinger's concern, cited in KQED's Climate Watch, Professor Roger Bales of UC Merced said, “It’s not surprising he didn’t find a trend because he lumped everything together.”

Then, of course, you have the graph of Christy's data, represented by a graph published by LA Weekly. It bears the label “Journal of Hydrometeorology” and is therefore presumably the graph from Christy's recently published research paper. Give it a good look. I haven't seen the paper itself and I do not know whether Christy did any kind of regression on the data to check for trends, but the dark line of moving averages spends less and less of its time above the 1.0 line as the years go by. Was I not supposed to see that?

Dates in conflict

Personal priorities and education

“Rob” was a good student, so I was unaccustomed to having him linger after class to ask questions. To make things even more unusual, Rob insisted on waiting till everyone else was gone from the room. Evidently he did not want any classmates to overhear his question. Rather tentatively, he voiced his query:

“Is it okay if I take our next exam a day early? On Thursday instead of Friday?”

Oh, no problem. I can answer that question easily: No.

I was, however, nice enough to give Rob a reason:

“Sorry, that's not possible. The exam doesn't even exist until the night before. I don't finish writing it till we've had our review session.”

In fact, I sometimes tweak an exam after I find out what students have questions about. If we spend a lot of time on a particular topic, I want to be sure that the topic is not neglected on the exam. For example, if my students want to work especially intensely on mixture problems, then I'm more likely to choose a problem of that type to include among the various application exercises on the exam. (And—I admit it—I don't worry too much about the likelihood that this slightly disadvantages the students who choose to skip the review session.)

Furthermore, I dislike the very notion of giving exams early. The student who gets special treatment by getting the exam in advance is obviously subject to the temptation to leak information to friends in the class. The less opportunity for that, the better.

Rob seemed to be surprised by my answer. Perhaps he had had instructors in the past who wrote all of their exams at the beginning of the semester. Not me. I'm much more adaptive than that. Or less farseeing.

Rob was also dismayed by my answer.

“It's not really my fault, Dr. Z. I got tickets to a concert before the semester started, and I wasn't expecting to enroll in a class that met on Fridays.”

“Nevertheless, that's what you did, Rob. The conflict is of your own making. You have a conflict between our exam date and the concert date. I don't have a good way to accommodate that and it's not my problem to resolve it anyway.”

“Well, could I take the exam later? Would that be okay?”

“Sorry, Rob. Think about it. I post the solution key on-line right after the exam. I'd have to withhold it from your classmates all weekend and leave them in suspense so that you could be accommodated. They wouldn't get the answers until Monday, until after you've taken the exam.”

Rob hesitated a moment.

“Oh, I was meaning to tell you. I'm going to be out on Monday, too.”

The conversation ended soon after that.

The empty threat

Donohue unfriends the president

The funniest message in my in-box this week was from the Catholic League. I started laughing the moment I saw its title in my list of the day's e-mail: “Obama pushed us too far”

Resident Catholic League curmudgeon and president Bill Donohue was putting President Obama on notice that mandates for birth-control coverage would spark heated opposition from the Catholic League and its allies, especially if they could succeed in tarting it up as an assault on religious freedom. The risible part is obvious, right? Donohue and his ilk enlisted in the spittle-spraying opposition to Obama a long time ago. How is it even possible for Donohue to be “pushed too far” when he is already the fringiest of the nation's nutcase right wing?

Of course, Donohue is making the argument that Obama has overreached in such a way that the extremist Catholics now have a host of new allies:

President Evil!

We have been inundated with support from Protestants, Jews, Mormons, and others. When the federal government seeks to impose a radical secular agenda on religious entities, denying them the right to exercise their doctrinal prerogatives, it is trampling on the First Amendment rights of the faithful.

I have no doubt that Donohue's phone has been ringing off the hook in a gratifyingly cacophonous way, but how many of his callers were ever Obama allies in the first place? (Hint: Approximately zero.)

While I have every intention of voting for Obama's re-election this year, I have never numbered myself among his most enthusiastic supporters. Simple  realpolitik, however, makes it clear that a second term for the president is the best outcome we can hope for when the alternatives are either hollow men like Romney, egomaniacs like Gingrich, or religious fanatics like Santorum. A Republican administration headed by any of the current candidates would almost certainly destroy support for civil liberties in the Supreme Court for a generation, while more Obama appointments like Sotomayor and Kagan would keep hope alive (or actually increase it, if we were so fortunate as to witness a retirement by Scalia or Thomas).

The president compromises too quickly and too much in too many cases, in my humble opinion, and is a much greater fan of incrementalism than I am (health care public option, dammit!), but all the steps in the right direction, large or small, will be swept away if Obama is defeated. The current hyped-up controversy over birth-control coverage appears to be yet another instance of the president advancing a policy and then quickly backing away from it. I've seen plenty of muttering about this new example of Obama's unwillingness to stick to his guns. This time, however, I wonder.

Although the Catholic bishops and Donohue are chortling over the supposed rebuke to Obama's new healthcare initiative and whining that his hasty retreat doesn't go far enough, it's not clear to me that the president has suffered a defeat. While practical questions of implementation remain, Obama's revised policy includes two strikingly opposite key features: (1) an opt-out option for religious employers who oppose contraception and (2) free coverage of contraception for the employees whose employers opt out. There is, of course, dark muttering about how the “free” coverage will be absorbed (or “hidden”) in the costs for basic healthcare packages, but the president now gets to claim that he addressed the bishops' concerns without revoking the basic mandate of birth control coverage for everyone.

That latter point is undoubtedly something that will rankle the Catholic League and other anti-contraception fanatics. Let's not forget, however, what a small group this is. We're not even talking about abortion here (although Donohue will blusteringly disagree). We're talking about things like The Pill. Plenty of people—even those who describe themselves as pro-choice—have some qualms about abortion. Very few, however, see any problem with ready access to birth control pills. Obama's strategic retreat aligns his administration with birth-control coverage policies in many states while reminding the nation at large that the Catholic League and the bishops do not represent them.

Advantage: Obama.

Hooked on classics

But not reeled in

Credit must be given where credit is due to those seducers at KXPR. They have been giving it their best shot lately, trying to lure me in with the tender strains of my favorite music. I was surprised the other morning to begin my day with Prokofiev's Piano Concerto No. 1. Okay, perhaps “tender strains” is not an appropriate description, but I love Prokofiev's amusingly goofy, repetitive, and relentless composition. Short, sweet, and hugely entertaining.

My irritation with KXPR was momentarily assuaged. Over breakfast, before I could fully restore my attitude of righteous wrath, the radio station hit me with Rimsky-Korsakov's Russian Easter Festival Overture. Damn! I'm happy again. Then Korngold's lushly lyrical violin concerto. Those bastards are really trying to wrestle me into submission.

The onslaught continued. They broadcast Dvořák's Seventh Symphony (as if momentarily forgetting that they usually never air any of Dvořák's work except the Ninth—“From the New World”; it was apparently time for them to make their annual exception).

It couldn't continue indefinitely, of course, given that KXPR is no longer a 24-hour classical-radio station (more on that anon). But damned if they weren't quick to recover after the evening intrusion of jazz, giving me both Prokofiev's First Symphony (“The Classical”) and Beethoven's Leonore Overture No. 3 (but why not No. 2?). I admit I was impressed that day.

But I'm still brooding.

I have a love-hate relationship with KXPR which has lasted several years. Back when I was a member in good standing, the Sacramento-based public-radio station pulled “Says You” off its schedule. I waxed wroth, because I never missed that delightful word-game show. During KXPR's next pledge drive (gosh, I hate those!), I made a point of not renewing my membership. I did call in a pledge, but I specifically told the person on the other end of the phone line that I was contributing n − 1 dollars, where n dollars was the standard membership level.

The volunteer was dismayed, of course, pointing out that I would not qualify for the many wonderful benefits of membership, including the monthly newsletter. I stood my ground and became one of the station's few contributors who was not also a “member.” Eventually, I sort of forgave them and acquired a full membership again.

Then the bastards switched frequencies between their classical music station and their news/jazz station. KXPR was relegated to the weaker of the two signals provided by Capital Public Radio. Again, I was mightily irritated and let my membership lapse (although my mail-box and CapRadio's fundraising people continue to see each other behind my back quite regularly). Recently, however, I was beginning to weaken. Surely I should show some appreciation for the fact that I lived within the broadcast range of the only 24-hour classical-music public-radio station in northern California. Even San Francisco didn't have one! (Recently, however, KDFC stepped into that breach.)

I should have known. CapRadio announced in January that KXPR would no longer be a 24-hour classical-music station. Nope. Not anymore! They were going to abandon their jazz fans on KXJZ and jam a few remnants of the jazz programming into a four-hour block on KXPR, thus cheesing off both jazz and classical music lovers. KXPR is now a dead zone for me from 7:00 till 11:00 every evening. CapRadio managed to figure out a lose-lose situation.

They don't see it that way, you understand. They're proud of their decision, as they explained to the Sacramento Bee:

Rich Eytcheson, Capital Public Radio general manager and president, feels the station knows what the public wants.

“We get ratings and we can tell–hour by hour–what people are listening to,” Eytcheson said. And what they are listening to most is news radio, he said.

Um, excuse me. “Ratings”? What the hell do ratings have to do with public radio. What the heck is membership for if you're going to treat your broadcast outlet like all the commercial stations out there? Does the “public” part even mean anything anymore. Should the peasants rise up with their pikes and staves and explain things to Eytcheson?

CapRadio provided the same sort of happy talk on its own website:

We feel that these changes best respond to our news and information listeners' requests, while at the same time honor our music listeners by continuing to provide the best jazz and classical service in our communities.

I guess when you're the only jazz and classical service in the greater capital region (extended by a number of repeater stations down the valley), you can lower the bar quite a bit and still be the best. Way to play word games, guys! (So why the hell did you cancel “Says You,” if you like word games so much?)

I'm still simmering, so perhaps I should paw through the stuff stashed in the garage and see if I can find an old pike or staff. And perhaps during the next pledge drive I'll offer my irksome pledge of n − 1.