Katrina's toll

I have to admit that I'm in agreement with the opening to the Guardian's editorial this morning.

There were times this week, even after the storm had struck, when it seemed that the threat to America's Gulf coast from Hurricane Katrina might have been exaggerated. The overhyping of American weather dramas is not, after all, an unknown phenomenon, on both sides of the Atlantic. Yet two days on it is clear that Katrina's destructive potential has been under-, not overstated.

I was watching the news as the storm hit New Orleans and was convinced it wasn't all that bad. I'm not sure what had convinced me of that, but I'd guess it was a lot to do with past experience. How many times have we been wound up by over-excited 24 hours news channels and meteoroligists caught up in their own excitement?

That's what I'm wondering about today. Were so many people killed by the "crying wolf" phenomenon? From what I can gather more than 100,000 people didn't evacuate from New Orleans. I'm sure it was a similar reaction all along the gulf coast. Did those people figure it wasn't going to be as bad as the weathermen were talking about?

There have been big storms in the past, but the loss of life has never been that significant (Hurricane Andrew was responsible for 15 deaths, but I've read before that the number of people killed in traffic accidents and through homicides and suicides was zero and that the total death toll for the region was not much different than a normal day).

Even if I'm right about why so many chose not to evacuate, I'm not sure there's much that can be done about it. Asking television news presenters to be less sensationalist is like asking a dog not to bark. It's just not going to happen. And, I'm not sure you can prevent meteoroligists from getting excited about occasional phenomena like hurricanes. Besides, it's possible that they can't really distinguish between a storm that will damage a lot of property but kill very few and one like Katrina, which has killed hundreds and destroyed entire cities.

Savage irony

That's how Eamonn Dunphy described the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. "Savage irony" because (I think) the US didn't sign the Kyoto accord & this storm may have (big may) been aided by climate change. What an ignorant moron.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the US is actually closer to complying with its limits under Kyoto than is Ireland, which actually signed up. If true, then it would be savage irony if Dublin were evacuated due to flooding and towns from Belfast to Wexford were destroyed with hundreds of lives lost.

Reducing class size – a waste of money?

A new Canadian report seems to indicate just that. I've come across this before, accidentally (I may have mentioned this before). Years ago I was helping my wife's friend, who was not computer literate, polish off her dissertation on autism for her MEd with the latest in Word Processing technology.

Anyway, in one of the appendices of her report was a reference to a study of London primary schools that indicated that smaller class sizes provided no appreciable benefit. I was surprised by this because it ran counter to everything I'd ever heard about schools and the need for smaller classes.

I don't know if there have been similar studies done here, but this report from Canada has some interesting facts. Try this:

It is far from clear, however, that reducing class size is the most costeffective strategy available to raise young pupils'’ achievement, particularly in the case of the later primary and secondary grades, where smaller classes have not been shown to produce tangible achievement gains. Those likely to gain most from smaller classes generally are teachers whose work-loads are eased somewhat with fewer students.

Whoa! Teachers unions won't like that. And, what's more, even though the youngest children do get some benefit from smaller classes, those benefits are small and they vanish by the time the children have finished the second or third grade (age 8 or 9).

Some countries, such as "South Korea, with very large class sizes, routinely outperform richer countries, such as the U.S. and Canada, where classes are much smaller". Of course, why this should be is important. The author offers some evidence to show that the quality of teachers declines as class sizes shrink. Smaller classes means more teachers, which means you must lower your standards to fill the new jobs.

If our government wasn't so firmly in the grasp of the teachers' unions, we might have a proper debate on this issue. However, teachers are one of those professions that dominates our political class (along with publicans and lawyers).

NOTE: if you read the report you'll see a reference to another report that talks about the experience in Ireland. However, this is a misprint as it is Iceland and not Ireland that is mentioned in the other report.

Little orange box

Just realized that when I was working on the RSS feed for the Newshound that I made a comment about the "little orange box" in the lower right column indicating that an RSS feed was available.

Thanks to an e-mail from a friend of mine today, I realize that the little orange box – – is not a feature of Internet Explorer. I so rarely use IE these days that I had forgotten to check it. Stupid really, since more than 90% of the Newshound users are still using IE.

Anyway, the orange box is a feature of Firefox that allows you to use live bookmarks. I see it as a sign that a site has an RSS feed, but I'm probably wrong to so closely associate the two.

Any help?

I've been having this odd problem lately and was wondering if anyone out there has any ideas as to (a) cause and (b) cure. When my laptop starts up (Win2000) the system date is wrong. It's always off by a month. Usually, it has moved on exactly one month. The most recent occurrence (this morning) was different. The month changed back to January and the clock was exactly an hour slow (making me think the clock reverted to GMT for winter month).

I've had this laptop for 3 1/2 years (Dell Inspiron 2500). Based on what I've learned over the years and what I've been able to find online, I suspect it's the CMOS battery. What I want to know is: do laptops have a CMOS battery and, if yes, how hard is it to replace one?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Talk radio

For the past month or so I've been listening to a lot of talk radio from the US. Most of it of the "right wing" variety. I have to say, I'm disappointed (and, clearly, I'm not just another "left wing" person whining about talk radio – I had high hopes).

The whole political talk radio phenomenon happened after I left the US. I've heard Rush Limbaugh occasionally on vacation, enough to recognize his voice and I've heard of many of the others. I've even listened to them intermittently since I got broadband in the summer of '03.

It's only in the last month, however, that I've really spent time listening. I guess I didn't really know what to expect, but I suppose I was expecting some form of radio version of The Corner.

I read "right wing" online publications and generally enjoy them. Although there's a lot of agreement, there's also a good deal of debate. The positions, whether I agree or not, are generally reasonably stated and supported with arguments and evidence. From what I've heard of these radio programs they are so much less than that.

Maybe that's to be expected. Maybe the audience for National Review or Weekly Standard or even New Criterion is simply not the same as the audience for these talk radio programs, I don't know. Rather than engaging the listener most of it seems to be battering him into submission. Sean Hannity in particular just rubs me up the wrong way.

Programs I've tried:

• Rush Limbaugh
• Sean Hannity
• Laura Ingraham
• Morning in America with Bell Bennett

Benedict XVI & Muslims

David Quinn, in a column in last week's Sunday Independent, claims the Pope doesn't believe that Islam and democracy can co-exist. Quinn's focus is the Pope's recent meeting with Muslims in Germany where he spoke about terrorism and his views on Turkey's bid to join the EU. Quinn also mentions a 1996 book where the Pope expressed doubts about Islam living with democracy.

Eight years ago, in the book Salt of the Earth he expanded at some length on why Islam, unless it changes radically, in reality becoming something other than Islam, will always have difficulty co-existing peacefully with democracy.

He pointed out that Islam has no concept whatsoever of Church/State separation. Christianity has always accepted that certain things belong to Caesar, and certain other things belong to God, even if Church and State have often fought bitterly over the exact lines of demarcation.

But Islam thinks everything belongs to God, that nothing belongs to Caesar, and that the law must reflect this in its totality.

I suppose this isn't news and I know there are a lot of people who believe this as well. I have friends here who were anti-war for a host of reasons, partly because they believe that Muslims – in Europe (where they'll become violent in response to decisions they don't like) and in the Middle East (where despotism is 'natural') – are incapable of being democrats.

I guess what surprises me about the Pope's view is that Catholics were once similarly considered incapable of being democrats. Unthinking loyalty to the Pope was all they could manage.

I reject all of this. Sure they may be elements of Islam that conflict with democracy, but there are elements of Catholicism that conflict with democracy too. People cope. I just don't accept that Muslims would be any different with regards to (a) wanting a say over how they are governed and (b) wanting some basic guarantees on human rights, etc. Sure, some of those rights may be a little different than those we insist on in the post-Christian west, but so what?

Everything I've seen in the Iraq debate convinces me that Muslims can do democracy, but they might have difficulty with the cobbled together Arab states they've been bequeathed. These problems are not much different than those that have arisen in Europe once or twice in the past.

World Youth Day

Yesterday at Mass two girls of about 17 or 18 gave us a summary of what they saw and did at World Youth Day in Cologne. They seemed like very nice girls, but as they were talking my mind drifted back to when I was 17 or 18.

When I was 17 or 18 people like these girls used to put me off. I could never be so earnest. Or, even more difficult, was being so nice. Being nice never came naturally to me. Sure I could be nice when I really thought I had to, when the situation really called for it, but I couldn't do nice 24/7. Too much of a strain.

That was (and is) my impression of people like these young girls. They're always nice. One of my best friends in high school (a Protestant) used to go to Protestant Youth meetings at the urging of his mother. He wasn't that upset about it, however, because one of the best looking girls in school was a regular attendee.

I remember telling him (and he had less of a capacity for nice than I had), "Even if you succeed (with the girl) will you be able to endure all that pleasantness? I just couldn't do it".

That's my impression of World Youth Day – a million nice people in their late teens and early twenties. I hope the Germans coped better than I could have.

Just in case you think I hadn't noticed . . .

The NY Mets are surging. Front and back page of today's NY Post.

UPDATE Aug 29: Reality intruded on our dreams this weekend.

Old toys

I've been dutifully doing my part in the minor repairs and renovations around the house this past few weeks (is painting the walls a woman's job or a man's job? I really don't know — not that I could get out of it anyway). Lots of cleaning and getting rid of old stuff too.

Thanks to the on-going aging of our children we are left with a lot of toys (at least three black bags full) that are now redundant as the youngest has outgrown them. None of these toys is brand new, but all are in working order. If I thought there was a charity that would take them, I'd clean them up. Failing that, can toys be recycled or should I just throw them away? If they can be recycled, where do I need to go with them? {Within reasonable range of south Dublin, of course.}

Seminoles, Illini, etc.

It's good to see that sense has prevailed in the NCAA. The Florida State Seminoles will be removed 'from the list of universities banned from using what it called "hostile and abusive" mascots and nicknames during postseason play'. Florida State had the backing of the local Seminoles and those in Oklahoma.

The NCAA has said it will now handle appeals on a 'case-by-case' basis. This is a step in the right direction, but an even better idea would be to take Florida State as a model and see if other colleges and universities can work out similar arrangements with those tribes from whom they took their nicknames and mascots.

I understand that many of these nicknames and mascots were born of bigotry and racism, but most of that is gone today and the nicknames actually represent an opportunity for the tribes to get some recognition. For example, if it weren't for watching college basketball I'd have never heard of the Illini.

Objecting to names like Redskins makes sense to me, but protesting against names like Fighting Illini or Fighting Sioux seems counter-productive. The name Fighting Irish was born of bigotry, but is now a source of pride among those who are descended from the victims of that bigotry. The same should be possible for the indian tribes.

And, another thing about those EPO tests

Why not go back and test other athletes' samples? What about, say, the winners of the French Open from 1999 or other years? Or, even better, why not test the winners of the 1998 World Cup, which was held in France. Surely those samples are still available, no?

Maybe anti-Americanism isn't the motivation for this move against Armstrong, but until I read that L'Équipe is investigating some other big name, non-American athlete I'll remain suspicious.

Another thing about the Armstrong tests

Why wait until now to test his 1999 sample? It could have been tested at any time. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that the Tour director and others knew about this for years. However, they kept it to themselves waiting for when Armstrong had retired so that (a) they could discredit him, but (b) not lose out on all that American money that Armstrong brought to the Tour.

Cynical? You bet. Like I said, something about this stinks to high heavens.

Armstrong victim of witch hunt?

This is a tricky one. I've never been convinced that Lance Armstrong was 100% clean, but that was mostly because I didn't believe anyone in cycling was clean. I wasn't a big enough fan of the sport to really have opinions about individual cyclists and the reason I didn't care about individual cyclists is that every time cycling made headlines in the 90s it was thanks to drugs cheating.

So, maybe Lance is guilty and maybe he's not. Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that he is definitely the victim of a 'witch hunt'. He's being singled out.

It seems pretty clear to me that the Tour director was none too keen on Armstrong. Why else would he back the report that Armstrong took EPO in 1999 despite all the problems in this whole procedure (noted by Ciaran in his comment to my post below).

What I want to know is how many other cyclists' samples were tested as well? Was the entire '99 field tested? Even the top 20? If only Armstrong's sample was tested, then it's pretty clear that this was intended to damage only Armstrong.

If L'Équipe was really interested in testing samples from winners in the 90s they should have tested all the Tour winners during the decade. Why not? EPO existed before 1999.

Testing all those Tour winners or even a large selection of riders from the '99 Tour would have further damaged the Tour itself, possibly fatally. In that situation, Armstrong would have been damaged, but it would have had the look of legitimate journalism. Instead, all we have is one 'witch' caught in the 'witch hunt'.

L'Équipe is owned by the same company that runs the Tour. Could there be some conflict of interest here, perhaps? I'm not saying Armstrong is as pure as the driven snow, but something about this sure stinks.

{I think this is a great column by Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe. He touches on so many aspects that tie into this story.}

Bush & Steroids

Boy, does George Bush pick his sports friends. First, Rafael Palmeiro and now Lance Armstrong.

There's as least one Slate writer who wondered aloud about whether President Bush was on steroids last year, which might explain his relationship with professional athletes and the use of performance enhancers. Bruce Reed speculates that the President's weight loss this year is the result of coming off the juice.

Bush's sharp, sudden weight loss since the election raises a far more disturbing paranoid theory: Was the president using steroids?

Mark McGwire's congressional testimony showed the world what someone who allegedly used steroids looks like after they allegedly stop—a lot thinner. Bush bulked up during a campaign that was based entirely on showing voters he was stronger than his opponent. This season, like many baseball players afraid of baseball's new random steroid testing, he shows up suddenly looking a lot thinner.

Okay, some tongue in cheek comments, but in his 2004 State of the Union address the President discussed the need for professional sportsmen to set a good example for children.

To help children make right choices, they need good examples. Athletics play such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting much of an example. The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message -- that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character. So tonight I call on team owners, union representatives, coaches, and players to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now.

Is defending one man who's been caught and another about whom serious allegations have been circulating for years helping lead in this effort? Now, it's entirely possible that Armstrong is being stitched up and is innocent of all the charges against him. However, my own sense is that presidents generally steer clear of anything that might look bad down the road. I can't understand Bush's willingness to get together with Armstrong in light of the accusations.

Iraq & the 1937 Constitution

The Irish Constitution contains the following in the preamble.

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

There are a couple of Articles that should also be read:

Article 41-2

1. In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
   
2. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
   

Article 44-1

The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

These two sections of Article 44 were removed after a referendum in 1973:

• Section 2: The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.
  
• Section 3: The State also recognises the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in Ireland, as well as the Jewish Congregations and the other religious denominations existing in Ireland at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution.

Article 41-2 was used for years to discriminate against married women here. I believe that both divorce and contraception were were made unconstitutional by the 1937 Constitution (both were allowed under British law, which the Irish Free State inherited in 1922).

Again, I know that to many people in W. Europe these sorts of clauses are distasteful and unwelcome. Ideally, Iraq would be Denmark already. Still, Ireland in the 1950s was not as monstrous as Iraq in the 1980s and 90s. Even if the new Iraqi constitution appears to be a step backwards in some areas, what's important is that the Iraqi people are allowed to make their own way. They have to recognize that change is possible and that it is the people who have the power to make changes.

Ireland was a 'priest-ridden' country and 'run by the Bishops'. If the Iraqis get something similar, why is that such a problem?

Islam and the Iraqi constitution

I said it before and I'll say it again. If the Iraqis end up with a constitution similar to what Ireland had when the current constitution was adopted in 1937 then that's great.

Renault Megane

I'm sick of that ad for the Renault Megane on the t.v. in the middle of the day. I can't remember if I saw it on an Irish or British channel, but it seems to be everywhere. You know the one (and if you don't, don't worry about it): it features the song I See You Baby. It seems to be on constantly.

The Bells! The Bells!

The power went out here about 10 minutes ago. Of course, this means a chorus of annoying alarms and moaning mutts.

Fortunately, I still have the ol USB broadband modem or I'd be off-line. I shudder at the thought. I hope it comes back before my battery gives up the ghost.

RSS

Thanks to some suggestions and tips from Dick and CH I've tried to build an RSS feed for the Newshound. Actually, it's not that hard to make the page, but what's really frustrating is checking the work. When you create a new web page, you can load it into your browser and click refresh/reload every time you tweak it to correct for minor errors. I don't seem to be able to do that with any of the RSS readers I've tried (Newsgator, Bloglines, MyYahoo).

Anyway, I've created a feed for my site. The address is http://www.nuzhound.com/feed.xml. Thanks to Eoin, I also tried Feedburner. That service looks pretty interesting. It seems to allow me to do some things that I'd never manage on my own. I'm not sure what the down-side is yet. Anyway, the feedburner feed address is http://feeds.feedburner.com/Newshound.

I'd be grateful if some of you could have a look and let me know if it looks like it's working. Remember, all I provide are headlines so no summaries here.