Cool. I always like being banged on. I mean, bang on.

I think you are bang on target with this comment. This is why the inscription is a propaganda landmine, and the troops don’t need this.

All it takes is a few extremist leaders to take this up as ‘proof’ that the evil Westerners/Christians/Outsiders are there to oppress right thinking Muslims and you’ve got a major incident on your hands. To the hard core extremists, of course the presence, or absence, of such a religious reference doesn’t matter at all. They’ve already made up their minds. It’s the fence-sitters and moderates that matter.

When that incident with the Danish cartoon happened, did most of those offended ever see the cartoon? No.

When that incident with the Satanic Verses book happened, did the average Muslim ever read the book? Nope.

To the extremists, the value of these things is that they exist at all, anywhere. It validates their point of view and can be used to persuade others. They care not at all what they actually say, or mean, or what the intent behind them was.

In the battle for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims, you have already lost if they believe that YOU are the tribal one, you are the bigot, you believe a Christian life is worth more than a Muslim life.

…but then again, I still have that Sailor Moon scepter from back when I was a kid that has flashing lights too… I think I’ll stick with that one.

Good point about the acquisition rules, I’m sure that some of those rules were directly influenced by the establishment clause, hence my point. I don’t agree with your assessment about it not being a violation though. The Government is knowingly purchasing something that favors one religion over the others, thus government endorsement of that religion. The company did an about face because they were just about to lose a 660 million dollar contract.

D’Oh! Randi was reached for comment according the BBC.

YouTube has Randi’s comments on the AADE651 (Quadro Tracker) posted on the JREF account just posted a day or so ago.

use(cleaned): youtube(dot)com/watch?v=ruTmqfGJhTI&feature=sub

J/P=?

I’m pretty sure less people would’ve died because there wouldn’t have been the same sense of false confidence. If the people knew that they didn’t know then they wouldn’t have been as cavalier. That being said, even Everett couldn’t see the alternate realities.

As for the sights/constitutional argument… Congress and the bodies it governs can’t choose one religion over another. The Military IS governed by congress, it’s commanded by the president but the laws put into place concerning the military and their justice system are made and passed by Congress.

It happens to be against US Law to have ANY visible religious artifacts one way or another in Iraq/Afghanistan. Even if it wasn’t a violation of law(which it is) it’s likely to drive more people to the Taliban/Iraqi insurgent groups and endangers our young men and women on the ground. That means no Yarmulkes, no crosses, no muslim artifacts, the only garment allowed with any quasi religious significance is the kaffiyeh and that’s only because of its practicality as a guard for dust, an added layer of warmth when sleeping in a ranger’s grave/fighting hole, and its immediate use as tourniquet. A scope with or without scripture is just as lethal in combat.

2) They are being altruistic in a business sense by offering to change a product post-sale and eat the cost. Does it also have PR ramifications? Yes, but don’t make the logical error of ascribing a single motivation to an action merely as a result of a positive outcome.

I read earlier that they initially said they were not going to modify the ‘scopes, so this is an about-face, actually. The only explanation in my mind is that they didn’t want to offend the customer. And FYI, they are not offering to rework the ‘scopes post-sale. Rather, they are providing 100 kits so the Army can modify the ‘scopes in the field. (Anything else would have been impractical, really.)

Rory @ 75:

Sorry Doug, I’ve read the constitution, nothing in the constitution which says the government can dictate what you can use for serial numbers and reference numbers on a product.

Of course not; the Constitution is not meant to contain that level of detail and instead lays the basis for our system of government. The relevant documentation you seek would be DoD acquisition rules. These are formulated through a combination of legislation and military bureaucracy. Short version: the DoD most certainly can dictate what a contractor uses for serial numbers and reference numbers. This is actually not weird; it’s a “they’re not obligated to buy” situation. Customers can demand anything they like; whether or not any contractor will furnish it is another matter, so things like this can be governed by delicate negotiations.

Case in point: I was recently on a project where the version numbering scheme was mandated by the program office. It was very complex. We could use our own numbers to reference it internally and externally, but the item itself could only display the one the customer wanted. (There was an actual reason for this, but explaining it is an excellent insomnia cure.)

A product like this is probably commercial, so they can tell the DoD to suck an egg. But at the same time, the DoD is not obligated to purchase any more units than they are already under contract to buy (and there may even be circumstances in which they can terminate the contract before all units are delivered, though this would be unusual). The way they chose to handle it is the most prudent from a business standpoint — especially after one non-US customer (the New Zealand government) already decided to order the parts modified or terminate the contract. The glacial pace of government acquisitions means it would be some time before the US military got back to them about that, and this way they avoid the whole problem.

I do not feel the ‘scopes violate separation of state in any meaningful way, nor that they constitute proselytizing. However, I *do* feel they are offensive. I know there is a lot of diversity in Christianity, but I think it’s fairly common for churches to be like mine and not want anything to do with even pretend weapons, let alone real ones, least of all ones wielded by soldiers who have been ultimately sent by our politicians to go kill people on our behalf — and lately, people who are not directly threatening us. This isn’t the place to put Bible references, IMHO.

THANK YOU FOR BLOGGING THIS. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.

Regards,
Air Force Cadet

I suggest you go look up the lemon test as it applies to the establishment clause in the first amendment. Since the cat is out of the bag now and everyone knows that there are Xian references on the scopes including the government, to continue to purchase said scopes would be a violation.

Oh, wait, I was a sniper. We should leave them for the insurgents.

But does he have to depend on Discover so that his views non astronomy opinions can be published? Apparently he has to since he had to move from his original website.

I believe Discover actively sought out the good doctor and his offending blog to add to their site. Puts a slightly different spin on your argument, wouldn’t you say?

I think your own statement just confirmed my position:

If these people are willing to bring hellfire and death down on us over cartoons of MO, then I certainly don’t think obscure refererences to bible verses makes that big a deal.

It is exactly because something as innocent as a cartoon can be used to incite murder that a clear, if difficult to find, reference to a religion other than Islam could be such a useful propaganda tool.

And yes, Rory, my old ufo-seeking pal, I have quite a good grasp of their ideology. Do you? Other than the soundbites and our own home grown fear-mongering propaganda?

Stupid me.

It has no blinking lights or beeps to give away the user’s location to the enemy.

It requires no batteries – never runs out of power.

It has no moving parts to wear out causing costly repairs.

It is made entirely out of wood so its both biodegradable & healthy for the user (its organic!).

I call it the Forked Stick(tm).

Care to bet the bible citations aren’t really removed just relocated to less visible places? That way the heap-big-magic will still be there.

First, exports of the ADE651 are only prohibited for Iraq and Afghanistan — in other words, only in places where they pose a threat to British troops or their allies. Countries like Lebanon, Bangladesh, and Thailand can still import them from Britain, and are still at risk. The UK needs to put a complete ban on these dowsing rods.

Second, ATSC, Ltd. is not the only company to worry about here. Global Technical, Ltd., also a UK corporation, sells an extremely similar device, called the GT200. As far as I have heard, the UK has taken no action against them, presumably because they haven’t gotten as much press (and also aren’t as involved in Iraq at ATSC was).

Arresting McCormick is a nice start, but it’s just window dressing.

NOT that the DOD hasn’t bought a few “out there” items in the past sixty years…I don’t have time to list them all, but I’m pretty sure we stopped requisitioning dowsing kit back in the 1830s…

Oh, and I was at the range yesterday doing a re-certification shoot and sure enough–almost every rifle on the range had a Trijicon sight! The bible-thumpers amongst us were quite happy about this…I was less than pleased.

Atheist in a Foxhole

IAN:
And by “military” don’t you mean the Iraqi military?

You’re right, his blog and his views. But does he have to depend on Discover so that his views non astronomy opinions can be published? Apparently he has to since he had to move from his original website.

I’m glad he was “…really thrilled that rational and critical thinking has had two victories today.” But some critical thinker sure was slow on the uptake about the serial numbers/verse thing, to notice then b*tch about it after almost 4 years. It makes me wonder which entity is the “clueless” one that he writes about.

Anyways I guess everybody using the scopes now should remove the offending scopes and use the old iron sights as a) a matter of principle for having jeebus crud because they are offended by it, and b) so that the terrorists can’t use that as reason #247.2 to hate the west.

Elisha Otis (of Otis Elevator fame) demonstrated the efficacy of his safety device by standing in an elevator several stories above the ground, and took an axe to the cable.

Yes, he did. Otis had invented a safety brake for cable elevators, which up until that time had a notoriously bad image/reputation as being unsafe. However, buildings were getting so tall that hydraulic elevators were becoming impractical. Otis’s dramatic public demonstration that his brake worked was probably the critical event in getting people to accept cable-lifted elevators.

Another famous safely demonstration, albeit this one was entirely accidental (and also involved a brake), was Westinghouse’s air-brake for trains. Trains of the time were braked by having crew members running from carriage to carriage, and setting the brakes by hand. There was no possibly of an emergency stop (and numerous other problems, such as controlling the speed of descent down a mountain). George Westinghouse invented an air-brake which could be used from the engineer’s/driver’s cab, and set the brakes on all the carriages. An early (experimental?) model was fitted to a train. During one run (which might have been the first ever run with the air-brake, I don’t recall now?), the train driver spotted a horse-drawn wagon stuck across the tracks ahead. With no choice in the matter, he used the air-brake. It worked: The train stopped just short of the trapped wagon.