Parabasis

Today's Must Read

Is most definitely Gus' call for an indie theatre repertory. Gus is one of the smartest and most creative thinkers in independent theatre right now, and this idea is no exception.  Really, go over there and check it out. Here's a taste:

An Indie Theatre Repertory company: the best of indie theatre given a longer life through production in repertory.
Imagine a theatre where in one week you could see productions of Universal Robots, MilkMilkLemondae, Fight Girl Battle World and Infectious Opportunity. Where a production of Pretty Theft in the afternoon could be followed by Artifacts Of Consequence in the evening. Where all of the artists are getting paid an amount worth their initial investment.
The structural model could be like the FringeNYC Encore series in miniature. A 7:00 weekday showtime of one production would allow you a 9:00 performance of another, with three show days on the weekend (similar to our Trilogy production schedule, only a little more so). A production could see anywhere from 3-5 shows a week. As one show in rep was ready to end, a new show would be brought in to keep the rep fresh.
The challenges are obvious: difficult change overs, diminished design elements, and yes, union contracts.

Your thoughts?

Is Qom Illegal?

by Rob Grace

As far as I know, the fierce debate raging about whether Iran's newly revealed in-the-works nuclear facility near Qom is legal is difficult to resolve.  Whereas Obama stated that it "represents a direct challenge to the basic foundation of the nonproliferation regime," and Gordon Brown declared, "The level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the entire international community," Ahmadinejad claimed, "What we did was entirely legal."

It's a complex issue involving numerous legal agreements made over the course of several decades.  It starts with NPT Article IV, which acknowledges "the inalienable right of all Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes..."  To ensure a nuclear program's benign end, NPT Article III requires signatories "to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency ..."  Iran under the Shah signed the NPT in 1968, ratified it in 1970, and completed a Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA in 1974.  The Safeguards Agreement's Article 42 states that "The time limits for the provision of design information in respect of the new facilities shall be specified in the Subsidiary Arrangements and such information shall be provided as early as possible before nuclear material is introduced into a new facility."

The Subsidiary Arrangements, as far as I know, were not made public, which is perhaps one source of the confusion.  However, according to IAEA reports such as this one, Iran completed a Subsidiary Arrangement with the IAEA in 1976 which requires Iran to submit to the IAEA design information on new nuclear facilities "not later than 180 days before the facility is scheduled to receive nuclear material for the first time."  In 2003, Iran and the IAEA agreed to a modified version of this provision that required Iran to submit design information as soon as the Iranian government decided to construct a new facility.  However, in 2007 Iran informed the IAEA it was reverting back to the 1976 version of the agreement, claiming that Iran was not bound by the revised provision because the Iranian parliament had never ratified it.  Basically, the nature of how Subsidiary Arrangements enter into force determines whether Iran's failure to disclose its nuclear facility near Qom was legal.

As far as I can tell, Iran's Safeguards Agreement does not specify how the Subsidiary Arrangements enter into force.  The process for enacting amendments is made more clear.  Article 25 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement states, "This agreement shall enter into force on the date upon which the Agency receives from the Government of Iran written notification that Iran's statutory and constitutional requirements for entry into force have been met," and Article 24 states, "Amendments to this Agreement shall enter into force in the same conditions as entry into force of the Agreement itself."  In other words,  amendments do not enter into force until they have officially become law in Iran, meaning they need to be ratified by the Iranian parliament (See the Iranian Constitution's Article 77, which states, "International treaties, protocols, contracts, and agreements must be approved by the by the Islamic Consultative Assembly.")  The Safeguards Agreement makes a distinction between amendments and Subsidiary Arrangements, stating in Article 39, "The Subsidiary Arrangements may be extended or changed by agreement between the Government of Iran and the Agency without amendment of the Agreement."  However, the Safeguards Agreement doesn't specify how the Subsidiary Arrangements enter into force.  Given the Iranian Constitution's Article 77, though, it would seem that Subsidiary Arrangements require parliamentary approval. 

However, apparently Iran has not previously acted as if Subsidiary Arrangements require parliamentary approval.  James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace notes:

Iran - like every other state - modifies its Subsidiary Arrangements regularly, without asking for parliamentary ratification.  For example, as the size of its enrichment plant at Natanz has grown, Iran has (reluctantly) agreed to various improvements of the Subsidiary Arrangements, but Iran did not ask the Majlis to ratify them.

This fact is pretty damning to Iran's legal case.  Additionally, discussion about Iran's Safeguards Agreement and the Subsidiary Arrangements is perhaps irrelevant because Iran is bound by several UN Security Council resolutions to ratify the IAEA's Additional Protocol, which would require early notification of facility design information.  Iran has, of course, contested the legality of the IAEA's referral of the matter to the Security Council, claiming that the referral was "in contravention with the provision of the Statute of the IAEA and the NPT."  There is, of course, also a strong case against this claim.

It would be interesting for someone to ask Ahmadinejad, or some other Iranian government official, why he believes the 2003 Subsidiary Arrangement required parliamentary approval while the other Subsidiary Arrangements did not.  Until then, I'm alright supporting the argument of Western leaders that until last Monday, Iran was violating its Subsidiary Arrangement by not notifying the IAEA of its nuclear facility near Qom.

This Pretty Much Says It All III

(h/t)

Two More Brand New Sufjan Tracks Being Tested Out On Tour

what do you think?

Things I Agree With

Let's not forget that Roman Polanski is, actually, you know, a rapist edition.

The Absurdity of Christian Theodicy

Andrew Sullivan is holding an informal symposium on the Problem of Pain aka why does a God defined as "good" and "loving" allow pain and suffering seemingly without order or morality?

One of his readers writes him an e-mail filled with the kind of hogwash that made me an atheist in the first place. And it's a very common one. Here's the first part argument:

Pain – the pain experienced by animals and the ineffable pain experienced by those, e.g., swept away in the Indonesian tsunami and those who loved them – is a product of the laws of the physical universe, specifically the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the principle of entropy, which observes that all physical being – our bodies, our cars, our homes, our forests, the entire physical world – is in a continuous process of breaking down and falling apart.

Once you get beyond all the nicey-nice words like "ineffable" and efforts to use scientific words to obfuscate what's going on, this is essentially saying: "Things fall apart, that falling apart hurts".  

What this leaves out entirely is that to Christians (and this e-mailer is a self-identified Catholic) God made the laws of physics and God made it "hurt". If God's all powerful, there's no reason why we need feel pain as a result of the laws of physics. nor is there any reason why the laws of physics have to be as they are.  God chose to make them that way. So this doesn't really get him off the hook for the problem of human suffering.

Next up we get to part two of the argument:

Suffering, the existential consciousness of alienation, on which you are so eloquent, is an extension of human freedom. Those of us, like you, who stand in the faith and view the world (both physical and existential) from the perspective of faith, do not have words to understand why God created the world in the way can has, but we do understand that both the principle of entropy and human free will are gifts of the Creator and that God respects the integrity of Creation.

The God of the Bible is an interventionist God. He "hardens Pharos heart" and condemns the Israelites to additional suffering so that he can exact revenge on the Egyptians. He has Jonah swallowed by a Whale. He communicates directly to his creations and rewards and.or punishes them based on their fidelity to his orders.  He continues to perform miracles and interfere directly in human doings after Jesus' death by, for example, blinding St. Paul and speaking to him.  So we have to ask... why didn't god respect his creation until relatively recently? And again, even if it respecting creation to allow them to do as they want-- and I'm cool with that- there's still no reason why pain and suffering are necessary.

For millennia God has been placed in the dock before the tribunal of human misery. The person of faith lacks the wherewithal to make the case for God but knows that Godself does not need the benefit of human advocates. The Christian (or at least the Catholic Christian, I cannot speak for others) knows that God is not insensitive to human misery and that God, in becoming incarnate in the person Jesus Christ, walked with us in our misery and drank the cup of human misery down to the dregs, as the model and price of a life of utter integrity.

And now we get to the whole Jesus thing.  The Catholic theory behind this story is one I've never understood, because from a narrative perspective it makes no sense.  Adam and Eve disobeyed God, so as a result, he cursed all of humanity forever (how good and loving of him).  A few thousand years later, he decides to redeem the human race. But instead of just doing it-- because, remember, he's all powerful-- he decides to sort-of take human form, or maybe have a son, but it's unclear really but anyway he decides that that son/him is going to have to suffer horribly and die as a sacrificial lamb.  Again, this makes absolutely no sense.  There's no reason why an all powerful being would have to do this. He could just forgive us. And he doesn't put us through anything to get our forgiveness. Instead, he goes through it, or anyway makes his son go through it. Who might be him. I just... don't... get... it. I've tried. I know a lot of Catholics. I've studied this stuff. It just-- from a narrative perspective-- makes no sense.

Now here's the thing-- I don't think human misery disproves the existence of God. I don't.  I don't believe in God for other reasons.  What I think misery disproves is the idea that God is either Good or All-Loving, at least from the perspective of the standards that he himself supposedly gave us.  I'd buy the argument that God is Unknowable or Complex or Multifaceted or even Kinda Scary But Also Kinda Awesome Sometimes.  But this is the thing... the unknowability of God only comes up in these arguments when the other person is in a painted-in-a-corner-type situation. You can't assert simultaneously that God is Good and God is Unknowable. Unless you're also saying that God is only Good by God's Own Standards, not the ones he supposedly gave us. At which point, the conversation is meaningless.

Say It Ain't So, Mead!

Mead Hunter wonders if he' s lost the will to blog because of the dearth of his output of late. I have no doubt that that'll change, but in case he needs some encouragement come back, Mead! Don't go towards the light!

Drew Westen On Race

The author of The Political Brain talks brain science and race in the Huffington Post.  Long, but well worth a look. Here's a taste:

It all depends on what you mean by racism. If you mean that the average American consciously believes we should discriminate against Mexicans because their skin is brown, no, any more than the average American consciously believes a black man is incapable of being President. But does it mean that the average American harbors unconscious biases that render Mexican immigrants less "like us" than English immigrants--and that those biases make it easier for many to wonder whether a black President shares their values, loves his country, or can put his country before "his people"--even though the people who reared him were his white mother and grandparents?

What's been missing from our national discourse on "is it race or isn't it?" is the distinction psychologists and neuroscientists have made for over two decades between conscious and unconscious (often called "explicit vs. implicit") prejudice.

Chuck Norris Wants To Desecrate Our Flag To Make The Founders Proud

No, I'm serious.  Read it here.  I've read a couple of Norris' columns and I honestly don't understand them. To the point that they might as well be in another language or something. i wonder if that's what it's like when Conservatives read Atrios or something. Take this quote... "Of course, patriots know that the 50-star flag truly represents one nation under God and our Founders' republic, but modernists simply don't get it. "

What does the word "modernists" mean in this context?  Does Chuck Norris hate Faulkner?  Does he think James Joyce wouldn't understand the symbolism behind the contemporary American flag?

Also.. isn't the conservative bugaboo post-modernism, not regular ole modernism? 

Or is Chuck Norris just against... modernity?

New Sufjan Stevens

Pretty damn different from Illinoise or Seven Swans, I'd say... but then again, Sufjan said he was getting bored, so there you go...

I actually thing the thing I was the most surprised by was not the electronics but the driving and heavy drum beat. Very un-his-other-stuff. Parts of this song are almost like Menomena.