El Borak's Myopia

El Borak's Myopia

.

It depends upon what your definition of 'risked' is

Rambabe tells how she single-handedly fought off Serbia's finest:

VINTON, Iowa - ...On Saturday night in Dubuque she pounced, arguing she risked her life* on White House missions in the 1990s, including a hair-raising flight into Bosnia that ended in a "corkscrew" landing and a sprint off the tarmac to dodge snipers...

It turns out that Clinton wasn't quite flying solo into harm's way that day.

She was, in fact, leading a goodwill entourage that included baggy-pants funnyman Sinbad, singer Sheryl Crow and Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, then 15, according to an account of the March 1995 trip in her autobiography "Living History."

As the plane approached the runway, the pilot ordered the Clintons into the armored front of the plane, Clinton writes.

Dude, I was in a tornado drill once. Elect me!

This is actually one of Senator McBragg's dumber yarns, not even in the same league with the one that had her named for Sir Edmund Hilary - at least that was a little creative - or the one where she said that Chelsea was jogging around the twin towers on 9/11 and was saved by diving into a coffee shop.

The only thing interesting about this one is the claim that she willingly** brought her young daughter into a war zone that was crawling with snipers - if the world's smartest life was at risk, then so was Chelsea's***. If a place is too dangerous for a man, send a teenage girl? Good idea, Mom.

Unlike the big lies for which her husband is justly famous, her lies are almost all petty and unnecessary. She seems to be out of practice as well. But to her credit, she's been getting a lot of reps in recently, so if she's as smart as we all know she is we can look forward to more than our share of really creative whoppers over the next 8 years.

* "The dictum around the Oval Office in the '90s, she added, was: 'If a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady.'" That's rich. More likely such trips were arranged around the President's dating schedule.

** And I might add, unnecessarily. I mean what was she going to accomplish? Goodwill Ambassatrix to the Sarajevo junior prom?

*** Not to mention Sinbad's. That guy was great in "Jingle all the way." It would have been a waste to see him blown away by that decade's Hitler. Sheryl Crow, otoh, I wonder how many squares of TP she used?

Labels: democrats

Link to this post ::

I'm convinced

Labels: science

Link to this post ::

Even Peter said he was hard to read

On my last day in Hawaii, a trio of Mormons showed up at my daughter's door. She had ordered a free book of Mormon off the internet, and they were there to deliver it. They got to chatting with my son-in-law (Beth was asleep), then two neighbors showed up, then voices started rising. So I turned up the Metallica so I couldn't hear it. Frankly, I have no patience for arguing with wide-eyed missionaries and better used the time packing.

But one of the subjects that often comes up in such discussions is "Baptism for the dead." In short, Mormons believe that the thorny (and completely theologically-created*) problem of "What about those who have never heard?" can be solved by vicarious baptism**. What generally happens is that each side claims that their interpretation of one specific verse (1Cor 15:29) provides sufficient proof upon which to build (or tear down) the entire theological edifice, and each side accuses the other of taking the verse out of context. But neither defines the context.

So when the noise level rose outside, as the Christians pronounced 'anathema' on the Mormons and the Mormons reveled in their persecution, I was reminded of this piece by JP Holding which shows the actual context of verse 29. It is not simply verses 28-30, or 20-40, or any arbitrary number of before-and-after verses. Verse 29 plays a very specific role in a well-defined portion of an argument structured as a piece of deliberative rhetoric as practiced in late antiquity.

Holding shows that v29, based on its position in Paul's argument, does not support the Mormon position. However, such a conclusion, based as it is on understanding something very few people even know exists, cannot be sufficiently explained while standing on your front porch. That's the place for yelling.

But to illustrate Paul's argument for the Resurrection, I've outlined 1Cor 15 (most of it, anyway) and added Holding's descriptions of each parts of the argument. If you've ever read 1Cor 15, you'll agree with the Apostle Peter that in Paul's writing there are many things "hard to be understood." But if you break it up into its component parts, it's actually not terribly daunting.

UPDATE: I'm putting it into a separate post here so if I refer to it later, you won't have to read through all this noise again...

* Theologians' major reason for existing seems to be to fix God's oversights. Seriously.

** Mormons don't run all those genealogical libraries out of a simple love of history.

Link to this post ::

First Corinthians 15 as Greco-Roman Rhetoric

Exordium* (vv1-2) - An introduction in which the writer sets forth his concerns and intentions. The exordium introduced planned, recurring themes like Paul's phrase "in vain," repeated throughout the argument (vv. 10, 14, 17, 58) and thematically explored in verses 12-19 and 29-34.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel

which I preached to you,
which you also received,
in which you also said you stand,
by which you are saved,

if you hold fast the word which I preached to you,
unless you have believed in vain.

Narratio (vv3-5) - Background information is provided. A narratio included judgments such as common sayings, popular beliefs, or supporting historical narrative. Verses 3b-5 represented the creed or "popular belief" of the church: Christ died, was buried, and was resurrected.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:

that Christ died for our sins

according to the scriptures, and

that he was buried, and
that he was raised on the third day

according to the scriptures, and

that he appeared

to Peter, then
to the Twelve. After that he appeared
to more than five hundred brethren at one time,

most of whom remain until now, but
some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared

to James, then
to all the Apostles, and last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared
to me also. For I

am the least of the apostles, and
am not fit to be called an apostle, because

I persecuted the church of God.

But by the grace of God I am what I am,
and his grace toward me did not prove in vain, but

I have labored even more than all of them, yet
not I, but the grace of God in me.

Whether it was I or they, so we preached and so you believed.

Refutatio (vv12-19) - The "proof" of the argument, typically begun with the claim of the opposition (here, that there is no resurrection [v. 12]). The refutatio then denied the asserted fact. Paul denied the "no resurrection" teaching by arguing that resurrection exemplified the Christian hope.

Now if Christ is preached that he has been raised from the dead, how do some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?

For if there is no resurrection of the dead,

not even Christ has been raised.

And if Christ has not been raised, then

our preaching is in vain.
Your faith is also in vain. Moreover,
we are found to be false witnesses of God, because

we testified against God that he raised Christ,

whom he did not raise
if in fact the dead are not raised.

For if the dead have not been raised and if Christ has not been raised,

your faith is worthless;
you are still in your sins. Then
those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

If we have hope in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

Probatio (vv20-28) - This section consisted of a propositio, a statement of the proposition to be proven (v. 20); a ratio, or reason establishing the truth of the proposition (vv. 21-2, the historical examples of Adam and Christ); a central confirmatio which further proved the ratio, expressing it in a different way (vv. 23-4), and an exornatio, which confirmed the arguments presented (vv. 25-8).

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For

since by one man came death, by a man also came resurrection of the dead. For
as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order:

Christ the first fruits, after that
those who are Christ’s at his coming,
then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to the God and father,

then he has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
For he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet.

The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For

“He has put all things in subjection under his feet” (but when he says all things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to him).

When all things are subjected to him, then

the son himself will also be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him, so that
God may be all in all.

Peroratio (vv29-34) - This section recapitulated the main points of the probatio and turned the case against the opposition by attacking their primary points. Paul used three strategies for composing a peroratio: interrogation (vv. 29-32a), irony (v. 32b), and proposal of policy (vv. 33-4).

Otherwise,

what will those do who are baptized for the dead?

If the dead are not raised at all, why are they baptized for them?

Why are we also in danger every hour?

I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me?
For if the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Do not be deceived:

“bad company corrupts good morals.”

Become sober-minded as you ought, and
stop sinning: for some have no knowledge of God.

I speak this to your shame.

* Descriptions of the portions of Deliberative Rhetoric stolen blatantly from JP Holding.

Labels: bible

Link to this post ::

I wouldn't attack a grizzly bear, either

Link to this post ::

Buh Bye

Teams learned pretty quickly that if you stack the box, you can shut down a one-dimensional running game, no? The only problem is that other than that running game, the Vikings simply had nothing on offense. So it's Buh Bye on another mediocre season, Vikings style*.

Congrats to the Redskins, they earned the berth. Now, somebody please beat the Packers. Badly. Please?

* meaning just enough flashes of brilliance to get fans' hopes up, always followed by the kind of uninspired losing that grinds their suffering souls to powder.

Labels: vikings

Link to this post ::

A rerun...because it's still funny

Labels: christianity

Link to this post ::

Perfecting the lazy garden

It's been about 60 years since Uncle Sam last promoted the Victory Garden. When he did, during WWI and WWII, it was supposed to be a way to reduce food costs so you could buy more war bonds and so that the government would have plenty of young farmers to send out for sushi and sauerkraut. But the idea* was sound and remains so today for a lot of reasons, the foremost being that the less you spend on pickles, the more you can spend on taxes.

I'm too lazy to grow a real garden, but that doesn't mean I, being a patriotic American, don't try. I just concentrate on two things that allow me to cut food costs while not working very hard: perennials and high cost-per-pound foods.

It really makes very little financial sense for me to grow potatoes or corn. Not only do they take a lot of room and work, the opportunity costs of not doing so are relatively low. When you can buy a 20# bag of taters for a couple bucks, well, let's just say it's probably a good idea to go ahead and buy them. However, a jar of pickles costs more than 20# of potatoes, so pickles might be worth growing, if one could grow pickles**.

It must be seed-buying time, as I received two seed catalogs in the mail today, and as I was looking through them for ideas, I started plotting out my own plot. It will consist mainly of this:

1. Rhubarb. Rhubarb is great for pies, for wine, for eating raw, and for hitting little brothers in mock sword fights. Thanks to Mom I finally have a plant that has made it more than a month (I'll try to add two more this year), so it looks like it's rhubarb all around come fall.

2. Horseradish. The problem with horseradish is not making it grow but in making it not grow everywhere. It's great for sauces, like shrimp sauce (half ketchup, half horseradish) or on sandwiches. Peel the roots like you would a potato, then dice it up and blend it in a blender with vinegar***. It'll keep in the fridge forever (or at least for 2 years). Mix it with mayo, Miracle Whip, or sour cream and it's great with any kind of beef.

3. Asparagus and other perennials. I don't eat them much, which is why I don't grow many, but the price is right. I also grow a bell pepper plant or two in my wife's flower garden. That way she has to weed around it, not me.

4. Cucumbers. I found a really cool cucumber in one of the catalogs which is supposed to be great for pickling. In the past, my pickles have always been mushy, and no one likes mushy pickles but my chickens. They like them a lot, or maybe they are just used to them.

5. Tomatoes. Because of a bumper crop in 2001, I still have about a case of salsa left in the pantry, but I will probably give that to the chickens and start over. That's assuming that I get a good crop this year. Two years ago I made the mistake of putting a wheelbarrow load of chicken crap in my garden rather than on the mulch pile. I had 8' tall tomato plants and no tomatoes. This year was better. 2008 ought to be bumper.

6. Fruits. We have grapes, cherries, apples, pears, and currants, though because of a late frost, yields this year were pretty low. But plant once, trim the trees annually - that's my kind or gardening.

The great thing about the lazy man's garden is that very few of the above take any work on my part, just one afternoon of planting in the spring, a few nights of weeding a month (tops) and a bit of time harvesting and pickling and canning. But since I enjoy the latter two quite a bit, they do not count as work.

Then I take all the money I saved and give it to Uncle Sam so he can subsidize the hobby farms of poor people like Ted Turner and David Rockefeller.

See? When you grow a Victory Garden, everyone wins!

* Gardening, that is. Of course, it may never be promoted again, as food you grow yourself is not counted in GDP. Good Americans today do nothing that would lower GDP. But in case you get any unpatriotic ideas, just know that Uncle Sam can factor in what you might have purchased just as easily as he removes food from inflation figures; you cannot modify government figures by changing the reality they allegedly represent.

** Neither can one grow pickled peppers. Believe me, I've tried.

*** "With vinegar" is very important, unless your wife is looking for an excuse to buy a new blender. If you just put the roots in by themselves, she'll be needing one after about a minute.

Link to this post ::

Labels: demotivators

Link to this post ::

Hope springs eternal

I guess they're still making those things after all:

WASHINGTON — On Thursday, the U.S. Mint offers the first glimpse of four presidential $1 coins it plans to issue in 2008. The coins bear the images of the fifth through the eighth U.S. presidents...

U.S. Mint director Ed Moy hopes the coins "will not only jingle in pockets but be spent."

The Mint expects demand of more than 400 million for the four coins, compared with the more than 800 million presidential dollar coins ordered by the Federal Reserve and put into circulation in 2007. Those first four dollar coins were engraved with the images of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Washington coin was the most popular, with more than 300 million issued.

I don't have a graph, but the mint's own preliminary numbers illustrate a familiar and predictable trend:

Of the original issue of 700 million presidential dollars, 300m were of the first, leaving an average of 133m for each of the three that followed. Now the next 4 will get 100m each. If the trend continues, the 4 presidents due in 2009 should get their faced stamped about 75m times each, the next 4 60m, the next 4, 45m at best. By the time we get to Nixon it might be a true rarity, though I suspect that the program will be canceled long before then, just like the last 2 times it was tried.

In 1979, the mint sent us a little over 750m Susan B. Anthony dollars. In 1980, we got about 100m more. In 1981, another 10m. then the programs was canceled except for a brief resuscitation of 50m new dollars in 1999. By all reasonable measurements, the program was a disaster*.

The Squaw Dollar's trend was similar. Introduced in 2000, we got about 1.3 billion of those tokens that year. In 2001, 130m. From 2002 to the program's demise in 2007, the mint issued between 5 and 11 million coins a year. It simply died of public apathy.

It seems the mint expects that by putting 50 different faces on the coins rather than just one, they will somehow increase demand, by which they mean that people will spend them rather than just buy a few for their grandkids on the off-chance that the copper in them will someday be worth more than a dollar or something.

But it's a totally counter-intuitive** approach. People do not "demand" dollars for spending because of how they look. That's why they collect them, and dollars collected are not dollars spent. Creating even more dollar coins that people do not want to carry around and spend will not change the fact that they do not want to carry them around and spend them.

The only way to make the dollar coin work*** is to stop printing one dollar bills, two-dollar bills... any currency smaller than a five or maybe even a ten. That's the only way the Loonie ever caught on in Canada and it's the only way the pound coin ever caught on in Britain.

Until they do that, the only thing the Mint is accomplishing is enriching artists for creating a series of tokens that are as unappealing functionally as they are artistically.

UPDATE: Special thanks to Bethany for the blog redesign and to Sarge for putting up with my sedentary carcass for a tenday. I hope he is able to finish NWN2, a task which I'm afraid I was unable to accomplish. One hint: On the Owl's Well quest, follow the valleys to the top of the map, where you'll find a half-dozen annoyed trolls and a cave. At the back of that cave is a chest with some workable exploding globes (as well as a box of unstable ones). I think the globes can be used to break thru the rockslide you'll find at the beginning of the level. That's as far as I got. Good luck, Sarge.

* So long as we assume it was designed to create a circulating coin.

** Read: stupid and destined-to-fail

*** This is not to say I want that to happen, it's to say that it is the only way their publicly-announced goal will be met.

Labels: money

Link to this post ::

Grab yer surfboard

(hat tip: El Capitan)

Link to this post ::

I really hate to play the grinch

especially when all seems to be going according to the plan:

Is the troop surge in Iraq working? ...

There is no question that violence in Iraq has ebbed since the troop surge announced by Bush in January reached its full capacity in June with about 162,000 troops. Even Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House subcommittee that controls defense spending, a key ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and a leading Democratic opponent of the war, recently returned from Iraq saying, "I think the surge is working."

The only problem is that it's not going only according to our plan, but Mao Zedong's as well.

Having finished all my history books for the week, I jumped with both feet into one that I purchased a while back but have been ignoring, Colonel Thomas X. Hammes' "The Sling and the Stone," a book about 4th Generation Warfare (4GW). In it Hammes examines the changes in warfare over the past few centuries and specifically since WWII, when the world shifted from state vs. state maneuver warfare (3GW) to the kind of asymmetrical warfare that states generally lose, precisely the kind of warfare we are involved in in Iraq.

Hammes argues that 4GW was conceived by Mao and modified by Uncle Ho and General Giap, and continues to be the preferred method for weaker and non-state fighters to take on and defeat powerful, well-financed, hi-tech armies. 4GW has its own strategy, created by Mao, which can be summed up thus:

Di jin, wo tui, [when the] enemy advances, we withdraw,
Di jui, wo roa, [when the] enemy rests, we harass,
Di pi, wo da, [when the] enemy tires, we attack,
Di tui, wo Jui, [when the] enemy withdraws, we pursue.

One mistake we are making is expecting the enemy will be fool enough* to throw his strength against ours - and taking his failure to do so as evidence of weakness. But he is not such a fool. The enemy** is instead following the first dicta of Mao and of 4GW, simply withdrawing as we advance. Throwing his fighters against the best the US has to offer is a surefire way of losing, at least on the battlefield (see: Tet Offensive). He knows he cannot face us muzzle to muzzle, and he also knows that to win he must simply avoid losing. Someday we will go home, but he lives there.

Therefore of course it looks like the surge is working. It would look exactly as it looks whether it was working or not.

* most unsuccessful commanders are unsuccessful precisely because they think their enemies are stupid.

** and I say this even though we don't have a single enemy in Iraq. We have many enemies there, who are fighting with us (and with each other) for many different reasons. That's one factor tat makes 4GWs so hard to win. From whom do you accept surrender?

Labels: Iraq

Link to this post ::

Labels: demotivators

Link to this post ::

On that Christmas day

There was a young Jewish girl named Mary, and she was scared. She wasn't exceptionally beautiful or exceptionally smart or exceptionally strong, in fact, she didn't feel herself to be any of these at the moment. She simply felt alone and confused and overwhelmed. For standing before her moments before had been a creature she had read about but had never seen; in fact, no one had seen one for hundreds of years, and it was whispered by many in her nation that such things did not exist, that they had never really existed, and that the old books contained stories that told spiritual truths but not real true ones. It had been a messenger with an overwhelming presence, bringing a messge that was both exciting and troubling: she was going to be a mother.

While the messenger had been unexpected, in some ways the news was not. Mary had always believed she would be a mother someday, and now that she was engaged to a carpenter - their wedding would take place within a year - she had looked forward to motherhood (though she was a little scared of birth itself, and to be honest, a little scared of Joseph). But part of the message was both unexpected and troubling: she was about to be a mother now, and the child would not be the son of her husband. She did not understand all that meant, really, but she did understand that she would have to tell him, and she had a fairly good idea what his reaction would be. Which is why she was not looking forward to telling him. Not one little bit.

Joseph set down his tools and walked out into the night air. His shoulder ached, as he had worked longer this day - seeking distraction, boredom, anything - than any other day he could remember. His hands, though calloused, were rubbed raw, and he picked at a blister absentmindedly. It would have to be tomorrow, he finally decided. Tomorrow would be the day his dreams came crashing down, for he would be a divorcee even before his own wedding.

He balled his fists, then as he had too many times lately, let out an anguished roar that echoed over the quiet street. How could she have done this to him? To them? A sweet young girl, pretty in her own way - he could certainly understand how another man could be attracted to her, for he was very much - yet she had broken her solemn promise and the promise of her parents that she would be his and his alone. Gathering himself, he shook his head, and tried to decide once again whether he would seek vengeance or suffer the ill will of God patiently.

No, there would be no vengeance: he had settled that already. Just more tears, most likely. He would call off the wedding quietly, just the four of them in that little hovel, as there was no gain in exposing the girl to any more trouble than she had brought on herself with her rubbish about angels. But why did she insist on making it so much harder on him than it already was?

He sat down on the wet ground and pulled a small flap of skin from his palm, wondering if there was another town where he could start again, another place that had not reveled in the rumors that Joseph's little Mary was pregnant and the child was not his. Another place where coldhearted men did not laugh into their beards when he walked by. He counted two, maybe three. And they were all far enough away for his purposes.

He let out a tired sigh and closed his eyes, and his swollen eyelids (was he crying?) suddenly shone red, as if he were sitting before a fire, the light of which could not be defeated by mere skin. When he opened them again, his first thought was that his private anguish, not to mention his public humiliation, had driven him mad. For before him stood a figure in white - he didn't need anyone to tell him it was an angel - and it was looking down on him, its own cold eyes unblinking. He closed his moistened eyes again and opened them. And hearing his name spoken, he began first to kneel, and then at the angel's stern words, to stand.

Mary clenched her tiny fists as she looked out through the door. "This is the Lord's doing, it will be alright," Mary assured herself for the hundredth time, though she had not completely convinced herself yet. Joseph was approaching the small house she shared with her parents, the very house in which joyful promises had once been made. The very house within which her tears had not ceased to flow in months. Of course he had not believed about the angel. He had demanded what he called "the real truth" on several occasions, each time his voice rising, his eyes blazing. When at last her tears came he had always stomped away, and now that she was leaving Nazareth for a few months, he was returning again, this time to say those three little words she wanted to hear least of all: "I divorce you."

Instead what he said was, "We need to marry before you leave."

Of course it had to be taxes: nothing else but the steel swords of the garrisons could convince a man to make this trip. Mary was as big as a house, and Joseph thought he could hear the ladened camel complaining as it climbed the last hill before his ancestral home. Home, he almost laughed as he tugged the reins of the beast that carried his wife. He had never lived here, nor had his parents, and he wondered if there would even be a home where they could stay, where they could rest before he told the assembled Romans that he had traveled 150 miles to get here but still had no money to pay them. Maybe they would settle for the camel. Hopefully there was no room in the prison.

It turned out there was no room anywhere.

Joseph had never seen a miracle before. He had seen the angel of course, though there had been times, when he was alone late at night or when his few remaining friends laughed openly at him, when he wondered if he had really even seen that. But of this there could be no doubt. The child had been born, a son (just like Mary had promised) and a healthy one from what he could see in the dark. While frantic distantly-related women still scurried about, Mary had laid him in a manger on a bed of clean straw, the gathering of which was the only useful task menfolk could apparently perform during birth. But it was no longer dark. There was a light outside that shone like the sun of day, a star directly above the barn which cast firm shadows and drew gasps in the suddenly-full sheep pen, and Joseph walked out into it. A motley group of shepherd boys were telling an assembling crowd that they, too, had seen angels. And those angels had told them where to find the newborn king. Here.

And as Joseph squinted at the star, he listened to what the angels had told the shepherd boys: We bring tidings of great joy, for to you is born this day in Bethlehem a savior, which is Christ the Lord. And with joy welling in his heart, Joseph believed, fully, for the first time.

Labels: christianity

Link to this post ::

Labels: science

Link to this post ::

LegacyBoy drops a deuce on America

CNN notes that it's time to search for his place in history:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It's the best of times, it's the worst of times -- a tale of two legacies as President Bush prepares to ring in the final year of his presidency...

The bad news for Bush is that other than the Medicare prescription drug program he signed into law early in his presidency, his domestic legacy is thin. Even his signature education reform law, No Child Left Behind, is under fire with some* conservatives and struggling to be reauthorized.

I actually think that Bush has been a model President in the past year, owing completely to the fact that the Democrats will give him nothing, not at all unlike the last several years of the (first) Clinton administration, which were not a bad time. But that will not be Bush's legacy. I even think Iraq will not be Bush's legacy any more than Vietnam is JFK's legacy. I am quite certain that Bush's real legacy will not be noted for a few more years, and if he's really lucky, will get blamed on St. Hillary of Reptilia.

Bush's legacy will be that he was the President who promised to give away multiple-times the entire output of the nation, and who is therefore ultimately** responsible for the (ongoing) destruction of the dollar and what comes after that.

As the Comptroller of the Currency, David Walker, told Congress last year:

...the U.S. government’s major reported liabilities, social insurance commitments,and other fiscal exposures continue to grow. They now total approximately $50 trillion—about four times the nation’s total output (GDP) in fiscal year 2006—up from about $20 trillion, or two times GDP in fiscal year 2000. We all know that it is hard to make sense of what “trillions” means. One way to think about it is: if we wanted to put aside today enough to cover these promises, it would take $170,000 for each and every American or approximately $440,000 per American household.

Clearly, despite recent progress on our short-term deficits, we have been moving in the wrong direction in connection with our long-range imbalance in recent years.

"In recent years" is a polite, politically-correct way of saying, "During the Bush Administration." In 2000, the government had promised 2x the nation's output in future benefits. That was already unsustainable. Bush doubled it and more. Much more. And he did so in only 6 years.

Sure, we've spent or will spend a trillion or two on Iraq. Empire is expensive. It's not nearly as expensive as Bush's Medicare Reform package, which was founded on fiscal lies*** from the beginning, lies which, unlike wine, do not improve with age.

A lot of people, looking at the arguments that Walker and those of his ilk**** make, say rightly that one can't trust government numbers. I make the same argument myself and it's true. But there is one thing that is true about them even if they are false: they are always too optimistic. Trillion dollar "surpluses" disappear. Off-budget appropriations hide real money printed and spent. And "trust funds" hide the true deficit by holding "special" bonds that represent money that has been collected and spent - it must therefore be collected again before it can be spent on what it was collected for the first time.

That means that if Walker is correct when he says that, "continuing on our current fiscal path would gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately even our domestic tranquility and our national security," and I believe that he is, the path is liable to be a lot shorter than the government is saying. Perhaps even shorter than it suspects.

Destruction of our economy, standard of living, national security, and domestic tranquility; that's pretty serious stuff. Serious enough that George W. Bush might accomplish something no President in living memory has been able to do: erase the memory of Herbert Hoover from the collective consciousness of America.

That's quite a legacy, no matter what happens between now and the election.

* The fact that the word "some" can be used here accurately concerning such an obscene federalization of education just goes to show how little the word "conservative" means. That NCLB is "struggling to be reauthorized" is the only good news there ever was concerning that legislative abomination. But like Patriot, it will be re-passed. Both sides like having that power too much to give it back.

** Yes, many others bear some responsibility (LBJ), and maybe even a lot of responsibility (FDR), but someone has to break the camel's back. Bush did not use a straw but an anvil.

*** Bush said in 2003 that it would cost "400 billion dollars over the next decade to reform and strengthen Medicare," because that was the number it needed to be to get a sufficient number of gullible Republicans to go along. Within weeks the estimate was increased 50% and that year added $11 trillion in liabilities to the government's balance sheet. It is still too low.

**** by which I mean, "people who know what they are talking about."

Labels: republicans

Link to this post ::

Labels: republicans

Link to this post ::

I don't do evolution posts

I don't. I don't have the knowledge. I'm out of my league. Any scientist who knows anything, hell even any college kid who's had 3 credit hours of biology could rip anything I say say to shreds. I know that. But since fools rush in where angels fear to tread, I do need to comment on a story because it illustrates so well what my major (personal) problem with evolution is*:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It sounds like a stretch, but a new study suggests that the missing evolutionary link between whales and land animals is an odd raccoon-sized animal that looks like a long-tailed deer without antlers. Or an overgrown long-legged rat.

The key finding connecting the Indohyus to the whale is its thickened ear bone, something only seen in cetaceans.

The creature is called Indohyus, and recently dug up fossils reveal some crucial evolutionary similarities between it and water-dwelling cetaceans, such as whales, dolphins and porpoises.

For years, the hippo has been the leading candidate for the closest land relative because of its similar DNA and whale-like features. So some scientists were skeptical of the new hypothesis by an Ohio anatomy professor whose work was being published Thursday in the journal Nature.

Still, some researchers have been troubled that hippos seem to have lived in the wrong part of the world and popped up too recently to be a whale ancestor.

So while scientists generally accept that whales must have descended from land animals, the question asked above is, "Which one?"

Well, something like the hippo, which theory is based on DNA and its whale-like features**.

But the hippo is too young and lives in the wrong part of the world.

Well then it's the indohyus, which theory is based on its thickened ear-bone, something only seen in whale-like creatures***.

So maybe we don't know. Scientists believe it occurred, but they do not know how, they can't draw the tree with certainty. That's fine. That's not my problem. My problem is that if you really think about what they are doing above, if you really trying to reduce that to symbolic logic, it becomes a lot less impressive than all the Latin names they throw about.

So think about the logic for a second. How do we know that one thing descended from another, and how do we represent that symbolically?

The closest I can come is this: If a is similar to b in x, then a descended from b or b descended from a.

Illustrating how it works is easy: if the whale is similar to the hippo in DNA, then the whale descended from the hippo or the hippo descended from the whale****. If the whale is similar to the indohyus in ear structure, then the whale descended from the indohyus or the indohyus descended from the whale.

You see the argument all the time, though it may be phrased like, "humans and chimps share 96% of their DNA," or "fossils of feathered dinosaurs ... are the strongest evidence yet that birds evolved from dinosaurs." When one hears an argument about how this descended from that or that from this, one is always looking at a variation of the above formula.

And the formula makes sense on the surface. My sons look like me, where they do, because they are my sons. My eldest daughter is so much like my wife that I sometimes wonder what part I had in her appearance on this earth. My youngest daughter looks a little less like us; that's because she is adopted, though a relative. My foster kids look even less like me because they are descended from Africans and I from Europeans. The formula makes sense.

Except when it doesn't. You see, there are people who look more like me than my sons do. They are my height, my weight, have my eye and hair color. According to the theory, those guys should have descended from me or I from them. Right?

"Aha!" says the clever evolutionist, "but if we test your DNA, we can show that they are your sons. And that uses the formula." And they are perfectly correct in this instance. The formula works in this specific instance, for this value of x. But it doesn't work for whales; if it did, there would be no talk about ear bones, because there are other factors (like geologic age in this case) that trump the formula, that make its conclusions impossible.

And that leads us to a problem that appears any time you see two groups of scientists who can't agree on exactly how something descended from something else. The first problem is that "similar" is not a scientific concept but a subjective one. And the second is that we cannot agree, when there are multiple values for x - and there are infinite possible ones - which one is most important.

Take the second one first, because it leads back to the first. If we are to discover from whence the whale descends, which similarity trumps, ear bones or DNA? One might be tempted to say DNA*****, except that the rhino is too late to be the ancestor, which case we have reached a demonstrably false conclusion, even though we followed the formula. But if one goes with ear bones, then we are ok, except what about knee bones? What about the bones of the sinuses? So how do we choose which bones are important, given that ALL comparisons will have some level of similarity and dissimilarity? We cannot. x in our formula is not an objective value, but a subjective choice that ignores all the other possible values of x simply because they do not fit the theory****** or do not fit it as well. If we compare all of the bones and choose only those that fit our theory, then we are back to our old friend, the Green Car Fallacy.

The second problem is similar: what does "similar" mean? Any two structures, any two things possess similarities and dissimilarities. At what level do they become meaningful? 96%? 99%? How do we measure the similarity of the upright walk of man with Lucy as compared to the upright walk of a chicken? Which similarities are significantly similar and which not? Again, we have a subjective choice, not a mathematical/logical one.

So in short (ha!) it seems to ignorant little me that the entire superstructure of evolutionary argument, every specific argument where we decide that a descended from b, is based on a logical formula that:

a) can be shown to not work in some instances*******;
b) contains a subjectively-selected variable (x); and
c) contains at least one term, similarity, that is similarly subjective.

That might just be fine, for we know that in some cases the formula works. But (and it's a big but) if it is truly a scientific formula on the level of E=MC^2 (cfdxprt, check my notation here), then we should be able to apply it in the negative. We should be able to tell what b is NOT descended from what a by its failure, its dissimilarity, of x.

If a whale is descended from a indohyus because in this case, x is a thickened ear bone, and if our theory is a logical/mathematical/scientific one, can we not argue that if x is a blowhole, which indohyus does not have, then whales are not descended from indohyus? Same formula, same logic, why not the same logical conclusion?

Of course, the answer will be that the blowhole evolved later - which may very well be correct - but it certainly blows a hole in the logic of our theory.

It seems to me that a scientific theory is only as strong as the scientific/logical argument that underpins it. And if If a is similar to b in x, then a descended from b or b descended from a is unscientific, or weak, or demonstrably false in some instances, then no matter how many occurrences of the formula are applied, no matter how many xs there are, no matter how many men in lab coats argue otherwise, the result simply cannot be scientific.

* Of course, as soon as one has a problem with evolution, one is immediately accused of being a closet creationalist. In my defense, I think I've been as hard on them as on evolutionalists, and when their arguments are not solid, I call them as such, like here when I took a year to find a rather important piece of data that Bill Cooper missed in After the Flood, or here, when I proposed that a quote that turns up in creationalist materials probably is not genuine, or at least not verifiable. I try to be fair with the data, but in an emotionally-charged debate such as this one can sometimes not avoid being called names by a side when it turns out you're not completely on theirs. That applies equally to being called a "modernist" by conservative Christians and being called a creationalist by evolutionalists. I've been called worse, trust me.

** Certainly the hippo's blowhole did not escape you?

*** Especially those bigger than raccoons. Or we could propose that indohyus evolved into hippos, where they lost the thick ear bones, but regained them when they became whales. But that doesn't get us anywhere, really.

**** Picking which is easy: the younger descended from the older. It can be no other way.

***** it being more 'scientific,' or at least having a more scientific-sounding acronym.

****** Don't believe me? Try this: One will find, and the argument is too common to footnote - if you're interested, any discussion of Donald Johanson's "Lucy" should suffice - that the closest apelike ancestor to humans is one that walked upright like we do. In other words, "If a (Lucy) is similar to b (man) in x (that it walked upright), then man descended from Lucy. Crude, but that's the argument, or one of many that take the same shape. Now try this: If a (a chicken) is similar to b (man) in x (that it walked upright)... See the problem?

******* It can be made to work by proposing hypothetical values of a or b (missing links) that have hypothetical values of x, but that's not really science, now is it?

Labels: science

Link to this post ::

Fat guy on a beach

Link to this post ::

Gonna have to wait until Good Friday for that

Some news stories need no comment:

LOS ANGELES -- A thief left notes this week in place of baby Jesus statues swiped from Nativity scenes in the yards of at least 12 Santa Clarita residences.

"They took the manger and the baby," said resident Vicki Combs.

In the statues' place, the thieves left a note: "Do not worry for baby Jesus is not gone, yet he is just not born, yet. You can find your dear Jesus at OLPH on his birthday."

"OLPH" stands for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church, located near the residences.

"We found 12 different sizes and types of baby Jesuses," said Msgr. Paul Montoya. "I'm not too sure if it's a young person's prank. We're not sure why they would do this."

Montoya said the statues appeared overnight at the foot of a Virgin Mary statue in the church grotto.

Church officials called the sheriff's department to report the thefts.

Combs said she is pleased to have found her Jesus statue.

"I think I'll nail it down," Combs said.

(hat tip: Misty)

Link to this post ::

The world according to Democrats, in 30 Seconds

(hat tip: Huck)

Labels: democrats

Link to this post ::

From the comments

Nick asks about my piddling posts:

why picking nits, please?

Sometimes it's fun. Doesn't take any effort. I wanted to go to the beach instead. I got tired of reading Geoffrey of Monmouth. Pick a reason.

Actually, I get a little annoyed at persecution complexes* in America, especially when they are based on ignorance.

the winter soltice has been celebrated long before the rise of christianity, mainly through pagan rituals;

Actually, only through pagan rituals. Solstice has never been an independent** Christian or Jewish celebration.

But what I mentioned about the symbolism of the church goes further than just the Chi Rho and Xmas. We actually don't know what day Jesus was born and there are plenty of reasons*** why it was not December 25th. But as the early Church made its transition from 'outs' to 'ins' in the late Empire, it took over any number of existing pagan rituals, holidays, and even titles, "Pontiff" being the main example of the latter.

In Rome, the Pontiff (pontifex maximus) was the leader of the Republic's pagan, public religious ceremonies. Caesar was himself Pontifex Maximus before he became dictator, Augustus rolled the office into the emperor's divine person. As Christians took over the religious rulership of Rome, the Pontifex was converted to the Pope (and just as Pontifex Maximus was the highest member of the college of pontiffs, the Pope today presides over the college of cardinals). The last emperor to serve as pontiff was Gratian in the late 4th century, who renounced the title, which the Bishop of Rome eventually assumed for himself.

That little sliver of history is illustrative of a whole wave of pagan practices that have been brought into the church over the course of 20 centuries. The "Easter" celebration, for example, the Venerable Bede tells us, "was formerly named after the goddess Eostre, who gave her name to this festival." But today we don't know who Eostre is, the name faded away. And while many Christians abhor the creeping paganism of doing such, the symbolism was very powerful at the time it was done. "This day, this title," the Christians were saying, "now belongs to us and to Christ. What was pagan has now been redeemed."

In the same way Christmas got its current date from the pagans. The celebration of Christ's birth may have begun on that date earlier than the rise of Constantine as a way for Christians to celebrate when their religion was still a capital offense, we don't know. But eventually they claimed the Day of the Returning Sun for their own, for the returning son of God.

I don't agree with the idea of doing that; I think the church made a lot of mistakes in the transitions that led from Imperial Rome to pagan Europe. But there it is.

So I said all that to say this: this is something Christians should know. They should know the history of their own church and how it has acted, the good and bad, the right and wrong. They are responsible for that, because right or wrong, they are tied in with the rest of the body of Christ, across the ages past and the ages to come. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Forever, amen.

So I pick nits not because they are easy, but because they often expose something important.

Or not. I'm also a sucker for the obscure, and I really was tired of Geoffrey's tall tales.

* one wag called it "seeing demons behind every paper cut."

** Independent of pre-existing paganism in a culture.

*** Though not much 'apparent documentation.'

Labels: christianity

Link to this post ::

Link to this post ::

Saving Xmas

CNN Columnist Roland Martin joins a battle centuries too late:

Because of all the politically correct idiots, we are being encouraged to stop saying "Merry Christmas" for the more palatable "Happy Holidays." What the heck are "Seasons Greetings"? Can someone tell me what season we are greeting folks about? A Christmas tree? Oh, no! It's now a holiday tree. Any Christmas song that even remotely mentions Christ or has a religious undertone is being axed for being overtly religious. And I'm sorry, forget X-M-A-S. Malcolm X? Yes. X replacing Christ? No.

Mr. Martin is perfectly correct in complaining that too many parents worry that their kids won't enjoy the season unless provided with every electronic trinket advertised during Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. But he displays a very typical American historical ignorance when he complains about the politically-correct X-ing Christ out of Christmas.

A quick trip to the etymological dictionary might have set him straight:

Xmas - "Christmas," 1551, X'temmas, wherein the X is an abbreviation for Christ in Christmas, from first letter of Gk. Christos "Christ" (see Christ). The earlier way to abbreviate it was Xp- or Xr-, corresponding to "Chr-," and the form Xres mæsse for "Christmas" appears in the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" (c.1100).

The abbreviation "X" for Christ is not the creation of the Michael Newdows of the modern world*, but of the Christians of the early church. Symbolism within Christianity has a long history, a result of factors as varied as persecution by Imperial Rome and the cost of parchment, but the X, while we don't know exactly when it began, has a simple origin: writers and artists represented the thing, in this case Christ, by simply using the first letter or letters of its name.

The first two letters of Christ's name in Greek (the language of the New Testament) are chi (represented as an X) and rho (represented as a P), which were early combined in Christian art into the Chi Rho monogram, as in the picture above, which is taken from the Irish Book of Kells (ad 800). The Chi Rho is, in fact, the oldest monogram for Christ**, certainly dating to Constantine in the 4th Century - it was the sign in which he was to conquer*** - and quite possibly much earlier. And it is our creation, not that of "politically-correct idiots."

The X in Xmas doesn't represent the crossing of Christ out of Christmas any more than the X in those IXOYE***** car stickers represents the crossing of Christ out of "fish." That's not where the real war over Christmas is being fought anyway. In my humble opinion, Christ is in far more danger from Sony, Apple, and our own ignorance than he ever was from Michael Newdow.

* Though, admittedly, it might be used by (all five of) them in a conscious effort to avoid writing the name Christ, though I'm a bit skeptical. They probably use it to tweak ignorant Xians.

** While the page is wrong in that it displaces Constantine by two centuries, we'll still accept their word that it is the oldest monogram because that's what I want to say. And it does feature some cool Chi Rho monograms.

*** Whether one actually believes the story (I don't) is irrelevant: there can be no doubt it's older than Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Amanda Marcotte. Even put together.

**** in which the X also represents Christ - "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior."

Labels: christianity, history

Link to this post ::

How I spent my winter vacation

Link to this post ::

*** Now talking in #christian

[word_of_god] Welcome Abstruse to #christian.
I am a Bible Bot.
For more info type: /msg Word_of_God !info

[abstruse] !kjv numbers 22:21

[word_of_god] Numbers 22:21 -- And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. - (KJV)

*** SageRider sets mode: +b *!*@c211-30-208-111.rivrw3.nsw.optusnet.com.au
*** Word_of_God was kicked from #christian by SageRider (Please don't Swear)

[abstruse] I know I'm never going to be able to come back in this channel again after this, but damn was it worth it to see that...

Labels: christianity

Link to this post ::

Link to this post ::

Separated at birth... by three decades

A couple years go, on my old blog*, I posted a particularly unflattering picture of Hillary (she had given a speech when she was sick) and wondered aloud if, given the several years between then and the election, it might be possible that Hillary would be too ugly at that point to be elected President.

I didn't use exactly those words, but the point was clear, and I was jumped upon with such venom by one commenter (a guy from Michigan whose screen name escapes me) that I reconsidered the issue for quite a while.

Thanks to Rush bringing up the same question yesterday, The Australian is asking it today:

The inspiration for this misogynistic king hit, one that says much about the kind of attention Senator Clinton can expect if she eventually becomes the Democratic nominee, was an unflattering photograph of her taken on the campaign trail in freezing New Hampshire at the weekend.

The image was featured prominently on the home page of the Drudge Report website under the heading, "The Toll of the Campaign", and Limbaugh - whose past commentaries on Senator Clinton's campaign have included references to her "testicle lock box" - seized on its popular cultural significance.

When I asked the question, it was not my contention that a) Hillary would be too ugly, or b) that it should matter. But the question remains, *will* it matter?

And I think it will matter in Hillary's case, but that the case may be specific to her. The picture above is screenshot straight from the Australian's site, and while I'm sure the page placement was not purposely designed, the sight of an aging Hillary looking down on Nicole Kidman**, while sporting the same haircut (down to both the color and the part) and similar makeup is powerfully symbolic. Hillary is no Nicole Kidman and never was one, but we did know Hillary when she was that age, if only in photos with her husband, and unlike people like Jean Kirkpatrick and Maggie Thatcher (whom one commenter there notes "were certainly not eye candy"), we have watched her age.

Jean Kirkpatrick was a different beast altogether: she was neither an elected official nor beholden to voters; she was a policy wonk and negotiator. And we, the public, only knew her as old. The same could be said of Madeline Albright. Maggie, of course, was not our own, but I would have voted for the Iron Lady, wrinkles or not.

I'm not at all saying that voters will even consciously conclude that Hillary looks to old to be President. But I wonder if in her specific case, because as much as Hillary's attraction to many women is her womanhood, and to that extent many women want to identify with her, whether her aging before our eyes will cause them the same emotional pain*** that watching themselves age causes and whether that will cause a significant number of them to avert their eyes?

I didn't know then and I don't know now - this may be one of those questions that can only be answered by awaiting the answer. But it's still a good question.

Rush noted that, "Perfection, the appearance of perfection and good health, all of that ties into the perception of mental acuity, stamina, being able to hold up to the job." And he's right about that; I can see no other explanation for the fact that Mitt Romney is even considered a serious candidate.

That alone tells us what a foolish perception it is.

* detail-oriented folks may have noticed a gap in the archives here. It was during that period that this blog was hosted at blog-city. Alas, the Google cache of that is no longer.

** not that Kidman - or someone that looked like her - would ever be considered seriously for the Presidency. Beauty at that level has its own drawbacks, one of which is not being taken seriously at all.

** And it is pain, else why would Americans spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year in a futile attempt to overcome it?

Labels: democrats

Link to this post ::

Labels: demotivators

Link to this post ::

Hawaii here I come

History books? Check.

Spanish books? Check.

Neverwinter Nights 2? Check.

Play with grandson? 12 hours...

Link to this post ::

Another reason to hate the Kansas GOP

in case you needed one:

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- ...The state Republican Party is trying to tie the scandal to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and other prominent Democrats who helped persuade Morrison to switch parties to unseat incumbent Phill Kline in the attorney general's race last year. The state GOP also believes Morrison will be an issue in legislative contests next year, when all 40 Senate and 125 House seats will be on the ballot.

"We're not going to let voters forget about it," said Christian Morgan, the state GOP's executive director. "There were lot of a Democrats who held hands with Paul Morrison and who said Paul Morrison was the greatest thing since sliced bread."

Not going to let them forget what? That Democrats cheat on their wives? Morrison was still a freaking Republican when he gave little Paul the wheel*, a Republican so popular that he was re-elected 4 times in Johnson County, at least 2 of which I remember (as I lived in Johnson County for a time) he was unopposed. Morrison was a Republican in all but his last-2-years affiliation, and only that because of his fanatical hatred for Phill Kline. Had Phill not been AG, Morrison would today simply be the disgraced Republican DA of Johnson County.

But it's not just that running against Morrison is hypocritical, unfair, cruel**, and completely devoid of class, it's also stupid. Honest to God, do you really think the voters of Rural County Kansas are going to care that their state rep welcomed Morrison to the Democrats? Do you really believe that voters are going to say, "Well, I know I voted for Representative Porkrind last time, but he had his picture taken with a guy who cheated on his wife"? That is the lamest elective strategery I've ever heard of. Bar none.

They need a better one***. Much better. Their party is about to receive a second well-deserved beating nationwide. They may do better in Kansas than last time, but that is not a given. They still control the Kansas House and Senate, but that is not a given. If they run against Paul Morrison statewide, it will only be the inertial voting habits of Kansans that save them from a blue tide sweeping away more of their dead wood than they ever thought possible.

They may not lose, Kansas being what it is. But if this is their strategy, they certainly will not deserve to win.

UPDATE: Apologies to Phill for the photo, I just couldn't resist its symbolism. For the record, Phill is one of the two**** Republicans I voted for last election. I rather doubt that if Phill does run again, he would use Paul Morrison's woes - unless he was running against Paul Morrison, which will not happen. So he's off the hook.

* Morrison was also a Republican when he did all the things that Phill used so effectively in that last campaign.

** The man is down, let him alone.

*** They might start by getting a copy of the Lesbian Avengers Campaign Guide, to re-learn from the bottom up how to run a campaign. I've got a copy if they need it.

**** The other is my next door neighbor, Kevin. I was hoping that if he became a public official he could do something about his dog, Amos. He has not, alas.

Labels: republicans

Link to this post ::

Labels: demotivators

Link to this post ::

I don't know as much as emawkc

You Know a Lot About Christmas

You got 7/10 correct

You know tons about the history and traditions surrounding Christmas.
When you celebrate the holidays, you never forget their true meaning - or all the little fun details.

Random Christmas fact: Only 21% of US households has a real Christmas tree each year.

How Much Do You Know About Christmas?

(hat tip: 3am)

Link to this post ::

Game theory

After imagining what would happen were we to have a president who vetoed every appropriation that was not explicitly constitutional and where both Democrats and Republicans were forced to justify not just the excess but the existence of every government department, National Review reaches a startling conclusion:

You think about that scenario, suddenly every other guy in the race looks like the candidate of the status quo.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a bingo.

Labels: politics

Link to this post ::

Deer, the hunter

(hat tip: PiffordT)

Labels: guns

Link to this post ::

Good news after all

EJ Dionne sounds like he's complaining:

Republicans chortle as they block Democratic initiatives -- and accuse the majority of being unable to govern...

Democrats are starting to blame each other, with those in the House wondering why their Senate colleagues don't force Republicans to engage in grueling, old-fashioned filibusters. Instead, the GOP kills bills by coming up with just 41 votes...

Not only can a minority block action in the Senate, but the Democrats' nominal one-vote majority is frequently not a majority at all. A few maverick Democrats often defect, and the party runs short-handed when Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama are off running for president.

And Bush is learning that even when bills reach his desk, he can veto them with near impunity.

Usually, when people write a column, they have a problem or a complaint, and one of the criticisms leveled at the press is that they seldom have any good news to report. All of the above sounds like good news to me.

Sure, I'd like a few things fixed, but the trouble with that is that the same people who caused the problems would be tasked with fixing them - and if they can't design an AMT properly, why should we believe they can fix a broken one? Iraq is still going on, but that's because such humble foreign policy is something both parties can agree on. They actually agree on quite a bit of other stuff as well, but like 1st-grade best friends in a sandbox who are squabbling over who gets the shovel, their disagreements are personal rather than philosophical. They both want to build a sand castle, they both want sole credit for it when it's done.

I'm rather enjoying the fact that absolutely nothing of consequence has happened in Washington for the past year. It's a vast improvement on the days when the Republicans were actually building things.

Labels: politics

Link to this post ::

Please do not harass the prophet

Labels: bible

Link to this post ::

Were the founding fathers terrorists?

Boy, am I going to get in trouble for this one...

Over on Snoop's blog today, there's a discussion about some guy I never heard of* who said, "You know, when the Revolutionary War was going on, George Washington and all them dudes was terrorists…". Obviously he was derided as being ignorant - "Getting his info from the local barber shop" I believe the phrase was.

I pointed out that while the Founding Fathers did not indiscriminately blow up civilians, they did engage in acts which caused terror, and they did purposely use terror as a political weapon. To illustrate I used the examples of a Boston mob's destruction of Thomas Hutchinson's home (as well as the property of other tax collectors) and the driving of Loyalists out of the country as cases in point. There are many more.

Melvin Udall disagreed with the tactic:

El Borak, this thoughtful and nuanced use of the word might be great for an academic discussion, but in everyday life, and on that show, it equates the Founding Fathers with terrorists, it is moral relativism that lessens the evil of those using these tactics.

If I say “bitch” at a kennel it’s a lot different than if I say it while staring at your wife. Context and severity matter. In this case a lengthy discussion to justify Def’s disgusting assertion, when we all know what he’s doing, isn’t necessary or appropriate.

But I think "thoughtful and nuanced" is exactly the approach that's needed, because it has been the right's unthoughtful and unnuanced use of the word that makes such a comparison - between Osama bin Laden and George Washington - possible.

The problem is, in short, the tactic of calling everyone we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan a terrorist, an indiscriminate killer of civilians, even if they do not engage in terrorism. For example, if Achmed's brother is killed, rightly or wrongly, by US forces, and he in turn attacks them, is he a terrorist? No, he is merely an enemy. If Achmed wants to drive our soldiers out of his tribal homeland, is he a terrorist? Not by any reasonable definition. We are fighting terrorists there to be sure, but we are not fighting ONLY terrorists - we are fighting many enemies who fight us for different reasons and in different ways.

But the effect of the right's uncritical use of the word, smearing as it were local militia and legitimate freedom fighters with it, makes "terrorist" simply a synonym for "enemy." Enemy = terrorist, and terrorist = murderer, ergo anyone who opposes what we are doing is an evil blower-up of civilians. In its desire to deny the legitimate right of Iraqis to fight for a free Iraq as they see it - free of foreign intervention - the right is therefore forced to ignore some of the most effective acts of the Founding Fathers - fear for lives, tarring and feathering, burning in effigy, destruction of property, etc. - against the British.

Iraqis who fight American troops - as opposed to those who blow up malls - are actually a very good parallel with Continentals and militia, with mobs and committees of correspondence, yet in our desire to impose on them a government in the same way the British tried to impose one on us, we are forced to lump them all under "terrorists." We are also forced to not think very hard about or look very closely at what we are doing, lest our red coats show.

It is this oversimplification, this lack of nuance, on the part of the right that is the Founding Fathers' real PR problem, because terror is a real part of all wars***, even a necessary part. By equating "enemy" with "terrorist" rather than simply "blowing up civilians" with "murder," it is the right that has made the Founding Fathers terrorists, or at least has made the terrorism of the Founding Fathers something to be ashamed of. It is the Patriots of today that have made the Patriots of yesterday into our enemies if we look at them too closely. That is the true moral relativism.

* Mos Def? I'd look it up but I don't care enough to.

** The parallels between the American Revolution and the war in Iraq grow the longer it goes on. That is one reason we will never win there.

*** What was "Shock and Awe" if not the use of intimidation for a political end?

Labels: history

Link to this post ::

Who needs a man?

(hat tip: Mike T)

Labels: feminism

Link to this post ::

Honesty is the best policy

This disclaimer on a load of chipped gemstones offered through Ebay cracked me up:

YOU WILL NOT LIKE THIS LOT! This will be the worst thing you ever purchased on eBay and you will hate it and wonder why you spent even a dime on it.

Please do not bid on it, there is nothing in here that you will like and for petes sake, don't email me surprised that you got chipped and broken stones in your lot if you do decide to buy it.

This is a culmination of all the chipped, broken, abraided, rough and rejected goods that we have. There is no first quality or even second quality merchandise here, these are rejection goods meaning it is stuff that we do not want. Please do not bid if you have any hopes of finding treasure in here, we have sorted it all through very well.

Due to the fact that these are rejection goods and I really don't want them back restocking on them is 25% instead of the normal 10%. Please keep this in mind when bidding.

I'm tempted to put a disclaimer like that on books on occasion. I can't recall how many times* I've got a note from a customer who paid 99 cents for an old, out-of-print book, with all its flaws spelled out (in English even) in the Amazon notes, expressing their deepest disappointment that the book was as bad as I described it.

* Actually, not very many, maybe three times. After a while I simply stopped offering such books, though I might have the only copy available anywhere.

Link to this post ::

Link to this post ::

Who is that masked man?

When Snoop explains how the world works, all y'all better listen:

I have sat all morning and afternoon trying to come up with something relatively original to try and explain Negros like Andrew Young. How someone who most folks would consider a reasonable and thoughtful individual can spout off to a crowd full of other ignorant Negros and utter the stupid shit he did...

People I said in an earlier post that what Young said is something that my father might say. Any old black dude 60 plus years of age is likely to have his mindset. Old black men are the most racist people on the planet because they (we) have anger and mistrust from every damm body from back in the day...

Read the rest at Snoop's place.

Link to this post ::

Magic underpants

Note to Bob Larson: Dude, don't talk with your mouth full. It's disgusting.

Link to this post ::

Quote of the Day

"I do see Murray as a failure of the Christians around him. Like Murray, I too was sickened by the shallowness and stupidity of the Christians around me from the time I was a child. Like Murray, I too am disgusted with the Dominionists, the paranoia that sees demons at work in every paper cut, and the hubris that proclaims false prophecies and visions in the wide-eyed congregations. It wasn't until I was in my late twenties that I understood that nearly everyone, of every creed, is shallow and stupid, and that one cannot reasonably judge the true essence of a belief on the basis of the believers. Murray's atheism does not absolve Christians of his violent end; it condemns them more completely than if he were merely a mentally ill parishioner in good standing."
- Vox Day

Labels: christianity

Link to this post ::

Labels: demotivators, history

Link to this post ::

Kline Derangement Syndrome

And I thought Bush Derangement Syndrome* was bad. It seems the Savior of the Sunflower State, who delivered Kansas from the worstest AG evar, was not only porking his HR director but trying to use her to undercut Phill Kline's legal case against a local abortion clinic**. But it's not his fault, see?

I believe in Paul Morrison, he has done a great job, and is a very respectable person, and we are not all perfect! Bur it makes me wonder that all of a sudden Mr. Morrison is being accused of something when just recently that goof ball Kline was being investigated by the news media! So it might just be that Kline being the chump that he is, its a possibility that maybe he concocted all of this, being that Morrison was the best man to be Atty Gen.! Kansas!!!

Yeah, Phill Kline made Morrison have an affair, beginning a month before he switched parties, made him carry it on for a year, all through the election and even after they switched offices, but didn't make use of the fact in order to keep his job in Topeka?

That makes perfect sense.

Now, I don't know this for sure***, but politics being what it is I should not be surprised if Phill knew about the affair - certainly people in Morrison's Olathe office knew; there is really no keeping that kind of secret for long. And that means that Phill, while muttering darkly about Morrison's character issues, which smacked of desperation to those in the press, purposely did not use this fact in the campaign. That's not the Phill that people who read the press know, but then again the guy in the paper is not the real Phill Kline.

The real Phill Kline, we all know, manages all aspects of reality from his bunker at an undisclosed location. I wonder if I could get him to help out the Vikings when they play Green Bay again?

UPDATE: I know asterisk-the-third is going to sound like bunk to a lot of people. I can live with that. In my defense I offer this snippet from the Capitol Journal story this morning:

Kline's attorneys asked to file a motion under seal with the federal court to shield a witness from being tampered with by someone outside the "Olathe 8" lawsuit. The request was denied by U.S. Magistrate Judge James O'Hara, who suggested the motion could be filed as a public document. The D.A.'s legal team said a confidential motion was appropriate because contents of the motion could cause someone "grave harm."

However, the judge concluded the motion's contents might have political consequences to both Kline and the person he was accusing of witness tampering. In the end, Kline never filed the motion in open court.

Even though it would have helped his case and exposed Morrison at the same time, Kline declined to file the motion publicly, saving Carter's reputation. Would he do the same during an election? Only he knows, but I have my suspicions.

UPDATE the SECOND:

The KC Star is just sure that Phill is behind it all:

Morrison's suggestion that Phill Kline, his political nemesis and successor in the Johnson County courthouse, had something to do with leaking the story is probably on target. One tipoff: The story broke in the Topeka Capital-Journal, the state's only major newspaper to endorse Kline over Morrison and one of the few newspapers with which Kline enjoys a good rapport.

Yup, Phill talked that innocent girl into filing a federal harassment complaint against Morrison, quitting her job, and voluntarily assuming the reputation of a jilted mistress****, all when he could have exposed the whole thing by simply filing a court order - even if it was denied, the purpose would have been served - asking that Morrison be ordered to stop intimidating his employees. He's a smoothie, that Phill.

* That disease of mind in which one sees everything evil in society as being personally orchestrated by El Presidente.

** He admits to the former, she alleges both. Apparently the federal court system will decide who is right and who is impeached.

*** In fact, it's pure speculation. While it's quite possible that one of these, um, liasons occurred in my old office at the capitol, I was not in the upper echelon of Phill's last campaign. However, I do know Phill, and he really is the kind of guy who would lose an election rather than throw a woman under a bus. Damned chivalry!

**** and I'm just sure she couldn't wait to see stuff like "Not just an affair, those two shagged like rabbits all over that courthouse!!" on the internet.

Labels: democrats

Link to this post ::

Link to this post ::

Because they are not good enough

The Boston Globe wants someone else to get criticized for a while:

What happened to the running-up-the-score debate? The Patriots' convincing wins were a hot topic earlier in the season, and in the spirit of consistency, the Vikings should have been getting grilled last week. Consider that in a blowout win over the Lions, the Vikings were leading, 42-10, midway through the third quarter when coach Brad Childress called for a fake field goal and a halfback option...

There are a couple of reasons why that was not the case:

1. The Vikings were a team with a losing record playing one with a winning record, to whom they had already lost this year. Therefore the whole "bullying" aspect that makes running up the score offensive was missing.

2. The Vikings have the worst passing defense in the league. Therefore even leading by 4 touchdowns, with almost half a game to play the game's outcome was not settled.

3. It was a fake field goal, not a bomb. One could just as easily argue that putting sure points on the board is "running up the score" a whole lot more than leaving them on the field.

4. It was the third freaking quarter, and the Vikings did not score again after that.

Should the Vikings pass for 300 yards and 3 touchdowns in the 4th quarter this week, winning by 30, then a legitimate case could be made that they are running up the score against the 4-foot-9ers*.

All that said, the whole idea that a professional should be criticized for doing his job well is ludicrous. To their credit, it's not the players who whine about good teams running up the score, they are generally mature enough to realize that getting your ass handed to you just means you need to get better. Rather it's the fans (and the sportswriters) who, not understanding the difference between the NFL and a pee-wee league, don't realize that it doesn't matter a whit whether feelings get hurt in the former.

If you're getting paid to play football, it's your job to either score or stop the other guy from scoring. And if you're not doing your job, you have no right to complain about someone else doing theirs.

* And I will truly feel bad for Terrymum.

Labels: vikings

Link to this post ::

Link to this post ::

How not to do theology

Mitt treads a well-worn path concerning the universal fatherhood of God:

Romney was also right that "every single human being is a child of God." This is at the root of the belief system of many liberals who are religious. Romney was echoing -- unconsciously, to be sure -- none other than Bill Clinton, who declared in a 1992 campaign speech that "all of us must respect the reflection of God's image in every man and woman."

And the fact that such a claim has been used - in fact, is often used - by religious liberals gets a few panties in a bunch:

For example Vox, after quoting John 8 - wherein Jesus accuses his Pharisaic detractors of being children of the Devil - declares, "It is, however, quite clear that [Mitt's] declared theology as revealed in his speech yesterday is at some variance with the Bible" and follows up with an explanation of that variance:

Mitt Romney: "every single human being is a child of God."

Jesus Christ: "You belong to your father, the devil".

Granted, one could argue that there is no variance so long as one assumes that by "God", Mitt Romney is referring to "the devil". Or, alternatively, that God is the mommy and the devil is the daddy. And yet, both of those interpretations would be at variance with other aspects of Scripture, so we can safely discount them too.

Given that any number of his commenters added opinions to the effect that Mitt's declaration is simply, "a feel good/sound good tag line that come from someone not familiar with the bible and it's being eaten up by voters not familiar with the bible," I thought it might be a good idea to explain why Mitt is at least partially correct in this case.

The argument is two-fold. First, Jesus, as quoted in John, is not always particularly literal, and second, Paul, when explaining the Gospel to pagans in Athens, uses a close parallel of Mitt's language to explain mankind's physical relationship to God.

The first is the more difficult to deal with, frankly, because it's a matter of context: not the context of the specific encounter, but the context of the whole Gospel of John.

John presents a number of sayings of Jesus which are universalized*, yet cannot be taken in a literal, physical sense. The first, from John 4, has Jesus asking a Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well to draw water for him. When she wonders at the propriety of a Jew asking her for water, he replies:

If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that asked you for a drink, you would have asked of him and he would have given you living water ... Whoever drinks the water of this well will thirst again, but the one who drinks of the water that I give will never thirst; but the water that I give will be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."

Whatever our theological interpretation of Living Water**, the one thing we cannot say is that we are dealing with actual water that Jesus carried around in a cup. Jesus is speaking figuratively.

Fast forward to John 6 and we find a very similar statement, "Do not labor for the meat that perishes, but for the meat which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of man will give to you."

Again, we're dealing with figures of speech, but Jesus is not letting that on, even to the point that he offends his own followers: The Jews therefore argued among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Then Jesus said unto them, "Truly I tell you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you do not have life in you ... He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood dwells in me, and I in him."... From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

And Jesus causes here no little theological disputation, because the Catholics do take this second statement literally, claiming that the Eucharist is transmuted into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus during the Mass. Most Protestants, myself included, follow the symbolic line laid down earlier by John.

Skip ahead again to chapter 9 and we get to Vox's saying, "You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not dwell in the truth because there is no truth in him."

Which saying Jesus immediately follows up with, "Truly I tell you: if a man keeps my words, he shall never see death," and then, claiming the name of God for himself, is nearly stoned to death by the crowd (v59).

There are a lot of things we can draw from Jesus' words, but the one thing we MUST draw is that Jesus is speaking spiritual truths, not literal, physical ones. All his disciples died: if we claim they didn't "see death" we must apply that in a spiritual sense. The Living Water, the eating flesh, the never dying; these are spiritual truths to be discerned spiritually.

Jesus' accusation that the Pharisees are children of the devil is a similar spiritual truth - it is based on their beliefs and actions - not a physical one. It must also be noted - and this is very important - that he was applying that moniker to them individually. Jesus had a number of followers who were "of the sect of the Pharisees, which believed" (c.f. Acts 15:5) and even though certain parts of their theology will prove incorrect in that chapter, there is no indication that the Church considered them anything but Christians who were incorrect on a specific matter of doctrine. So what we're dealing with in John 9's naming is a spiritual truth, applied to individuals, that is conditional on belief (or lack thereof).

Now, if we fast forward to Acts 17, we find Paul in Athens speaking to a group of philosophizers who gathered daily at the Areopagus "either to tell or hear some new thing." They are pagans, unbelievers who have never heard the Gospel before. Paul opens up with a few truths***:

1. God made the physical world and everything in it (v24)
2. God has made "of one blood" all the people who dwell in the earth (v26)
3. God is not far from any of us if we seek him (v27)
4. then he quotes "one of their own" poets to the effect that we are all God's offspring and agrees with it (v29), using that fact to buttress two physical facts of the Gospel: a) God will judge the world through Jesus, and b) He assured us of this by physically raising him from the dead.

Of course, the Philosophizers are so moved by Paul's words that they all join the 700 Club. Well, not exactly; some of them mocked Paul and a few wanted to hear more later. At least they said they did.

But the point is this: because God is the physical creator of all, and because we are included in "all," we are all his creation****. So in that sense, we are all children of God, and Mitt is right.

But in another sense, some are spiritual children of the devil, and Vox is right.

The theological problem arises when we try to universalize either truth to the exclusion of the other, saying, "because some are children of the devil, they are not the offspring of God." What? Did God not create***** them? Or we say, "because all are the offspring of God, there are no children of the devil." What? Do they not take their spiritual cues from the Father of Lies? And are they not in that spiritual sense, as Jesus defined it, children of the devil? both truths are true, and they can both be true because they are true in different senses, just as one can be both Polish and left-handed.

The first theological error - a particular shortcoming of religious conservatives - arises in pretending that they are the same thing, or mean the same thing: they manifestly do not. One cannot become the physical creation of Satan. He does not create, he maims and disfigures. There is nothing one can do or say or believe - no matter how we ourselves maim and disfigure - that will change the physical fact that each of us is a creation of God.

The second error arises in pretending that the difference doesn't matter - a particular shortcoming of religious liberals. It matters eternally. Being created is not a ticket to God's favor; one must come to God the way God says, by belief in his only son; one must choose to become a spiritual child of God.

God requires more than than we be; he demands that we do, that we become fully human - his children both spiritually AND physically: that is the purpose for which we were created. God demands it, and God has made it possible. That is the essence and the threat and the promise of the Gospel.

But this has been, as I noted, an example of how not to do theology. Your mileage may vary; after all, you don't have to answer to me for your theology. The Bible tells me that very plainly.

* by which I mean they are spoken as absolutes and would appear to apply to everyone.

** And they are several though similar

*** all of which I'll not include here. If you're interested, Acts 17 is probably the finest sermon in the Bible; read it yourself.

**** Which is why, however and whenever it happened, I believe "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" to be the most historically true statement ever written, and the divine truth of the Divine Jesus of John 1 goes with it: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

***** Recognized in the physical world in the founding documents of our country: "We hold these truths to be self-evident... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights... that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." No Christian should say that because someone is an unbeliever that they do not have the right to life. Note the use of the word, "should."

Labels: christianity

Link to this post ::

Labels: demotivators

Link to this post ::

Not exactly what that means

Mitt seems a bit confused about the Constitution:

COLLEGE STATION, Texas (AP) - Republican Mitt Romney declares in a speech being delivered Thursday that he shares "moral convictions" with Americans of all faiths, but should not have to explain his own religion just because he's striving to become the first Mormon elected president.

"To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution...," Romney said in remarks prepared for delivery at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum.

Article VI of the Constitution reads, in part, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." But Romney seems to share the typical politician's misunderstanding of the purpose of the Constitution, which is to limit the government, not the people.

Many governments have legally excluded people from holding office for religious reasons. In fact, the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 said that only Protestant Christians could be elected:

all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect...shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature...

Sorry Jews and Catholics*. Here's a KJV and a tract explaining the Four Spiritual Laws.

The US Constitution, establishing a government that was expected to deal with generic Protestants in New Jersey, Catholics in Maryland, Episcopalians in Virginia, Congregationalists in Massachusetts, and a smattering of Jews and Baptists everywhere, wisely banned that type of testing and requirement for holding Federal office.

But it was, and remains, a limitation solely on the power of government - it never meant that a voter was not allowed to vote only for Protestants, or Catholics, or Jews. It never meant that voters couldn't vote against people because of their religion. Voters get to vote for whatever reason they want.

Mitt's complaint, that he should not have to explain his religion to the voters, makes the constitutional prohibition on religious tests apply to them**. In other words, Mitt is asserting that it is unconstitutional for YOU to vote for someone (or against someone) because of their religion.

Mormonism aside, if I were a Republican I'd vote against the guy for the mere fact that he apparently can't read. Or maybe that's unconstitutional as well...

* One problem, and perhaps a supreme irony in Mitt's case, is that it would probably be up to the courts of New Jersey to decide if Mormonism is a protestant sect or simply a cult. Mitt, belonging to the weird sect he does, would not necessarily*** have been excluded even under the most restrictive state laws, if the government defined Christianity broadly enough to include it.

** In addition to the very odd premise that the voters should be ignorant as well. Although he's not liable to be disappointed in that regard.

*** Except in Delaware, the Constitution of which demanded the following oath of those holding office:

"I ... do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Those who today scream "theocracy" when evolution is criticized in schools have truly no clue what they are on about.

Labels: republicans

Link to this post ::

Labels: demotivators

Link to this post ::

A Humble Foreign Policy

El Presidente holds a roundtable discussion:

Bush: See, the reason we have to harass and threaten Iran every day is because they have a secret nucular weapons program.

Iran: No, we don't.

Bush: Yes, you do.

Iran: No, seriously, we don't.

Bush: Yes, you do. I know it.

Iran: Dude, we totally don't.

Bush: You totally do.

CIA: No, they don't.

Bush: They don't?

CIA: No, Sir. They haven't for years.

Iran: See? Told you.

Bush: I see. OK, now we have to harass and threaten Iran every day because even though they don't have a secret nucular weapons program, they might start one.

And we can't allow that because then they might harass and threaten other countries.

Link to this post ::

Link to this post ::

Where's Waldo?

Poll: Romney Maintains Lead in NH:

Mitt Romney, 37 percent

Rudy Giuliani, 19 percent

John McCain, 15 percent

Ron Paul, 9 percent

Mike Huckabee, 7 percent

I really think the fact that the guy on the right* was so beloved until the minute he entered the race was simply a tacit admission of the essential turdburgerness of the rest** of the field.

* Whose name escapes me presently, but he was great in Hunt for Red October.

** Ron Paul excepted, of course.

Labels: republicans

Link to this post ::

Been done before

New movie, old tactics:

Christian groups are up in arms here over a new children's film starring Nicole Kidman and based on an award-winning novel by British author Philip Pullman, accusing it of being anti-religious...

Evil in Pullman's books is represented by the church, called the Magisterium, whose acolytes kidnap orphans across England to subject them to horrible experiments in the frozen northern wastelands.

The Golden Compass actually sounds like a secular makeover of the final book of CS Lewis' Space Trilogy, That Hideous Strength, wherein a group of British scientists working for a group called N.I.C.E.* try to fight evil (in the form of human nature) through brainwashing and socialist control - rather than the religious performing science, Lewis had the scientists enforcing their humanist religion. They are foiled when a resurrected Merlin - following a sort of Babel judgment - sets loose a bunch of animals to squash and/or eat all the scientists. That was pretty cool.

I hadn't heard anything about The Golden Compass until Tommy brought the subject up a couple days ago while we were driving together; he noted that some Christians had informed the theatre where Nick works about its evil schemes to tarnish the reputation of religion.

"At the end of the movie," he said, with a little twinkle in his eye, "they supposedly kill God."

"Really?" I asked, wondering where this was going.

"Yeah," he confirmed, playing straight**. "But if they do that, they'll need to bring out a sequel three days later."

Seems to me these Christian groups, concerned about the tender faith of teenagers, have less to worry about than they think.

(graphic stolen from Huck)

* The National Institute of Controlled Experiments or some such.

** "Playing straight is the essence of comedy" - Robert Heinlein.

Link to this post ::

The truly important (and impressive) thing was how many times the Vikings lined up and that little graphic said, "1st and 10"

Link to this post ::

Color me so surprised

A new government report says, "Never mind."

The American economy appears to have created far fewer jobs this spring than has been reported so far, a new government report indicated yesterday...

The new report concluded that personal income from wages and salaries grew at an annual rate of 1.6 percent in the second quarter, far below the 4.5 percent that had previously been estimated.

The government did not explain why the revision was made...

Hmm... hard to believe that a "headline" economic number was overinflated by a factor of three, then quietly* revised away when it seemed no one was looking. The article also notes that there is now reason to believe that last month's job creation number (which is as phony as a Federal Reserve Note anyway) will also be revised downward, maybe by the same 2/3 factor. If they tripled nominal inflation we might be getting somewhere.

But there's a method to the madness that goes above and beyond what I pointed out before (though I'm too lazy to look for the link presently), that of job numbers being revised downward to make next month's look better even if there's no actual change**. The real reason exists in what I cut out in the ellipses above:

That could provide further impetus for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates when it meets Dec. 11.

The credit crunch caused by the last round of low rates will be fought by this round of low rates, and rates will be cut even if it completely destroys the dollar. The Fed is in a panic, the executive branch is in a panic***. Only Congress, which collectively knows too little about anything to panic properly, is doing the right thing, if only by default: nothing.

Of course, with half of them running for President, there will be plenty of time for them to panic, too.

* by which I mean "without fanfare or explanation." If El Presidente trotted these number out publicly like he did the ones that just disappeared, I must've missed it.

** the Illusion of Progress is a very powerful symbol when presented by politicians.

*** El Presidente's conundrum is difficult to deal with because it is self-contradicting: on the one hand he has to present "strong economy" to the voters to keep the GOP from getting slaughtered this fall (it won't help) and on the other hand, the economy must be weak to justify cutting rates. It requires two sets of contradictory numbers. What a coincidence that we have exactly that.

Link to this post ::

Link to this post ::

That's why I like Iron Maiden

The Rogers Indicator of Multiple Intelligences
created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Verbal/Linguistic

You have highly developed auditory skills, enjoy reading and writing and telling stories, and are good at getting your point across. You learn best by saying and hearing words. People like you include poets, authors, speakers, attorneys, politicians, lecturers and teachers.

Verbal/Linguistic

93%

Intrapersonal

89%

Logical/Mathematical

75%

Interpersonal

64%

Visual/Spatial

61%

Bodily/Kinesthetic

18%

Musical/Rhythmic

4%

(hat tip: Huck)

Link to this post ::

Copyright 2008, El Borak, inc., makers of Lyin' Your Bass Off brand photogenic rubber game fish.
When you need a picture of 'the one that got away,' try Lyin' Your Bass Off.