Posted 4 years ago in the early afternoon by oso
Updated: 11/12/04
Laura and I were somewhere in Mexico - I think it was Cuernavaca - and we were watching Cien Mexicanos Dijeron (”100 Mexicans Said”). I hate the show, but I’ll admit I got sucked into it because it was so god damned funny. It works just like its Yanqui counterpart (is it called “Survey Says?”) where a question is asked to a team of five and they have to give the top five responses according to … you guessed it, 100 Mexicans.
The question was, “who was or is the smartest person in the history of the world?”
- Jesus Christ
- Einstein
Though Jesus Christ gave me a chuckle (just like Bush did when he cited Heysoose as his favorite political philosopher), I wasn’t at all surprised. Einstein (or Einsteeen) was obviously going to make the list as well. But what really got me rolling - until Laura elbowed me because she was going to miss the rest of the list - was number three.
The third most intelligent person in the entire world? Plato? Aristotle? Kant? Nietzche? Galileo? Stephen Hawking?
Cien Mexicanos dijeron that Benito Juárez was number three, right there behind Einstein. I laughed and I laughed and I laughed until I think Laura sent me out for some mantecadas so she could watch her show in peace.
Only now do I realize how wrong I was. Juarez’s legacy is so strong because, after driving the French out of Mexico (for which we - and the Corona distillery - celebrate Cinco de Mayo), he transformed Mexico from a Roman Catholic theocracy to a secular “coulda-been” democracy.
To this day, Mexico and the rest of Latin America - despite being 90% Catholic - is far more secular than the United States. WaPo columnist Marcela Sanchez makes the point beautifully in her piece Faith in Politics Can Lead to Different Priorities. We in America desperately need a reformer like Juarez - someone who was himself a devout Franciscan Catholic trained in a seminary - to explain the importance of secularism in a functioning democracy. When I watch CSPAN and see Newt Gingrich explain to a conservative special interests group that the first priority project for Republicans this term is to ensure our country is ruled as “one nation, under [his] God,” I am scared shitless. I am scared shitless because I know longer have faith in my initial response to Elenita’s comment. Though I still believe there is only a small amount of Americans who want to turn this country into a Christian theocracy, it’s increasingly apparent that they are either in or very close to power.
I was watching a media roundtable on CSPAN a couple nights ago and one of the editors of Newsweek responded to an audience member who said the media wasn’t doing enough reporting on the increasingly blurred line between church and state. Though he had been defending the media throughout the evening, for the first time he said “you know what, you’re right. That is one place where we have failed.” Then he went on to talk about morning prayer circles that have been going on at the National Institutes of Health which haven’t been reported anywhere in the media. (He’s right, a google search will only show a study in which the NIH says praying will keep you healthy)
There are plenty of bright minds in the clergy who understand the importance of secularism in governance. We need one of them - someone from inside the church - to start a movement ensuring freedom of religion, but also complete separation of church and state.
Computer scientists, tech enthusiasts, and geeks around the world were united in disgust this morning over a New York Times front page article on digital archiving. It’s a topic that desperately needs coverage, but not in the way the NY Times did it. The article recommends that you keep all your old hardware because new hardware might not support old file formats. It says print out your documents because ink lasts longer than CD-R’s. It says to print out all your photos because photo paper lasts 75 - 100 years while old folders of pictures from your summer trip to Hawaii could be lost on a large hard drive.
It is frightening that sources as supposedly informed as the New York Times can be so idiotic when it comes to technology. The article should have discussed XML and how important the current fight to get Microsoft to unequivocally support XML in future editions of Office is. As it stands now, Microsoft still wants to put in a binary layer into all of it’s file formats so that they can only be read by certain programs. Full fledged support of XML would mean that any program could read any file and that all future file formats would be backwards compatible. Since I’m digitally archiving my entire existence right now, it’s important to me that I won’t need to reformat the files I’m saving and the metadata I’m recording. So far I only feel comfortable with my music collection. I realize I’m going to have to go back into my pictures and update my metadata into XMP format and my Office (text, presentation, spreadsheet) documents probably into Open Office’s XML based format.
Then after all that is done I still need to figure out the best way to store all the data. I bought a DVD burner (Raman, give it back), but I’m not sure if it’s better to store all that info 5 gigabytes at a time or in one 250 gigabyte external hard drive. They each have their advantages and disadvantages.
Last week I went to see the Venezuelan Ambassador to the US speak at UCSD. He didn't show. A couple weeks before Bush's re-election, Condaleezza Rice made some inflammatory remarks about Hugo Chavez in an obscure interview with some Pittsburgh daily. The story got picked up on the Latin American news wire and after Bush's victory, Chavez demanded his ambassador stay put in D.C. In fact, Rice said precisely:
I think President Hugo Chavez is a real problem. I think he will continue to find ways to subvert democracy in his own country. He will continue to find ways to make his neighbors miserable. He will continue his contacts with Fidel Castro, maybe giving Castro one last fling to try to affect the politics of Latin America, which is not a good thing. He’s involved in ways in Colombia with the FARC (Marxist rebels) that are unhelpful.
The key there is to mobilize the region to both watch him and be vigilant about him and to pressure him when he makes moves in one direction or another. We can’t do it alone. This is a region where if we try to do it alone, we actually probably strengthen him. But the OAS (Organization of American States) can do a lot. We’re hopeful that the recognition that he’s not following a democratic course will help mobilize the OAS to do that. They have done it before — with Peru they did it. Watching his activities and making it costly at least politically for Chavez to carry out anti-democratic activities either at home or in the region is really about where we are.1
I don’t know what’s more frightening: the fact that Rice’s interview wasn’t picked up anywhere in the major press or that she could soon be our Secretary of State:
Condoleezza Rice, the president’s national security adviser, is considered a possible successor to either Rumsfeld or Powell. She has let it be known that she does not want to remain in her current role in the second term, and officials say her path is up or out.1
Equally frightening is Andres Oppenheimer’s opinion that the Neocons are now “dealing with two Latin Americas.” So when Condoleezza Rice says there is a need to “mobilize the region” she’s talking specifically about Chile, Peru, and Colombia - Chile and Colombia especially have been chummy with the US seeking favors in the FTAA negotiations. But when Rice says Chavez “will continue to find ways to make his neighbors miserable” she’s just talking plain nonsense. It’s no longer Chavez and Fidel against the world. Latin America is undergoing a very leftist realignment and Rice’s bull-headed (lack of) diplomacy certainly won’t help US relations with our Sourthernly neighbors.
I am absolutely addicted beyond all cure to podcasts. It has changed my daily routine and I promise you it will one day change yours as well. It was slow acceptance on my part. The day ipodder 1.0 came out I had a few friends email me about the program. (it is now much improved with version 1.1) A couple days later I downloaded it and started adding some feeds out of the ipodder directory. It was a painful process. I should have gone with the most popular but instead I subscribed to the feeds that sounded cool like “webmaster cookbook” which it turned out was a series put on by some obsessive compulsive dad lecturing his son instead of building a website. A good lesson in bad parenting. Finally though I got settled to listening to absolutely everything on IT Conversations, Adam Curry’s (yes, the old MTV v-jay) Daily Source Code, and The National Radio Project. I’m too lazy to find all the links right now, but if you want a good introduction to podcasting and a really important discussion on where it’s heading, check out this podcasting roundtable from last week’s BloggerCon. (You can listen to it on your computer or any mp3 player - it doesn’t have to be an iPod)
Update: Jessica sent me this email:
oso picoso,
i was looking at the bbc webpage “in quotes: world reacts to us poll” and found the funniest quote from the jesus perez, the foreign minister of venezuela:
Jesus Perez, Venezuelan Foreign Minister:
“We will hope that in this second mandate we can improve our relations.”
“We are dancing the tango. When you are dancing the tango and your toe is stepped on, hurting your toe, you complain. If it is stepped on harder, you complain again. There’s a whole game, but we are prepared to continue dancing the tango.”
It was super funny to read because all of the other quotes from presidents/vice-presidents/foreign ministers were (i know you’re thinking this doesn’t sound like me…) FULL OF SHIT.
That’s all…you should share the quote on your website…people will like it.
Good stuff amigo. I think there are some problems with your idea of secularism however. If you are talking from a constitutional perspective, which is pretty much the only background we have to insist on secularism other than political philosophy, there are serious limitations. First of all there is no doubt, historically speaking, that the founder’s had no problem whatsoever with God in politics. The Declaration on Independence says ” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (emphasis - but not capitalization - added). The 1st amendment makes it clear that Congress cannot make a law endorsing any particular religion, but God has always been a part of the process and I’m not sure that we can remove that. Actually our separations between church and state are pretty much superficial - ahead of their time, but not as radical as they could (should?) have been. Also, can you ask a religiously-minded person not to consider their religious beliefs when making political decisions? I think that is not only impossible but foolish. So what is the answer? Elect people who share your values and religion (or lack thereof) and who you trust to make rational (or irrational) decisions. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there is not much else we can do than that if we profess to stay true to the constitution. As always though, I’m open to suggestions.
And how could I forget “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
The separation was one of Church and State, not religion and state.
btw…definately going to check out the podcast thing.
I’d like to think of myself as Juarez on a very small scale, at least in terms of being the smartest person in this history of the world. I’m religious, Christian, and orthodox at that, but recognize how crucial it is that religious leanings be kept far, far away from legislation. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that the people looking to create a Christian theocracy are that much of a minority, as evidenced by what happened on Nov. 2nd. Now, I agree with Abogado that removing the idea of “one nation under God” is impossible, and frankly, doesn’t serve much of a purpose. I don’t see any harm from paying homage to a Creator. What’s crucial is that it doesn’t become “one nation under the Episcopal church’s Jesus” or “one nation under Pope John Paul.” From an orthodox Christian point of view, it’s not only the state that, in principle, needs to embrace secularism, but the church as well. I’ve had long discussions with some very informed clergy in my church about it and there’s no disagreement over the necessary separation of church and state. Sadly, it’s the less informed that feel vindicated enough in their beliefs to stupidly feel the need to enforce those beliefs on others, at the cost of the freedoms the ideals of this country ensure. Did that make sense? Anyway, I’ll gladly take on the role of the New Juarez, the smartest man in the world…again.
First of all, I hate the word secularism because it’s so damn imprecise. The difference between atheism, materialism, humanism, and secularism is difficult to define exactly.
I agree that from a Constitutional perspective, you can’t deny that religion (branches of Christianity) plays a big part in defining our country and our legal system. I mean, we have to put our hand on a fucking bible in court.
I’m talking more about comparitive sociology. I don’t exactly have an answer - and I wouldn’t give Benito Juarez all the credit - but, despite the fact that so many more Latin Americans define themselves as Catholic or religious and despite the rampant corruption, religion is much less influential in elections and politics.
And when the church does get involved, it is mostly for the left. (the one exception is the abortion issue in Mexico)
So I’m not at all trying to say that the United States is constitutionally secularist. But I think a comparative study of secularism in the United States and either Mexico or all of Latin America would be very interesting.
I sound like such a fucking pocket protectored, 4-eyed, stuttering embecile on this thing.
Paul, I forgot to write that 100 Mexicans said Paul Farag was the 4th smartest person in the history of the world. I don’t know how “Beni” beat you man.
It’s all a stupid popularity contest. Einstein shamelessly bribed the 100 Mexicans to get his spot.
Family Feud motherfucker.
Totally different strain of discussion here, but FYI, the metadata in Tiger will be all XML-based. It’s totally intergrated into the OS, including the Terminal. As a result, even formats that have choked on command-line work (e.g., jpegs) will be manipulated through your favorite shell.
There’s nothing quite like messing around with data and data about data in Unix.
Abogado, what do you mean by “religious beliefs when making political decisions”. I am a pseudo-practicing Catholic, I only go to mass once every two months or so. I believe in God, Jesus Christ and claro La Virgen de Guadalupe, but I do not ever want politics in my religon or religion in my politics. I think the question becomes, what is “politics”?
Paul, why shouldn’t we remove the word “God” from basic things like our money. Their are USians who do not believe in a God or Gods. I might, and you might, but why should they have to have faith in a God? Or be told that one exisits since we trust in “it”.
Oso, I was in México when Zedillo was running for president. He had a rally and had marched down the street with a large poster of La Virgen behind him. It made the news, was a huge controversy, and I believe he was fined because it is illegal to use a religous symbols in political campagins.
Can you please explain what you mean your views on the word “secularism”.
Bobby ¡Cien Mexicanos! Y no hay que ser tan vulgar.
Elanamary - When faced with a difficult decision how can a person (say a President, legislator or parent) act without considering their most basic beliefs and principles? I am not religious per se, but I know that I could not act in such a disconnected way. Even as an athiest (or at best agnostic) I can appreciate the fact that religion (as a set of moral principles) must guide a person in making decisions. That does not mean they should consult the Bible or the Pope or even a pastor or ask “what would jesus do?” every time they pass a law. I’m simply thinking that it is unrealistic to ask a politician to separate her actions from her beliefs. Maybe I mean moral beliefs more than religious ones, but I think they are inherently linked and would be surprised to hear that religious-minded people separate the two.
Elenita,
That’s sweet…I can’t wait for Tiger.
Elenamary,
What’s important, I think, is keeping legislation free of religion. Slogan that are printed on money and what not are just historical references, at best. You could follow your argument to it’s logical conclusion and take references to religious beliefs of the founding fathers out of history books as well. Maybe that’s not the best example, but, while I don’t disagree with you, I don’t think it’s imperative to keeping the state and the church free of one another.
Abogado,
I agree and disagree. You can’t completely seperate religious or spiritual beliefs from political decisions, but you can (as I’d like to think I do) understand that religious beliefs aren’t healthy for society to legislate and incorporate into the political structure of society and thus, while not letting go of those beliefs, keep them seperate from said decisions…to an extent.
Paul–I did some looking, and there’s more about metadata and Spotlight in the ADC Tiger Overview Propoganda. One of the things I’m looking forward to the most–assuming it works as advertised–is the ability to import metadata from unsupported and/or proprietary formats.
Anyway, sorry for interrupting the morality and legislation discussion.
Holy shit (literally), have you guys heard of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004? No? Probably because you don’t read the Russian papers. How in the hell isn’t this getting covered in the US media?
I had not heard of that, but the article is right, check out the text:
“the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.’”
It was, of course, intorduced by Judge Roy Moore of Ten Commandments fame, which suggests to me that it is a similarly motivated poltical ploy. It looks to me like it is not as far-reaching as they make it out to be,but it is not something to be taken lightly.
Of course it’s a political ploy. But it’s also an excellent opportunity. This is exactly what I’m talking about - a moderate from the church (certainly not an Athiest) - needs to take a stand and say something like “while we believe it’s important to acknowledge God as our creator, we do not agree with legislation that defines him as the “sovereign source of law.”
I mean, those are four frightening words and they should be condemned outright.
seem to have condemned the idea.
Nice. Good find hombre. That’s exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. How’d you hear about it?
Whoaaaaaaaaaaa!
Jesus was listed as number 1?
*snow skiier talk* Kewl dude! Aaaaall right!