Final Holdouts Now Surrendering To Pod People

A piece back I decided I wanted to listen to some songs by the Beatles, so I went to the iTunes music store and typed in their name. Know how many songs were available for download?

Absolutely none.

The Beatles, y’see, (technically, Apple Corps, which is responsible for looking after their copyrights) has not allowed their music to be made available for download.

So I just got the songs I wanted on CD and ripped them.

This is not the first time the Beatles have been behind the technological curve. They were also one of the last bands to make their work available on CD.

C’mon, guys! Don’t stay stuck in the ’60s!

The Beatles, however, are not the only big-name act that hasn’t wanted to allow its fans to be able to (legally) download its music. Others include Bob Seger, Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Garth Brooks, and Kid Rock.

But the times, they are a-changin’!

The number of pod people out there has now become so vast that these last few holdouts are starting to recognize that their struggle is futile, and they are beginning to surrender.

Bob Seger and Metallica have now joined the revolution, and the writing is on the wall for the rest of them:

But bands can no longer risk losing out on sales and marketing generated from the digital formats, especially on iTunes, said Phil Leigh, an analyst with Inside Digital Media, a market research firm. With CD sales continuing to drop, it’s only a matter of time until the last holdouts give up, he said.

GET THE STORY.

So, special message for the Beatles . . .  YOU’RE NEXT!

Suited Up

The outrage potential of some radical Traditionalists can, at times, be bewildering. Rather than look at a picture that surprises them and try to think of the most charitable explanation for that picture, apparently, their reactions are set on default to "See! More evidence that Neo-Church is out to get us all!"

Take this picture of two elderly brothers spending some downtime together, a snapshot that I find simply adorable, and test your default reaction to it:

B16suit

Evidently the photograph was published in the European magazine Point de Vue on February 15, 2006 (at least according to the attribution given the picture by the radical Traditionalist site Tradition In Action). In any event, the picture is likely to be a post-election photo of Pope Benedict XVI, perhaps taken when he visited Germany last year.

(UPDATE: Comboxers have dated the photo to a 2004 retreat the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and his brother took together.  See the combox for more information.)   

The RadTrad site’s reaction:

"Either during his trip to Germany last year or in Italy — the magazine Point de Vue did not specify a place for this recent photo — Benedict XVI meets his brother Fr. [sic; it’s Msgr.] Georg Ratzinger at a piano to dicuss some scores of Mozart.

"Both the Pope and the priest are wearing suits. One can see that Fr. [Msgr.] Georg chooses a more relaxed open shirt, while his ‘conservative’ papal brother Joseph keeps his closed. Although the photo is not very clear on this detail, it seems that Benedict is wearing a tie.

"At any rate, Pope Ratzinger [sic] wears a well tailored double-breasted blue-grey suit.

[…]

"At least Joseph Ratzinger maintains the ‘tradition’ of wearing suits. It should confirm some conservatives in the fact that Benedict maintains old customs…."

GET THE STORY.

Horrors! Shouldn’t a pope know better than to wear anything but a white cassock during his personal time? After all, hasn’t every pope since St. Peter done so?

Oh, wait. White papal clothing was introduced by Pope St. Pius V, who decided not to wear "traditional" papal finery during his downtime but to continue to ordinarily wear his white Dominican habit. Future popes continued wearing a white cassock until it became "traditional." And, speaking of St. Peter…. Didn’t he once strip down to his skivvies while fishing on the Sea of Tiberias and have to dress quickly and swim to shore so he could meet the Lord (John 21:7)?

But don’t tell TIA any of this. Their default setting might overload.

(POST-PUBLICATION NOTE:  It is likely that the photo is pre-election, rather than post-election, but the general point remains the same:  There is nothing wrong with a pope, cardinal, or priest not wearing Traditional Clerical Garb during his personal time. Granted, doing so can be prudentially advantageous, especially if a priest is "on call." But doing so purely for the sake of Image can actually be prideful [Matt. 23:2-7].)

The Roe Effect In Action

We’ve commented before on the fact that Roe is doomed for the simple reason that those who favor abortion have a higher rate of using it and therefore produce fewer children, meaning that those who don’t favor abotion will eventually outpopulate them and have the strength to get rid of abortion in America (which will be a long and messy process).

HERE’S AN ARTICLE THAT–WITHOUT AN ABORTION-SPECIFIC APPLICATION–MAKES A PARALLEL POINT.

EXCERPTS:

According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That’s a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%–explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.

Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today’s problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020–and all for no other reason than babies.

That, of course, is not only assuming that current trends hold but also that nothing else is affecting the situation.

But there is something that can affect it: Immigration.

If you aren’t making enough new voters on your own, importing them is always a possibility, and since liberals tend to do better with newly immigrated voters (for at least a few generations), there is a strong incentive on the part of political liberals to want to encourage as much immigration as possible–legally and otherwise. This also explains the efforts on the part of some political liberals to create situations in which even illegal aliens can vote in American elections.

While large-scale immigration can slow the ending of abortion, it can’t stop it, however. The United States cannot absorb an unlimited number of new immigrants, and at some point the current massive influx we are seeing will stop. When that happens, the ordinary consequences of the Roe Effect will act in an unimpeded manner and lead to those who disfavor abortion outpopulating those who favor it.

Abortion’s still doomed. It’s just a question of how many babies have to get killed before it ends.

A Meme Of Noble Descent

Familytree

Have you ever been jealous when some friend or acquaintance bragged to you about all the famous and/or noble people he had found hanging from his family tree (so to speak)? No need. Odds are, you too have a notable ancestor hiding among the foliage of your family tree! After all, if it could be true for Brooke Shields, it could be true for anyone.

"Actress Brooke Shields has a pretty impressive pedigree — hanging from her family tree are Catherine de Medici and Lucrezia Borgia, Charlemagne and El Cid, William the Conqueror and King Harold II, vanquished by William at the Battle of Hastings.

"Shields also descends from five popes, a whole mess of early New England settlers, and the royal houses of virtually every European country. She counts Renaissance pundit Niccolo Machiavelli and conquistador Hernando Cortes as ancestors.

What is it about Brooke Shields? Well, nothing special — at least genealogically.

"Even without a documented connection to a notable forebear, experts say, the odds are virtually 100 percent that every person on Earth is descended from one royal personage or another."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to E-Skojec.com for the link.)

How cool! This, I think, calls for My First Meme:

1. Which famous person would you most like to learn that you are descended from? Pope John Paul II (collaterally, of course). Hey, if Brooke Shields can be descended from five popes, then I can have one of the greatest among them as an indirect ancestor.

2. Which famous person would you hate to learn that you are descended from? Brigham Young. Although with some fifty wives and over fifty known children (source), he’s likely to have a multitude of direct and collateral descendants here in the U.S.

3. If you could be ancestor to any living famous person, who would it be and why? Dan Brown. It would give me the chance to make sure there was some decent Christian catechesis in the family that might have molded him into not writing The Da Vinci Code (or, failing that, at least not writing it as it ended up being written).

4. If you could go back in time and meet any known ancestor(s) of yours, who would it be? Direct and collateral ancestors who fought on both sides of the American Civil War. The old adage that that war tore apart families is quite literally true.

5. Tag five others: My sister, Jimmy, Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B., the Curt Jester, Ten Reasons, and anyone else who wants to play on their own blogs or in the combox.

Well, This Isn’t A Total Surprise

FROM SCI-FI WIRE:

SG-1 Ends Run; Atlantis Back

SCI FI Channel confirmed that it will not renew its record-breaking original series Stargate SG-1 for another season, but will pick up its spinoff series Stargate Atlantis for a fourth year. SG-1 aired its 200th episode on Aug. 18, and the SF series is the longest-running SF show on American television.

SCI FI issued the following statement on Aug. 21: "SCI FI Channel is proud to be the network that brought Stargate SG-1 to its record-breaking 10th season. Ten seasons and 215 episodes is an astounding, Guinness World Record-setting accomplishment. Stargate is a worldwide phenomenon. Having achieved so much over the course of the past 10 years, SCI FI believes that the time is right to make this season their last on the channel. SCI FI is honored to have been part of the Stargate legacy for five years, and we look forward to continuing to explore the Stargate universe with our partners at MGM through a new season of Stargate Atlantis."

Stargate SG-1, developed for television by executive producers Brad Wright and Jonathan Glassner, is based on the 1994 feature film Stargate. SG-1, which originally starred Richard Dean Anderson, Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge, began on Showtime, then moved to SCI FI after five seasons. The current cast includes Tapping, Shanks and Judge and newcomers Ben Browder, Claudia Black and Beau Bridges. It airs Fridays at 9 p.m. ET/PT [SOURCE].

CHT to the reader who e-mailed.

I’m sorry to see SG1 go, but it’s quality hasn’t been as high the last few years. I’m impressed with how well they did after Richard Dean Anderson MacGuyvered his way out of the program. The introduction this season of Vala (sp?) as a regular character was a breath of fresh air, but SG1 hasn’t been able to motivate me to tune in each week for some time (couldn’t compete with square dancing), so I’ve been catching reruns and plan on watching the last couple of seasons complete on DVD.

I’m glad that they’re keeping Atlantis around, though I don’t think that show has ever equalled SG1 when the latter was at its peak. The writing has always seemed muted, somehow, though I love the character Rodney MacKay (sp?). Perhaps with SG1 off the air, Atlantis will take off and grow the way DS9 did once TNG and B5 were off the air. The departure of the latter two shows gave DS9 the ability to cut loose and spread its wings without cramping other series, and perhaps with the whole Stargate universe to itself now, Atlantis will be able to tell stories without having to worry about stepping on SG1’s toes.

I’d be interested to see what the ratings have been for SG1 vs. Atlantis. I suspect that SG1’s are higher, but this wasn’t purely a ratings-based situation. The SG1 writers have been having a hard time making do, between franchise aging and the departure of major cast members. It does make creative sense to end the series before its scraping the bottom of the barrel (which I personally don’t think it’s at; I can imagine sci-fi a LOT worse than the current season of SG1).

There’s also something that the above press-release doesn’t mention:

This is a repositioning of where the network is putting its money. A cable network only has so much money to devote to developing new proramming, and there are only so many serieses that Sci-Fi can produce at a given time. So a major reason SG1 is being put out to pasture is to make way for a new series: Caprica. The Battlestar Galactica franchise has been so successful (it WAS able to get me to tune in weekly last season) that the network is wanting more in that mold. So what we’re watching is a pirouette between the two franchises, with the young, dynamic Galactica series taking the lead over the still-watchable but somewhat-worn-around-the-edges Stargate franchise.

It would be impolitic to say such things in a press release announcing the end of SG1, though.

Wouldn’t sit well with Stargate fans to say "We can’t produce an extra new series each week, so SG1 is going away to allow us to do Caprica."

That wasn’t the only reason for the decision, of course. The ones mentioned above were, too, and ratings decline certainly was as well. But Caprica’s arrival no doubt played a role.

Planetary Update

Things are happening fast and furious at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) regarding the upcoming planet definition vote that’s scheduled for this Thursday.

And Wikipedia’s on the story!

In the open-source information age, their 2006 Redefinition of Planet page has not only been created since last week’s announcement of a proposed definition but has been updated to reflect the current state of play.

I was particularly interested to see some of the criticism directed against the proposed definition. Not only have other critics agreed with me that one shouldn’t limit planets to just things that are orbiting stars, they have also made the same criticism I did of defining a moon based on where the barycenter of a planetary system is located.

In fact, they went beyond what I said and made new criticisms of this (dumb) idea:

[W]hile the Moon is defined as a satellite of the Earth, over time the Earth-Moon barycentre will drift outwards (see Tidal acceleration) and be situated outside of either body. This would then upgrade the Moon to full planet according to the redefinition. The time taken for this to occur is expected, however, to be billions of years.

In the extreme case, where a double body has the secondary component in a very eccentric orbit, this could lead to a drift of the barycentre in and out of the primary body, leading to a shift in the classification of the secondary body as a satellite or planet, depending on where in its orbit it is.

All of which underscores the point I made last time: What an object is rather than where the object is should determing whether it is a planet.

Now, I don’t know what the IAU will do this Thursday when they finally vote. Wikipedia reports that one group voted early with negative results:

According to Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, a subgroup of the IAU met on August 18, 2006, and held a straw vote on the draft proposal: only 18 were in favour of the draft proposal, and over 50 against. The 50 in opposition preferred an alternative proposal drawn up by Uruguayan astronomer Julio Ángel Fernández.

That alternative proposal would demote Pluto from planetary status.

Whether or  not the draft definition passes, I doubt that Thursday’s vote will see this kind of lopsided vote in favor of the Fernandez alternative. The group in question was (a) relatively small (68 people, when there are more than 2000 at the meeting) and (b) clearly highly motivated on the subject or they wouldn’t have held a preliminary vote like this. This strikes me more as an attempt to influence the course of events than a representation of what opinion in the IAU is on the topic.

A different indicator of opinion in the IAU is as follows:

Owen Gingerich, an historian and astronomer emeritus at Harvard who led the committee which generated the original definition, predicted the Executive Committee, "will undoubtedly come before the membership with a single resolution. They may make some adjustments." He added that correspondence he had received had been evenly divided for and against the proposal.

YEE-HAW!

Who doesn’t like a cliffhanger scientific scrap!

GET THE STORY.

MORE FROM SPACE.COM.

The Title “Doctor”

Yesterday Michelle posted about James White’s attitude problem and this sparked one of the perennial combox discussions about whether the title "Dr." should be given to White (with or without quotation marks; they’re used here because standard English orthography requires quotation marks around words that are themselves the subject of discussion; if I were to initiate a discussion of the word "word," it would get quotation marks too).

For the record, I do not think that this title should be given to White.

I come from an academic family, and doctorates mean something. They are awarded to individuals by accredited institutions to certify that the individual in question has met the academic requirements needed to earn the degree. The individual is thus entitled to the use of the title and the authority and respect it commands.

For an individual to claim this authority and respect based on a doctorate issued by an unaccredited institution is, howeve, unacceptable. Without accreditation there is no guarantee that the individual has academic achievements comparable to those of doctorates being issued by accredited institutions. In fact, most non-accredited institutions issuing doctorates are little more than diploma mills.

To concede the title "doctor" to someone just because they have a diploma from an unaccredited institution cheapens all doctorates everywhere by creating a doorway for bogus doctorates achieve social recognition.

The social recognition of bogus degrees is precisely what the accreditation process was created to prevent. Accreditation is a stamp of approval on a school that it has met the academic standards of the accrediting body and is qualified to issue degrees of the types for which it has received accreditation.

If a school–or a degree program within a school–is not accredited by a competent body then it has not met the academic standards needed and there can be no confidence in the merits of the "degrees" it issues.

The fact that an institution does not have accreditation automatically creates a cloud of suspicion as the vast majority of non-accredited "colleges" and "universities" are diploma mills or little better.

There is, in particular, little reason for confidence in the institution from which White claims a doctorate–Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly Faraston Theological Seminary–"Faraston" being a word that was made up by the seminary’s founder, who explains it as follows: "In the late ’80s, after years of God’s faithful watering and cultivating the seed and preparing me, He sent someone to encourage me to take the necessary legal steps to begin the school. The name Faraston is a combination of the name of that individual and my name. Thus, the name Faraston does not glorify any man, but it is a hybrid which is a memorial to God’s continued faithfulness. Therefore, ‘With the name Faraston, we make known God’s faithfulness.’ Faraston = God’s Faithfulness" [SOURCE]).

There are also serious problems with academic incest at the school, which is run out of a hole-in-the-wall.

Now, White has complained before that the photos at the previous link were taken by Mormons and has criticized me for linking them. In doing so, White committed the genetic fallacy, because Mormonism is not generally an indicator of one’s ability to operate a camera. Unless he wishes to maintain that the photos were reutered (which he has not), then I assume that they are genuine, and they speak ill of the resources that the school has at its disposal. It is difficult to see how any serious doctoral-level academic program could be administered from an institution with such meager resources.

The fact is that White has not made the sacrifices needed to attend an accredited school and thus there can be no confidence whatsoever that his "doctorate" is comparable to those issued by accredited institutions (say, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School). White therefore should not be referred to by the title "Dr." He should not hold himself forth to the public as a doctor, and it cheapens all doctorates everywhere to concede social recognition to unaccredited degrees and thus the diploma mill industry that pumps them out.

I therefore follow the practice of simply referring to James White as just "James White."

BTW, I should also issue

THE BIG RED DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this post faults distance learning. I have no problem at all with distance learning as long as it meets academic standards equivalent to those of traditional study programs. I’m sure that, in time, more doctorates will be available from accredited institutions via distance programs, but accreditation is the key to establishing a baseline level of confidence in these programs. Without accreditation, "distance doctorates" must be regarded in the same light as other unaccredited degrees.

Ransoming Captive Israel

Pius_xii_2

More evidence is surfacing that Hitler’s PopeVenerable Pope Pius XII, far from sitting around twiddling his thumbs during the Shoah, was on the front lines of rescue efforts to save Jews from the Nazis. The Tablet, a British Catholic publication somewhat analogous to the American National Catholic Reporter, notes that the diary of an Augustinian nun in Rome during the war chronicles that Jews were hidden in her convent on Pius XII’s directive.

"The anonymous author of the journal provides detailed names and dates of more than 10 Jews and non-Jews who were sheltered in the convent from September 1942 to June 1944. One of these was Amalia Viterbo, the Jewish niece of Palmiro Togliatti, one of the creators of the Italian Communist Party and secretary of the Comintern before the Second World War.

"The Augustinian sister writes that the Pope wished to save ‘his children [Catholics] as well as Jews’ and ordered that monasteries and enclosures should be opened up to those persecuted.

"Later, when the convent superior perceived that the SS were flouting the sanctuary of convent enclosures, she had false identity papers drawn up for her guests."

GET THE STORY. (Note: Evil registration requirement.)

Although John Paul II had longed to be able to beatify his beloved predecessor Pius XII, I think it would be especially fitting if the beatification takes place during Benedict XVI’s pontificate. (B16 has reverted to the traditional form of personally presiding only at canonizations.) If it happens, God willing, it will mean that Pius XII, who served before his pontificate as apostolic nuncio to Bavaria under Benedict XV, would be beatified during the reign of a Bavarian pope named Benedict.

JIMMY ADDS: The MSM would have stellar-level apoplexy if B16 beatified or canonized P12 ("What??? The new Hitler pope elevates the old Hitler pope!!! How SHOCKING!!!"). But B16 has already proved himself a man or moral courage and one who is willing to speak his mind regarding the Nazis and not kowtow to political correctness in this matter, so it could happen. Whether it happens in B16’s reign or not, I hope it happens soon. P12 has my vote not just for sainthood but for being a doctor of the Church. Not that I have a vote.