Some contradictions are just silly

As I was preparing for Quinno's next uberfantabulous popology post - which series has (d)evolved into a comprehensive study of first century Roman JIT networks (and we're not even to Acts yet) - I came across a "contradiction" from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Usually, such entries are pretty good and require a bit O research to understand the cultural background or document transmission process. In other words, they are great study guides for the mundane minutia that pass for my commentary and make study valuable.

But this one is just absurd:

Does the gospel of Luke contain everything that Jesus did?

Yes: Acts 1:1-2 - The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up.

No: John 21:25 - There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

Even leaving out John's hyperbole that to record everything Jesus did would fill the world with books, to call Luke out here is just rubbish.

One must simply ask, did Luke take himself literally when he said that he recorded every single thing Jesus did and taught? Of course not. He doesn't record anything Jesus did from shortly after his birth until he was twelve or from when he was twelve until he was thirty. Did Luke truly believe that Jesus did *nothing* (get dressed, throw stones, eat, sleep, sneeze, make boxcar derby racers, eat paste) during those years? Of course not. He doesn't record Jesus breathing - are we to assume Luke believed that Jesus never inhaled?

PQ - who is a fair and intelligent non-believer - said that, "There is a rational case for disallowing the whole Canon, but I've yet to encounter a critic who is prepared to impose those rational standards on all _other_ figures from antiquity."

And he's right. The scriptures must be respected in the same way *all* other literature from antiquity is respected: with an understanding that the authors were real people who lived in real cultures, wrote to real audiences who really understood them, and who used real figures of speech, as a bare minimum.

To force a literal interpretation onto what is obviously a figure of speech is not only not serious, it's not even honest. And if one wouldn't treat Livy - who wrote lines like "though the fleet was not actually submerged by the waves, it was exposed to every possible danger from sea and sky" (even undersea volcanoes? How about meteor strikes?) - that way, one shouldn't do it to Luke, either.

Consider my day made

Drinkmixer.com apparently has a drink for everyone:

El Borak

1 1/2 oz gold tequila
3/4 oz apple schnapps
1 oz apple juice
Stir ingredients in a cocktail shaker with ice. Strain into glass.

Serve in: Cocktail Glass
23.0% (46 proof)
171 calories
9.70 carbohydrates

Treat me like a black guy

A few days after a Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D- JimBeamistan) got a ride home from officers rather than a night in detox, he asked - with typical Kennedy deference and gallantry - rather than the preferential treatment he received, that he be treated like a black guy.

I can't be sure, but perhaps he meant this black guy:

The Minneapolis Police Department is investigating whether two officers neglected to issue a ticket for suspected drunken driving to a Minnesota Timberwolves player who crashed into a parked car in March.

In 911 transcripts obtained by the Star Tribune, several callers at the accident scene described forward Eddie Griffin as being drunk... (but) the police report from early that morning doesn't indicate whether... they gave him a blood-alcohol or a field sobriety test.

The officers also may have violated department policy when they later that morning gave Griffin a ride to his St. Paul home...

After all, Kennedy and Griffin have a lot in common: One-car accident, check. Wee hours of the morning, check. Officers don't perform a sobriety test, even though there's evidence one is necessary, check. Officers drive their charge home instead of to the clink, check.

If there truly are "secrets of the rich and famous," how to talk a night-shift cop into acting as your chauffeur has got to be one of them.

Choose your fate and die

I've got hundreds of these things in my warehouse from at least four series. The original Choose Your Own Adventure books were pretty decent, though the lame factor increased with the number of titles. The Time Machine books were really cool, Endless Quest less so.

The Which-Way books sucked. Hard. Honest to God, Nick and I would read them aloud on book-buying trips and laugh at how bad they were, while lamenting the fact that someone, somewhere, got paid to write these abortions of literature.

"The hallway goes either left or right. If you go down the left hall, go to page 21. If choose the right hall, go to page 22."

Page 21. "You fall in a hole and die. The End."

Castle of No Return from the Which-Way books was that bad.

But no matter how many books were published and how bad they were, there had to be some rejected. Something Awful introduces us to a few that might-have-been. At least they might have been if the authors of children's books had a penchant for magic mushrooms and swear words. Language warning.

A quick lesson in inflation

CNN.com reports on how frequent flier programs have changed:

The first frequent flier program began in 1981 with American Airlines' AAdvantage as a way to keep profitable business travelers flying the same airline. Other major airlines like Delta quickly followed...

Frequent flier programs have grown ... More than 14.2 trillion frequent flier miles are still in circulation worldwide, for an average of 33,035 per program member -- typically enough for one free domestic round-trip ticket in the United States...

"What the airlines did was put so many seats in first class, when somebody puts their seat back you have the same problems you did in coach," said Todd Good...But it now costs Good 50,000 frequent flier miles to get a domestic ticket anytime he wants, as opposed to the previous cost of 25,000 miles, a level now reserved for a limited number of "saver" seats.

Think of frequent flier miles as a currency, because that's exactly what they are, just like the US dollar. And like the dollar they started off small. They worked so well that the airlines kept issuing them, more and more, trillions of the things. Inflation.

Eventually people start trying to spend them, and there are so many that there's no way they can be honored at current rates. First class seats become smaller, the good seats become scarce, blackout dates expand, prices for upgrades and trips and prizes climb higher. Scarcity.

And now several of the largest airlines are in bankruptcy (and all but a handful are bleeding money), yet together they still owe millions of people free trips. It's hard to keep your promises to the future when you can't pay your bills today. Then people get scared and start dumping them as fast as they can. Then, eventually, they become worthless. Default.

The laws of economics always work. Over-issuance of currency (inflation) leads to scarcity leads to default. Always. Even in America.

If apes have rights, can they be indicted for murder?

Brother can you spare a...never mind.

The best thing about the invention of the online auction is that for the first time, people who pull long-neglected items out of their drawers - so to speak - now have a worldwide market to dump them on.

I mean sure, if you were looking for a coin purse made out of most of a dead frog and you lived in Bammer, you could probably find one by hitting a few yard sales, and for a lot less than $5.50. But trying to sell a coin purse made out of most of a dead frog was a problem, because everyone on your road already had one that his pappy gave him. And they last forever.

Thank God for ebay, that's all I've got to say. Some things are just too valuable not to share with the rest of the world.

Tax the Lilliputians!

The world's second-richest man, Warren Buffett, has asked Sen. Ken Salazar to vote against repealing the estate tax...

It wasn't clear whether the letter to Salazar was part of a coordinated outreach to many senators. (Salazar's office) did not release the letter but said it was consistent with Buffett's public statements against repealing the tax.

If that's not an argument for keeping the estate tax, I don't know what is. Buffett's support of the tax has been used by any number of eat-the-rich tax raisers to show that if the world's richest people - just the kind of big people the supporters of the tax assure us this tax is for - love it, then we little people who oppose it are both greedy and ill-informed. Buffett's support has been so complete and so public that occasionally I wonder if he just can't wait to fall over dead so he can pay it himself.

But what's this?

Buffett, 75, is chairman of Omaha-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. On Sunday, he announced plans to donate the bulk of his $44 billion fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and four other philanthropies starting in July.

Buffett supports the tax, but he has no intention of paying it himself. In fact, since he's donating Berkshire Hathaway stock, he has never paid tax on any of that wealth. Never income tax, never capital gains tax, and now that he's worked the current law by giving much of it to Gates' Foundation - tax-deductible, of course - his children won't pay taxes on what they inherit from him, despite his vocal insistence that the children of other people do just that.

I give Buffett full marks for being a businessman without equal. However, his hypocrisy in regards to taxation is as fine an illustration as you'll ever see of what always happens when taxation is used as a tool of social engineering: the big people who love the big taxes don't pay them and have no intention of paying them, no matter the good they promise those taxes will deliver.

Taxes, we find sooner or later, are for Lilliputians.

The blind leading the blind

Dr. Susan Roberts, who teaches among other things "The Politics of Feminism" at Davidson College in North Carolina, explains how the Constitution might be found unconstitutional:

Adding credence to the idea that a flag-burning amendment is a calculated addition to the Republican agenda is the history of flag burning itself...

In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed an appellate court decision that the man was within his First Amendment rights. Wasting no time, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act just months after the ruling. Wasting no time, the Supreme Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act was inconsistent with First Amendment freedoms and thus unconstitutional.

It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would now uphold an amendment prohibiting flag burning, even with the change in the court's composition.

What Professor Davidson doesn't know (and therefore presumably fails to teach those learning feminist politics) is that the Supreme Court has no authority to find a flag-burning amendment unconstitutional any more than it can throw out amendments banning slavery or protecting women's suffrage. Amendments are, in the words of the Constitution itself, "valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution." Therefore the court can neither uphold nor overturn them. There is not even a review process. When an amendment is passed, there is no appeal.

Now one might be willing to believe that Professor Davidson simply misspoke, confusing an amendment with simple legislation, except that the entire point of her article - illuminated in the very title "No, proposal is political gesture that courts are not likely to uphold" - means that she managed to get a Phd, and what's worse, teaches the next generation of PoliSci PhDs, and yet misunderstands the basic political structure of our constitutional republic.

Can I get a huzzah for higher education?

(hat tip: BOTW)

A guided tour

MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's parliament is to declare support for rights to life and freedom for great apes on Wednesday, apparently the first time any national legislature will have recognized such rights for non-humans...

The move in a country better known for bull-fighting would follow a string of social reforms which have converted Spain from one of Europe's most conservative nations into a liberal trailblazer.

Welcome to the Liberal Slippery Slope. I can see by your incredulous smirk that this is your first time taking our tour, though if I remember correctly, your parents enjoyed the Tobacco Slippery Slope back in the 1960s. It was a rather crude tour, I'm afraid. But now that the trail has been blazed, I'm sure we can cover far more territory in a shorter time. Increased efficiency and all that. Let's get started, shall we?

You will note to your left we have the great apes, who because they are close to us genetically, enjoy the same rights as us. Aren't they beautiful? Just remember not to leer. No, I can't define leering: only the subject can, based on how she feels, how hot you are, or how much money she thinks you're worth. Leering is always harassment and a violation of her rights. Thank you.

Moving onward and downward, we have the lesser apes, spider monkeys, and some koala bears. Because they are close to apes genetically, they have received the same rights as the apes, which coincidentally are the same as us. No, sir, the spider monkey does not have to "Respect your authoritah!" Please put the stick down.

Further down the slope we have dogs and cats, which as we know are close to the bears genetically, so they have the same rights as bears, which are the same as apes, which are the same as us. In the past, many were enslaved by humans to make up for their own deficiencies, such as being born visually-challenged, but in this more progressive era, humans serve them. For example, one whimper and many dogs of the poodle variety find themselves dressed warmly while their valets don identical apparel. This is to demonstrate to those they encounter on their semi-daily constitutionals which humans belong to which dogs. Call it "reparations," if you will.

Finally, here at the bottom are the cows and pigs, who are genetically close to the dogs and cats, and the chickens, included in this group because they share the dishonor of having been enslaved for millennia with the former, and because they display a great evolutionary similarity to humans by walking upright. No sir, you can't have some chicken wings, what are you, some kind of a cannibal? There are soyburgers for sale in the lobby if you're hungry.

What do you mean soybeans have rights, too? Don't be ridiculous!

"We were born into a society where humans alone are the sole focus, and we begin to expand to the non-human great apes. It isn't easy for us to see how far that expansion will go, but it's very clear we need to expand beyond humans," Waldau said.

It isn't easy to see how far the expansion will go, but it's going to be damned entertaining all the way down.

Just in case you're worried

As a precautionary measure, I have added a notification from the International Earth Destruction Advisory Board on the left side of my blog (the green banner). In the event that the Earth is destroyed, that banner will be replaced by a red one, so be sure to check back frequently.

Is it 1914 already?

It's a scene that's playing out across the county and across the country as Jehovah's Witnesses, in an unprecedented effort, seek to invite as many people as they can to their annual convention.

The yearly* gathering of Witnesses, a Christian faith founded in Pittsburgh 136 years ago, is a huge worship celebration. This year, it has special significance because Witnesses are seeking to get out the word to millions of households that Armageddon, or the end of the world, is imminent. Or, as the invitation says: Deliverance at Hand.

I have in my office a book called "The Time is at Hand," (1908 edition). On page 101, we read the following words, "...the ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced."

The book, published by the Watchtower Tract Society - the corporate headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses - gives all the biblical reasons that Armageddon would occur in 1914. Of course, WWI gave the JW's a respectably close run. But even then, the prophecy had to be re-dated, first to 1925, then 1975. I thought the JWs had learned to stop fixing dates, but I was wrong: apparently we're dealing with another round of false-prophetic indulgence.

In all fairness, there have been plenty of non-JW attempts to set the date as well...various Millerite groups of the mid 1800s (which spawned both the Seventh Day Adventists and the JWs) expected the Second Advent then. Following Hal Lindsey's hugely popular books of the 70s and 80s which postulated an imminent return of Christ, an entire cottage industry arose in books claiming a date for the Second Coming, from "AD1991, the Genesis of Holocaust" to "99 Reasons the Rapture will occur in 1999." The only things they had in common were that they ignored Christ's admonition that "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put under his own authority," and that they were wrong.

So is the end coming this year? Next year? I have no idea: it's not for me to know. But I will give you 100-1 odds against. If it doesn't come, I'll still be accepting Paypal. If it does, well, I guess I'll just have to owe you.

* BOTW asks a good question: If deliverance is at hand, why are the Witnesses holding a "yearly" convention instead of a "final" one?

The Adventures of Suicide Bunny

Ok, so they're completely sick. I laughed anyway.

Jon Stewart, Heretic

The Washington Post names Jon Stewart an enemy of the people:

This is not funny: Jon Stewart and his hit Comedy Central cable show may be poisoning democracy.

Two political scientists found that young people who watch Stewart's faux news program, "The Daily Show," develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting...

Oh, come on, it's at least a little funny? When students who watched the Daily Show were compared with those who watched the CBS Evening News, the former "expressed less trust in the electoral system and more cynical views of the news media" than those who watched CBS.

Stewart's crime, of course, is pointing out naked emperors. And that's heresy indeed under the modern civil religion.

Too little, too late

El Presidente belatedly discovers fiscal responsibility:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush is pushing Congress to give him more authority to slice and dice the budget, an idea that's popular with conservatives who think the White House needs more muscle to restrict federal spending...

This week's radio address resurrected the line-tem veto, a previously-passed, previously-rejected-by-the-Supreme-Court scheme that allows the President to veto portions of bills rather than whole bills. In theory, it would allow the President to cut the wasteful spending (earmarks) that cling like barnacles to every bill that allocates your tax dollars. In reality, it might do that, a bit.

But it's funny to see the President drag his shot-up old bucket to the "conservative hot button" well once again. Seriously, this guy's been president for 6 years - spending more money than LBJ on Medicare-subsidized Viagra since Day 1 - and now he's concerned about the $250k a year Jerry Lewis earmarks for swimming pools in California? Bush worrying about earmarks is like Kenneth Lay worrying about Enron employees pilfering staplers. Yes, Congress is full of petty thieves, but they are, in the end, just petty thieves.

After watching this President add literally trillions of dollars to the debt our children will carry, pardon me for not taking his bloviations about budget control seriously - one might as well listen to Xaviera Hollander extoll the virtues of chastity.

On feminists and ants

In her lone entry thus far, the Kafkaesque K wikis up some difficulty:

Well, I took it upon myself to test out El Borak's statement (that "feminism" has a sufficiently robust definition that one can talk about it without defining it - El B). I typed "feminism" into Google, and opened up the first link: Wikipedia, a source that Vox himself has turned to in this debate. Wikipedia's definition begins:

Feminism is a diverse collection of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies, largely motivated by or concerning the experiences of women....

...we see that feminism may be composed of differing social theories, political movements, and philosophies...Wikipedia lists, further down in its entry, subtypes of feminism.

Aha! Feminism is not a blanket term that can stand on its own. Not all feminisms are the same. When the term "feminism" is bandied about, readers need to know what type of feminist the writer/speaker wishes to invoke. They need to do this in order to understand what, exactly, is being argued.

Unless, of course, one is not talking about specific "types" of feminism at all.

The question K forgets to ask in her shock at the discovery that feminists don't all look alike is this: why then are these diverse groups all considered feminists? What essence do they share that this blanket term applies to each of them? 'Feminism' must have a meaning outside the specific subgroup(s) using it, because they are relying on it to define who they are. And that meaning might be found precisely where I said, the dictionary, for those who are so unfamiliar with the political landscape that they do not recognize feminism when they see it.

When one is talking about a contemporary social movement *in general terms*, then the specifics of the subgroups within that group don't come into the argument. It is the very thing they have in common that is under discussion, not the attributes which differentiate the subgroups.

Insisting that one need know what subspecies of feminist is being 'invoked' is like demanding that before you can do anything about the ants in your kitchen, you must determine which of the 12,000 species you are having trouble with. The truth is that it doesn't matter which: once you note that what is crawling across your counter is an ant, it's not necessary to wiki before you reach for the Raid.

UPDATE: K follows up on the discussion:

I might also point out to El Borak that an important difference between ants and feminists is that he wouldn't reason with an ant before exterminating the ant. No matter now many times you tell an ant that it does not belong in your kitchen, the ant is still going to come back.

And no matter how many times I tell a feminist she DOES belong in my kitchen...

I'm kidding, okay? Sorry. Sometimes I just can't help myself...

But she makes a good point: "Feminism is more than just a word, and we need more than just a dictionary definition to understand its compexity." This is absolutely true, but one does not need to understand or reference its complexity to talk about it in general terms any more than one needs to understand the complexities of the bat mitzvah to talk generally about Judaism.

Then she makes my point, by quoting a Fox News article about something called Christian Feminism: "Feminism can be defined as the belief that women should be liberated as individuals and equal to men. It is only natural for there to be disagreement over what a personal ideal like "liberation" means and how a basic concept like "equality" should be defined. Indeed, it would be amazing if every woman who cared about liberation and equality came to exactly the same conclusions."

What's that? It's a pithy one-line definition of feminism - showing it can be done - followed by an admission that going deeper than that will get you no further.

If the feminists themselves cannot agree "how a basic concept like equality should be defined" - while accusing Ole' El B of thought crimes for not agreeing with the something they cannot define - if they are broken into a plethora of competing subspecies arguing over definitions and means for accomplishing their general goal, then talking about that general goal in general terms and summing it up with the general title is a reasonable way to get to the argument rather than arguing endlessly about definitions. Which was the origin of my refusal to define feminism any more than my dictionary does in the first place.

Just a bunch O links

Given today's discussion of feminism, I would be remiss if I didn't share Mike Adams' excellent series on why he doesn't take feminists seriously. Seldom do I agree so totally with a columnist (especially a Republican) but Adams shares an understanding of practical feminism the depths of which are generally unseen by those who don't work in a college setting. Glad to say my college is small enough that the infestation is still manageable.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII (NOW and THEN)

Those of you who wander over here from Lawrence.com know Patrick Quinn, AP reporter and all around great guy. He's one of my favourite nemeses and a guy whose disagreements I take very seriously indeed. PQ is currently running a series using 1st century Christianity to illustrate his thoughts on Popology, the theory that all of culture is referents competing for audience. No, it's not as boring as it sounds, and though he and I are on completely opposite sides theologically, I think the discussions are downright fantastic. Whatever respect I retain for the press after serving my sentence as a political PIO is solely a result of PQ's intelligence and integrity (well, and Joel's too, but don't tell him or he'll get a big head).

Popology 15: NT Notes, Philipians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians

Good background material:

Intro to Popology, Popology II, Popology III, Popology IV.

Those interested in more can click his link to the left (World is all that is the case) and check the archives.

If one wants to understand practical economics, there is no better teacher than Walter Williams of George Mason University. His home page and archives are here.

What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Find out here.

A weekend bender

Evil Bender tries out on Vox Day the logic he received for his 10th birthday:

I just find what you say to be bigoted, poorly argued, and lacking in actual thought. You've created an imaginary world in which cause and effect run something like this: women fight for the idea that they are human beings, equal to men and worthy of respect. The world is a fucked up place where bad things happen to people. Some of these people are women. Therefore, feminists brought this on themselves.

Yup, that's fantastic logic.

Actually, when you recast someone's argument and then attack that, it's known as a straw man, but I'm sure our master logician knows that.

Try this for Vox's real argument:

The world is a "fucked up place" and people do bad things to one another. Since law cannot make people be nice there needs to be an internal societal compass (e.g. Vox's "Judeo-Christian culture") that keeps them from doing what the external cage cannot prevent. Feminism, by undermining the internal compass, allows the bad things to happen while trying desparately to strengthen the ineffectual cage. Ergo, when the bad things that are allowed to happen happen to feminists, they brought it on themselves.

You read that right: because I don't find SLAVERY funny, I must be a total morning (whatever that means - El B). Well argued, Vox! Here are some other things I don't find funny: war, oppression, genocide, and people who take delight in others suffering because they are bigoted, illogical thinkers.

Not surprisingly, since Evil Bender ignores Vox's point, his response that HE doesn't find something funny misses the point. Post-Chrstian Feminists have created a Germany where all are supposedly equal. Yet the society they create finds a growing trade of sex slavery within it. That's called irony, and when Vox uses that irony ("A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect") it is funny even if Evil Bender doesn't think so. When I am not paying attention and hit myself with a hammer, I don't think it's funny, but my opinion doesn't subdue the laughter of those around me.

What's best about this is that Vox challenges me to find a solution. I would challenge him to even suggest one.

[TAG] You're it.

And he's making one of the most basic logical errors of all: slavery happens in "post-Christian" Europe, therefore it must exist because people aren't Christians. Never mind that in the Old Testament the Israelites were keeping slaves and that the New Testament can be read as endorsing slavery insofar as slaves were exhorted to obey their masters.

"Can be read" is a nice way of ignoring Vox's historical point that the elimination of slavery worldwide was driven by Christians, primarily in England but with the help of American Quakers. His point that Christians owned slaves is well-taken, but Christianity never demanded that anyone hold slaves. It was precisely *because* of their Christianity that abolitionists fought against the world-wide norm of slavery, and no other philosophy/religion stamped out slavery before them. Now that Christianity is a rare beast in continental Europe, the re-emergence of slavery there is just a coincidence, I'm sure.

I'm not as simple-minded as Vox, so I don't believe that a solution to the problem of global slavery is a simple matter, but I know that...(a) solution for slavery starts by building a world where bigotry, intolerance, and hatred aren't acceptable.

Yup, all we have to do is rebuild the entire world and the desires of everyone in it. Sound familiar? But again, Evil Bender proposes the wrong solution. Sex slavery is not based on bigotry, intolerance, or hatred. It is based on a) a desire for sex, and b) a desire for money. Ridding the world of intolerance will just ensure that women are enslaved in properly defined racial and ethnic ratios. You've got to find something designed to counteract the greed and lust built into human beings.

My money's on our Lizard Queen. It's a safe bet, like betting Vox will say something disgusting and bigoted and back it up with "logic" that has more holes than a shot-up stop sign.

The original Lizard Queen is Hillary Clinton, and the fact that Evil Bender does not even know enough about Vox's writing to know that means his calls to "give me a definition of 'feminism' or whatever it is you think is causing the global slavery problem" is just asking for someone else to do his homework. Vox doesn't need to define feminism - it already exists and any political atlas or even a dictionary might answer his query.

The biggest problem with feminist "logic" (which Evil Bender defines as "the idea that (women) are human beings, equal to men and worthy of respect") is that it is rubbish. No one denies that women are human beings, people are worthy of respect to the extent that they, individually, act respectably, and women are not equal to men. If they were, we would not be discussing this issue because there would be no sex slavery. The existence of a traffic specifically in women because they are women proves that men and women are not the same, and no amount of law will change that fact.

UPDATE: Evil Bender answers the argument here, for those interested in following along at home.

On the futility of the Evolution Wars

Much of the nation still takes stock in the book of Genesis.

Eight out of 10 Americans believe God guided creation in some capacity. A Gallup Poll reveals that 46 percent think God created man in his present form sometime in the past 10,000 years, while 36 percent say man developed over millions of years from lesser life forms, but God guided the process.

Only 13 percent of Americans think mankind evolved with no divine intervention.

"There has been surprisingly little change over the last 24 years in how Americans respond," pollster Frank Newport said.

This is exactly why the Kansas Evolution Wars are so futile. Every few years, the moderates (there are no liberals in Kansas, to hear the press tell it, only conservatives and moderates, and they are opposites) manage to take back the state school board and undo all the 'damage' done by conservatives, which damage usually amounts to allowing local school boards a modicum of leeway on evolution. And then in the next election, they saunter off, confident that at last Kansans 'get it,' while those neanderthal conservatives take the board back again.

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter one bit. Because even after several generations of Darwinist control of the classroom, after millions of dollars spent on natural history museums and PBS specials, after everyone is forced to listen to Carl Sagan intoning "Millions and millions of years ago..." millions and millions of times, half the people in the US still think mankind was created, as is, after 8000bc. 56% of all Republicans, 57% of churchgoing Democrats, 51% of all women, most of whom can be considered public school survivors, failed to learn the lesson.

It's rather comical to watch the pointy-heads huffing and mocking, in denial and frustration and bewilderment, at how these benighted people just can't believe what they are taught. Yet it never occurs to them that even a permanent final victory in the Evolution Wars is not going to change that. They fail to grasp the simple fact that either the classroom is completely unable to impart the lesson or the lesson is too preposterous for people to believe.

God Works in Mysterious Ways

TerryMum asks a good question

Not to be a pain, or obtuse, but where in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is against God's will? Isn't it in Leviticus?

Short answer: yes

Long answer: while it is in the Mosaic Law (c.f. Le 20:13) and in the NT (c.f. Romans 1:26-7), that's not where I conclude God's opposition to it. In fact, the Mosaic Law makes several exceptions (e.g. divorce) due to human weakness and so is not always a good indication of Christian teaching. However, before I go any further I need to clarify that this answer applies only to homosexual acts and relationships, not to feelings or attractions. In other words, it's about deeds, not thoughts. We can't help how we are tempted, only what we do about it.

That said, we're not going to find much in the Bible concerning homosexuality specifically because it's not much of an issue in the Ancient Near East. Oh, it existed (thus the law in Leviticus) but it didn't even have a word, just a description, because as with many things biblical, you have a model or target, and you have everything else. Jesus talks a lot about the model, but shows very little interest in various schemes that don't conform to it. But I'm getting ahead of myself...

Jesus' teaching on marriage is pretty clear and it's very consistent. So let's take a look at a bit of it and look for the principles:

"...from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female..."

Simple enough, begin with two separate sexes who were designed that way by God, on purpose and presumably for a reason.

"...For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they shall be one flesh..."

Two separate sexes, joined together, and together become something different, something more than they were before. This is the absolute essence of all Jesus' teaching on marriage, because this joining of two incomplete sexual creatures into a single being was the very purpose of the creation of two distinct and differently-bodied human beings. Into their relationship was designed an emotional and spiritual bond. It is the physical act of sex ("Adam knew his wife") that is both the cause and the conduit of this bond. To create the bond, God created the parts used for bonding different and interlocking. It is both symbolic and very, very practical.

"...What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

But this bond is not just a natural cause/effect. Jesus says that married couples are joined by God. It must be a pretty important institution.

So what can we draw from this? Heterosexual marriage is the only relationship that it is ever said God has a personal part in, and its makeup is bound up in the very design of the human body. It is presumed to be one man and one woman by Jesus. It is in his teaching the model to which all sexual relationships are expected to conform.

Now, if we begin with this creation-based principle, then we can explain WHY Paul says what he says in Romans and why Moses says what he says in Leviticus. It's not simply a matter of this rule or that - as if this thing we call sex is just a blank slate that needs rules applied to it - it's a matter of understanding the model laid out in Genesis and explained by Jesus.

When you try to re-create that same model using parts as they were not designed by God to work that way, you have a counterfeit. That's why whatever gay marriage is, it ain't marriage. Since sex is designed for marriage (See Jesus' teaching on adultery), if sex is part of a relationship that is not marriage, it is outside God's will and therefore a sin. Ergo, homosexual conduct is a sin.

In that sense, a physical homosexual relationship is no different than an adulterous one, an incestuous one, or a bestial one, and the homosexual is no more (and no less) a sinner than a guy who cheats on his wife on business trips. The 'wrongness' of the act is not inherent in prudish reactions to the very thought of it. Its wrongness is certainly not wrapped up in votes or marches or societal acceptance. The wrongness of the act lies solely in the fact that God created us to do A and we do B, C, and D, instead. And the farther we get from God, the farther down the alphabet we go. That's Paul's point in Romans 1 and the liberal denominations are illustrating it for us in real-time.

But let me turn it around: is there in the Bible a single occasion where a same-sex sexually-engaged couple is blessed, accepted, or praised? If there is not, then we'd better be careful before we write God's name on something he has withheld it from.

* Yeah, I realize there is a sequence error in the picture. Just work with me here, people.

Global Warming

On the Rights of Children

After noting a Reuters story explaining how often Mom and Dad scam from the kiddies' piggy bank, Daniel MacIntyre comes out against forced sharing:

If the money belongs to the kids, then taking the money without their consent - even if you pay it back - is sending them the message that this behavior is okay in general. After all, their own parents do it. Once you establish that "your" money is not really yours - that one can justify taking it from you without your consent - you lay the foundation for welfare, social security, nationalized health care and a host of other programs where you are forced to pay for the dubious benefit of others.

This is the same issue I have with forced sharing among kids. The notion that "you weren't playing with it at that moment, so it's fair for Johnny to play with it even if you don't want him to" is morally equivalent to a teenager hotwiring a parked car for a joyride - after all, the owner wasn't using it and he will get it back eventually.

The first para begins with a big "if": if the money belongs to the kids. And while I'm not going to justify the robbing of others' ceramic livestock, I think we need to be very careful about creating absolute property rights for children, even if it's just in argument. We certainly don't treat them that way in real life: if mom gave little Johnny a toy and he immediately broke it, rare is the parent who would shrug and say, "it was his property to dispose of as he wishes." Johnny would at least get in trouble for being careless if it was an accident or for being a spiteful, wasteful little bastage if it was not.

But why? Because the property rights of children are not absolute and never have been. They are conditional. Legally, if a child inherits property over a certain amount, the state may get involved - conservatorship and all that. If it's below that amount, it often goes into the parent's name. Why? Because small children cannot really own anything in the real sense of the word.

That's where the forced sharing analogy breaks down. Ownership of a car by an adult is not equivalent, legally or morally, to Jonny's ownership of a plastic car. Johnny may be the only one who uses it, and it may have been given to him with a big red bow and a card with his name on it but Mom is perfectly within her rights to dispose of it, whether to the Goodwill or in a garage sale. So whose car is it?

In the biblical perspective, Paul made an apt comparison once, "the heir, as long as he is a child, is not different from a servant - though he be lord of all - but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed by his father," and while Paul was speaking about the law, the point is the same: there is a difference between the property rights of children and of adults.

To the extent that we believe in parental rights concerning children, to that extent we do not support property rights for children. The two are mutually exclusive, and if a parent wants to teach Johnny to share (a noble act that one must be trained in...it does not come naturally) then Johnny's property rights are going to take a back seat to his parents' responsibility to mold Johnny's character.

It's the parents' call, at least until Johnny pays for food and rent.

Mogambo gets a little excited

The thing I like best about Mogambo Guru (Richard Daughty) is that part of his schtick is using the exclamation points and salty language that other professional economists are afraid to use. He's rather like the medieval court jester who, rather than being simply a joker, is a humorous yet cunning advisor and quite possibly the one man able to tell the truth in the King's presence and live. Yes, he's over the top. And yes, his numbers are correct. Perhaps his conclusion - that we have entered a monetary madhouse for which there is no precedent and probably from which there is no escape - is correct as well.

And I notice with a grim Mogambo frown (GMF) on my stupid face that Required Reserves in the banks actually went down to the bottom of its range for the last zillion years or so. Hell, picking a date in random, say, in May 1995, which was eleven long years ago, total deposits in the banks ("savings") were only around $110 billion, and total Loans and Leases on the books of the banks logged in at only $204 billion. And against that, the banks were saddled with $57 billion in Required Reserves.

Now, I notice how my blood has run chilly, and how everything is dark and gloomy. Gaunt buzzards have gathered in the trees to sit and lick their chops as they glare into the deep, dark, dangerous depths of my soul. I realize, in a sudden cold sweat, that the dollar and the banks (as we professional Mogambo economists (PME) say) "are freaking doomed!"

The scene is now perfectly set to reveal the ugly fact that Total Deposits at the banks are up to $5.2 trillion, which is 47 times bigger than it was in 1995. That's a growth rate of 42% a year, compounded! And total Loans and Leases is now $5.7 trillion, which is 27 times bigger than in 1995, which works out to an annual growth rate of 35% a year! Big, BIG increases!

Yet against that monstrous, cancerous rise in both assets and liabilities, the Required Reserves went DOWN from $57 billion in 1995 to only $42 billion today in 2006! Hahahaha! Surprise! Down! Required Reserves went DOWN! Hahahaha! To keep the same 0.518 ratio of Required Reserves against total deposits in the banking system in 1995, the banks would have to have, right now, in Required Reserves, $2.693 trillion! Instead, they have only $42 billion, 1.6% as much! Hahahaha!

In short, more than ALL of the money and credit created in the banking system since 1995 have been literally created without any underlying cash deposits of any kind! None! Zero money! This is an infinite multiplication of deposits! Fractional-reserve banking at its insane, suicidal extreme!

And you wonder why it is that I am always screaming that you buy gold and silver? Hahaha! Wonder no more!

Who says watching pro wrestling is a waste of time?

Please do not feed the bete noire

The Orlando City Council discussed a controversial plan to limit who can feed the homeless and how often, according to a Local 6 News report.

Each week, several groups travel to Lake Eola in Orlando to provide food for the homeless. However, the feeding sessions have some local businesses and residents concerned that they can lead to a spike in crime.

Particulary ironic is that the city counselor who proposed the ban on feeding undesireable humans, Patty Sheehan, headed up the successful effort last year to allow dogs to eat in outdoor restaurants, apparently so the doddering harridans who infest south Florida can sup in public accomodations with the immaculately-dressed poodles who serve as the children they never wanted.

After all, a city's gotta have its priorities.

Great, now I'm on the watch list

I don't know what the above says, but it's linked to this blog from the Palestinian State's webpage, along with some other sexy domains like jihadislami.org.

Can't wait until the next time I try to get on a plane...

Teaching the Chinese bad habits

BEIJING (Reuters) - Banner-wielding animal rights protesters swarmed into a restaurant serving cat meat in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen and forced it to shut, Xinhua news agency said Sunday.

The 40 or so, mainly female demonstrators -- holding banners reading "cats and dogs are friends of human beings" -- entered the Fangji Cat Meatball restaurant and demanded the owner free any live cats on the premises, Xinhua said.

There were none in the building, as the owner had already moved them out, it said. But some burst into tears upon finding a skinned cat in a fridge.

The Chinese send us all manner of useful gadgets and in return we export treasury debt and animal rights activism.

Just doesn't seem fair, does it?

Accelerating irrelevance

As the Episcopal church continues its century-long slide into oblivion, they are managing to pick up a collection of 'firsts' that would make the United Methodists green with envy, including an openly gay bishop and now a feminist head of the church. But there is one similarity they share with their liberal denomination friends:

"The new leader will inherit a fractured church. The Pittsburgh-based Anglican Communion Network, which represents 10 U.S. conservative dioceses and more than 900 parishes within the Episcopal Church, is deciding whether to break from the denomination. The House of Bishops recently started a defense fund that will help fight legal battles against parishes that want to leave and take their property with them.

Membership in the Episcopal Church, as in other mainline Protestant groups, has been declining for years and has remained predominantly white. More than a quarter of the 2.3 million parishioners are age 65 or older."

As is the case with most liberal (or in press parlance, "Mainline") demoninations, the faster they try to catch up with modernity, the more people they leave behind. The more they strive to be relevant, the more irrelevant they become. In the end, the old who are too habit-bound to leave will die off, the waning flow of funds will be paid to lawyers rather than missionaries, and devolution and entropy do the rest of the job of returning a once great body to dust. The public structure may live on, as does the empty husk known as the World Council of Churches, but there will be no life in it. Paid staff may continue to write articles for obscure magazines and appear on TV news shows, but nobody will be listening from the pews. Why would they go to a church that doesn't believe in Christianity?

It's probably a societal harbinger worth noting: the only churches growing are those that are young, vibrant, independent, and fundamentalist. Note the pattern in business as well - GM is dying and job growth for the past half century comes almost exclusively from small business. That pattern will be followed in government eventually as it produces less and less while consuming more and more. And the voices and demands of the parasites who infest these dying organizations will continue to grow more shrill, more imploring, more desparate.

And more irrelevant.

Update: It doesn't get any easier, considering she brings a uniquely American theology to the world body:

As presiding bishop, it will fall to Schori to explain the convention votes to world Anglican leaders, including those who consider her ordination invalid. Her efforts to maintain ties will be made all the more difficult because she voted to confirm (openly gay Bishop V. Gene) Robinson, supports blessing same-sex couples and believes gay relationships do not violate Scripture.

Update II: Neither denomination seems to have anything on the Presbyterians, however:

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) - The divine Trinity - "Father, Son and Holy Spirit'' - could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb'' or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend'' at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly...

On Tuesday, the assembly will vote on a proposal to give local congregations and regional "presbyteries'' some leeway on ordaining clergy and lay officers living in gay relationships.

The proposals are not unrelated, of course. As soon as one finds it necessary to get rid of God's teaching regarding sex and sexuality, it becomes necessary to get rid of God Himself.

Herself, itself, whatever...

They won't come when you call, they don't chase squirrels at all

ST. LOUIS - A woman accused of pummeling a dog breeder over the head with a dead Chihuahua has been charged with two misdemeanors and reimbursed the money she paid for the puppy.

Lisa Lynn Hopfer, 33, of Wentzville, was charged with trespassing and third-degree assault in the June 7 incident, authorities said.

No, I'm not going to put a picture on this post. Sickos.

Thank you, Captain Obvious

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President William Poole warned Friday that rising gasoline and oil prices may be adding to inflation pressures in a way not detected by current data...

"We may -- and I emphasize 'may' because my purpose is to make a general point and not to conduct a full analysis of the current situation -- face more inflation pressure than currently shows up in formal data," Poole said.

Maybe it's just me, but I would have thought that relying on a core inflation measurement that purposely excludes energy costs might eventually cause the problem of gas and oil not being detected by that measurement. But it's nice to see the the eggheads who run things slip up and tell the truth on occasion. I'm strangely comforted by the fact that they know it, even if they so seldom share it.

Poole's revelation that the nation's main inflation gauge doesn't really measure inflation won't change anything in real life, of course. A realistic measurement of inflation is still politically unpalatable, which is why food and energy and house prices (i.e. the most significant consumer prices) were excluded from the core Consumer Price index in the first place.

Many answers, few of them correct

The Skeptic's Annoted Bible notes a contradiction, that in Gen 10 there are many languages but in Gen 11 just one which is subsequently split.

Apparently there is an entire blog dedicated to answering their contradictions, and its take on the above is this:

In chapter 10 of Genesis, genealogies are given of Noah’s sons and their generations. Each lineage developed their own language, as would be expected when they divided and diversified in land settlement. However, at some point in the last generations of Chapter 10, and at the beginning of Chapter 11, the tribes of the world decided to join back together under one head, or government. It was at that time that they agreed upon one language, just before the tower was built.

So there was a single language which naturally split into many, was purposely compressed back to one, then were split into many again? I find that a little unlikely for at least the reason that if mankind could agree on a single language before the tower, what's to keep them from simply doing it again? It also undermines the nature of the judgment at Babel, which presumes that a plethora of languages is an insurmountable obstacle that will force separation of peoples (as it has proven to be in history). To propose that everyone in the world decided to speak a single language is not only unsupported by the text or history, but by what we know of people - they simply don't do that sort of thing.

No, there's a simpler answer: Gen 10 and 11 form a single narrative separate from the rest of Genesis, and the genealogy is its main purpose and the narration is simply explanatory material. To see it laid out in outline form without those distracting verse divisions, click here.

I mentioned before the "toledoth" (for a thorough explanation, try here), a separating comment that divides Genesis into books, probably with different original authors, which books were combined by Moses at a later date. There is a toledoth in 10:1 ("Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah...") which rather than belonging to the material following, belongs to the material preceeding. The story (generations) of the sons of Noah is the flood narrative which begins at the toledoth in 6:9 and ends in 10:1. 10:2 thru 11:10 are one account ending with the toledoth "These are the generations of Shem."

Now, if we take 10:2-11:10 as a single "story" we find that it has 2 natural parts, genealogy (10:1b-32) and narration (11:1-9), and the author has chosen to arrange his book topically with the narration explaining the genealogy. He lays out the families of mankind as they existed in his day, then he narrates the events that caused them to be as they are.

Catherine Murphy of Santa Clara University explains how the ancients did it this way:

The historian usually began by writing out a sketch of the events, then inserted secondary material (speeches, dramatic episodes, digressions) and finally arranged the collected material in a systematic way (chronologically, topically)...

Ancient historiographers describe five types of historiography:
1. genealogy or mythography
2. travel descriptions (geography and ethnography)
3. local history (horography, annalistic writing)
4. chronography (chronicles)
5. history

What we have in Gen 10-11 is a case where our historiographer arranged his material topically rather than chronologically and even followed the pattern above - except that he mixes travel descriptions in the genealogy - and then relied on his audience to understand the cause/effect relationship. It's only because we insist on treating the whole passage as a chronology that we have troubles, because then we have to propose unworkable solutions to get around our own bad assumption.

Adventures in IRC

[death09] my girlfriend broke up with me and sent me pix of her and her new boyfriend in bed
[ktp753] ouch.
[death09] yeah.i sent them to her dad


[scirDSL] I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next." They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals.


SparTacus (rulimbaww@3B942731.dsl.stlsmo.swbell.net) has joined #santcuary
*SparTacus is now known as Betty_Guns
wacko Jacko (lbeedy@1C57684.dsl.stlsmo.swbell.net) has joined #santcuary
[wacko_Jacko] ok spartacus just came n here i know it. which one of you is that loser?
[hunney] I am spartacus
[ji_pper] no im spartacus
[Betty_Guns] I am spartacus
[mistr andersn] I’m spartacus
[wacko_Jacko] ur all freaks thats what u r


[Mike3285] wtf is a palindrome
[MaroonSand] no its not dude


[Zybl0re] get up
[Zybl0re] get on up
[Zybl0re] get up
[Zybl0re] get on up
[phxl|paper] and DANCE
* nmp3bot dances :D\-<
* nmp3bot dances :D|-<
* nmp3bot dances :D/-<
[[SA]HatfulOfHollow] i'm going to become rich and famous after i invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet


[i8b4uUnderground] d-_-b
[BonyNoMore] how u make that inverted b?
[BonyNoMore] wait
[BonyNoMore] never mind

Talking Nonsense

The Treasury Department legal tender FAQ has it down to a science:

There is... no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

This was news to me (I'm not being sarcastic, I really didn't know) and I consider it very good news. Legal tender laws, it appears, only apply to doller-denominated debts that one has already incurred; they do not mandate that you accept cash, and of course no one has to accept checks or credit cards. It is perfectly legal to do a 'cash' business completely in silver or shotgun shells or crunchy frogs, though I'm sure that the government will be very interested in seeing you convert those into dollar equivalents come tax time.

But that fact, while being good news, also puts the lie to the last rationalization of paper money fans (next question):

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.

That the notes have no value for themselves is unarguable. They are simply ink on paper, promises to pay nothing. But you will hear a constant refrain any time you discuss the essence of paper money: "Just because it's not redeemable in gold doesn't make it bad," the argument goes, "because it's backed by goods and services."

The silver certificate was 'backed' by silver in that there was one silver dollar on deposit that you could get by turning in your bill. The gold certificate was backed the same way. That's what backing meant: you could redeem the legal obligation you held and get the real thing. Always. By law.

Now go back and read the first quote again. No one is under any obligation to give you any goods or services for your note. So in what sense is it backed by "all the goods and services in the economy"? Only in nonsense.

At least when the dollar breaks you'll be able to legally stick your creditors with worthless money. Sticking your grocer in exchange for your next meal might present a more difficult challenge.

Give me action not words

Red State explains why the Dems can't be given the reins of power (asterisk in original):

So you think the Republicans in power are spending too much? You think they need to be punished? You think the Democrats can't be worse than the Republicans? Think again.

Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), was rather frank about what will happen if the Dems get back in power.

"When I become chairman [of a House appropriations subcommittee], I'm going to earmark the sh*t out of it," Moran buoyantly told a crowd of 450 attending the event.

And Congressman Moran's district is safely his. The only thing keeping him from your checkbook is Republican control of Congress.

Remember that.

My goodness, earmarks, near and dear to my heart. Earmarks, for those who don't know, are special spending where a congressman - like Jim Moran should he get into power - can spend your money on little pet projects that benefit only the people who vote for him.

Kind of like the GOP does now, at least according to Red State. In fact, on the very same page we find that the Republican Chairman of Appropriations, Jerry Lewis, earmarked $250k for a swimming pool in Banning, Ca (coincidentally his home town) in a 2005 transportation bill and $250k in the 2006 transportation bill. The 2007 bill is even better, $500k for the pool. But it doesn't all go to Banning. In 2004 he earmarked $325k for a pool in Salina, Ca. Lewis is apparently on a mission to alleviate the Great California Swimming Pool Shortage.

And Lewis is not the only Republican on the job: the number of congressional earmarks has grown from 4,126 in 1994 - the year before Republicans gained control of Congress - to 15,268 in 2005. That's action!

So I guess that the reason we ought to vote against Democrats is because they boast that they'll earmark the shit out of everything. Instead, we should vote for Republicans, who have proven time and time again they won't just talk about it.

Taxation without ostentation

Marc J. Lewyn on why the Inheritance tax should remain:

As a financial adviser, I spend much of my time helping clients decide how to handle their estate tax liability...

It's not that hard to structure an estate to avoid the tax. That's what the thousands of accountants, lawyers and financial planners do.

From my perspective, the estate tax is purely optional. So repeal is unnecessary except for the uninformed, the unfocused or those people who are unwilling to pay their financial planning team a little more to make the tax go away or be reduced.

Since no one has to pay the tax - the argument goes - repealing it is unnecessary except to his job. In other words, the main purpose for the estate tax is not to raise money for the government (the government raises relatively little from it anyway) but to employ people to help other people avoid paying it. It's a law designed to keep people busy producing nothing useful, and repealing it would toss "thousands of accountants, lawyers, and financial planners" out on their ears.

To me that sounds like a pretty good argument for repeal. Since all it is, bottom line, is a scheme whereby we give busywork to intelligent and educated people who are perfectly capable of creating something else with their time and effort, it really is of no advantage economically.

Actually, its purpose runs a little deeper: The estate tax is mostly an envy-driven psychological placebo for liberals. They can sleep well at night believing that the rich are being taxed, while those rich - who write the laws - create plenty of loopholes to allow them to avoid it altogether.

So the tax itself is pretty worthless, but I suppose the mental health of liberals is worth something...

A commie under every train

The poster on the right (click it for a larger version) is a 1920 German election poster that says, "For Workers and Farmers, vote Communist!"

The poster on the left appears on MARC (Maryland Rail Commuter) trains running between Baltimore and DC ordering riders to report anything unusual to the authorities.

Notice the purposeful gaze toward the future, the proletarian apparel, the light falling from above and behind, the shadowed faces, even the placement of the pole and the lettering. The resemblance is not coincidental. All MARC needs is a hammer and sickle rather than a magen david on the red cloth and it's a perfect communist propaganda poster.

So here's the question: did some libertarian make his way into the art room, create a sly commentary on our own security apparatus, and slip it past his historically illiterate superiors? Or is there something less benign going on in DC?

Sometimes science stinks -
but it's the game we play, baby

John Hargrave takes one for the team:

Because I care about my fellow Americans, I decided to give Olestra a try. At the time of this experiment, however, it wasn't easy: Frito-Lay was test-marketing the snacks at only one store in the country, so I had to have them shipped from Iowa. At that point, they were called "Max Chips," and since "Max" sounds like an overweight trucker who already has stains in his underwear, I thought that was even more fitting.

The stage was set: I would subsist on nothing but artificially-greased snacks for a full week. Bags upon bags of snacking goodness, dripping with wholesome Olestra.

Warning: Unless you're the kind of person who giggles when you hear the words, "Side effects may include anal leakage" during a commercial, don't click the link. You won't enjoy it.

Self-Inflicted Wounds

"I don't even know what a gay Republican is. Does that mean they beat themselves up in parking lots?"
-- Paula Poundstone on NPR's "Wait! Wait! Don't Tell Me" last weekend.

Republicans don't need parking lots, nor to be gay, to beat themselves up. It seems that committee meetings work out just fine:

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans yesterday revived their efforts to slash funding for public broadcasting, as a key committee approved a $115 million reduction in the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that could force the elimination of some popular PBS and NPR programs...

A similar move last year by Republican leaders was turned back in a fierce lobbying campaign launched by Public Broadcasting Service stations and Democratic members of Congress, in a debate that was colored by some Republicans' frustration with what they see as a liberal slant in public programming.

Still, Republicans say they remain adamant that public broadcasting cannot receive funding at the expense of healthcare and education programs...

"We've got to keep our priorities straight," said Representative Ralph Regula , an Ohio Republican who is chairman of the appropriations panel that approved the cut. "You're going to choose between giving a little more money to handicapped children versus providing appropriations for public broadcasting."

Of course, this little clip not only explains why the GOP not only has to fight the same battle every year, it explains why they lose it every year. Every year, the GOP passes some meaningless 'cuts,' and every year the full house (including many Republicans) kills them and gives taxpayer money away so Paul Poundstone can go on NPR and call them homophobes. Then the same Republicans will pull their hair out over liberal programming.

Of course it's liberal programming. Socialists are generally liberals, and you are funding a state-sponsored, or socialist, enterprise. Duh. But liberal programming is not the problem because it's not the real issue. Even if NPR was as conservative as Fox News, it would still be improper - and unconstitutional - to fund it.

This PR-based, for-the-children approach guarantees the GOP will lose the battle as well. By making it a battle of kids' programming versus "handicapped children," they have guaranteed they can't win. After all, if you can't justify the $115 million you propose to cut, how do you justify the $380 million you're still giving away? You can't. You're just trying to starve big bird because he's a pinko. Senator McCarthy hated children, too.

The correct answer is that in a world of 500+ channels, there is simply no excuse to spend taxpayer money funding television programs. The answer is to kill it. If you trim it, it grows back. You have to dig it up, burn the roots, and salt the earth where it once grew. That they won't just means they'll have to fight - and lose - the same battle next year.

Almost as if that's what they want, huh?