Remember, Caesar, thou art serious

At least the head of the National Endowment for the Arts wants you to think so:

This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln. If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists.

Even assuming, as I don't*, that Obama wrote his own books, the lie is not even close to being reasonable. Clinton wrote several books, as did Reagan, Nixon, Carter... but the funny thing is that if there is a President who did not "write them really well," it's Lincoln. Where is the great literary work that he created?

But even if Obama wrote his own works and those other recent presidents didn't, one thing Obama's works lack might be described as "gravitas." Weight. Seriousness. Intellectual heft. If Presidents write naturally about one thing, it's themselves, the most important thing in their lives. But that doesn't mean their work is serious. I have in my library a 5-volume History of the American People written by the man whom I consider the worst president in American history, Woodrow Wilson. This nation would have been far better off if he had never been President, but at least he was a serious writer and serious thinker. Obama is neither.

But going back to Caesar? Good grief. A lot of conservatives are making Caesar comparisons of another nature - danger to the Republic and all that - and they are wasting their time. Obama's not Caesar, he's a lightweight in every sense of the word**. But the only people who are even more lightweight than him are the placemen and sycophants who follow him around, whispering in his ear.

In the days of Rome, the Praetorians were allegedly tasked with reminding Caesar not to take himself too seriously, "Remember, Caesar, thou art mortal." Today's Praetorians have a far more difficult task in trying to convince the rest of us that their lies about Obama should be taken seriously at all.

* Ok, smart guy, where's the proof he didn't write them? I don't have any. I just find it very, very unlikely that someone who has written nothing before or since has the ability to knock out two works of that size.

** I don't say it as a gratuitous insult because I don't have to, it just happens to be true. If you want to fear a Caesar, fear a Wilson, a Teddy Roosevelt, a Lincoln. Especially a Lincoln.

The best 10 minutes of football you'll ever see

Just happened in Fort Scott:

Fort Scott Community College quarterback Dominque Davis scored on a 1-yard quarterback sneak with 1:37 remaining in the fourth quarter to give the Greyhounds their first Jayhawk Conference championship since 1974 with a 14-10 victory over Butler at Frary Field Saturday afternoon.

To call this amazing would be an understatement. All I can say is Wow. When Bethany went to Fort Scott a few years ago, the Greyhounds had not won a game in almost 3 years.

Sure, they were ranked #3 in the NJCAA and Butler #4 at the start of this game, but Butler had won the conference championship eight years running and had amassed a 36-1-1 record with Fort Scott over the past 3 decades. When Butler completed a pass over the middle at the FS 10 yard line with 10 minutes left, even though they were trailing by 4, it looked like old times. Then the WR was absolutely whacked at the 2 and he fumbled into the end zone, with FS recovering the ball under a pile of players. Crisis averted. Temporarily.

Fort Scott lined up at the 20, and 2 plays later their own WR took a hit and the ball flew up, right into the hands of a Butler linebacker. First and 10 at the 19. Two plays after that, a perfect pass between three defenders made it Butler by 3. The ensuing kickoff was a mess; Fort Scott tried a reverse which Butler had well scouted, and following a holding penalty lined up at their own 4 with 8 minutes left. Driving 96 yards including multiple third downs (one 3rd-and-19), FS just broke the goal line with 1:30 on the clock. 14-10.

A squib kickoff gave Butler the ball at their 35 with 3 timeouts left, but a failed draw, a vicious hit over the middle and a sack/fumble gave FS the ball with about 50 seconds left. One first down, and there are new conference champs. If all goes well in the playoffs, these two teams will play again for the right to go to the NJCAA championship in 2 weeks.

I thought Jaley was going to pop a blood vessel, she was screaming so loud. Now that, my friends, is football.

If he's lost Katie, Obama has lost America

I expect more and more news reporters in the coming months will look at administration numbers and conclude that "they are not worth the paper they are written on." Because they're not. Clinton's numbers were tricky, Bush's numbers were rigged, but Obama's are simply cut out of whole cloth.

But even if they were real numbers, even if Obama's $787 billion dollar stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do, it would still be a colossal waste of resources, a blunder so epic that only a Keynesian economist could possibly justify it without choking to death on laughter. $787 billion to save or create 3 million jobs still works out to about 7 or 8 times the national average income*. Only the government could spend $8 to create $1 worth of "job." But even then, they're not real numbers.

Everyone who's been paying attention knew they weren't real even before they came out. But if CBS News has figured it out - and is willing to tell people** - then the press is in as much trouble as the president. They have relied for so long on government announcements, government press handouts, and cooked government numbers that I wonder if they have anyone who remembers how to find news.

* And if they're creating jobs for day care workers and entry-level truck drivers, you can probably make that 10 or 12 times the average.

** then again, this is CBS news; it's possible no one actually saw it.

Yes We Can

And they'll never see see it coming!*

* "Only those candidates with a legitimate chance of winning the Heisman Trophy in the view of ESPN and Nissan will be added to the leaderboard."

From the really, really bad ideas file...

In praise of a Democrat

I don't do it often*, but credit where its due:

Gov. Mark Parkinson set the stage Wednesday for imposition of a fresh round of state budget cuts made necessary by the sustained economic downturn and a deepening collapse in tax collections...

Meanwhile, Parkinson said the state wouldn't sweeten a $230 million incentive proposal designed to attract a new Cerner office complex and a Kansas City Wizards soccer complex to Kansas. "Good jobs are valuable, but not valuable at any price," he said.

Two good decisions on the part of Parkinson, the Democratic governor who is also a former GOP state chairman**.

The first thumb up is on budget cuts. He's not whining like so many other governors, and he's not blaming, he's simply cutting a budget that must now account for tax collections running 5% below what they were projected only 3 months ago***. If he calls for tax increases later, I'll pile on then, but for now he's handling it just right.

The second thumb up is for an issue more important than not whining about how hard it is when you have less of other people's money to spend: the temptation to give it away to companies who promise to bring jobs to your state. Since Parkinson was the king of the Country Club Republicans, and because people are looking to him to "do something," the temptation here must be tremendous. But it's the right call - giving away state money in order to attract one business just makes it harder on the businesses that are already here. It's like the Broken Window fallacy in reverse: you're liable to lose more over the long run than if you just create a low-tax, low-harassment environment in the first place.

Kansas currently ranks 36th nationwide in per-capita spending. If we work really hard at it, maybe some day we can come in dead last. Never thought I'd see a Democrat make it possible.

UPDATE: while I have no confirmation on this, our social worker kind of muttered yesterday that she thinks the main reason they have a dearth of foster kids right now is that, because of budget limitations, SRS is only pulling those kids who are in immediate danger at home. Which is how it should be anyway.

* Only because they so seldom deserve it.

** And whom, to be honest, I have never liked. Not one bit. So you can imagine how hard this is for me.

*** The recession's over, so I heard.

Don't you be my neighbor

Apparently the Japanese got the Obama message loud and clear:

In the past week, officials from the DPJ have announced that Japan would withdraw from an eight-year-old mission in the Indian Ocean to refuel warships supporting U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. They have also pledged to reopen negotiations over a $26 billion military package that involves relocating a U.S. Marine Corps helicopter base in Japan and moving 8,000 U.S. Marines from Japan to Guam...

The atmospherics of the relationship have also morphed, with Japanese politicians now publicly contradicting U.S. officials.

Upon his inauguration, President Hope-n-Change™ promised to restore all those alliances that the prior El Presidente had allegedly damaged by invading countries that no one really cares about. Since then he has thrilled the British by giving the prime minister a package of DVDs as a gift* and spurned a British request for the kind of private talks allies love, and snubbed the French President, his hot wife notwithstanding**. Now the Japanese seem to want to go their own way. Which leaves us with Poland as an ally***, I suppose. That's worked out well historically.

But I'm not complaining. In fact, I can't think of a better path for America long-term than to pursue a policy of relative isolationism. If the Japanese want to deal with China, the Koreas, and Russia, all of which are far closer to them than to Sarah Palin's house, it's fine by me. Even better if they kick us out completely.

If what it takes to pursue a policy of non-entangling alliances is a president who can't competently manage alliances with anyone, I say, you go, Mister President. Perhaps you could cement the (non)deal by giving the Queen of England an iPod full of your speeches.

* "a gift about as exciting as a pair of socks."Hey, that's their words, not mine.

** Given the relative hotness factor, that's probably Michele's doing, but you're not going to see me complain about someone ignoring the French even for petty reasons.

*** Ally: (n) a nation Americans have previously conquered but to whom they now pay money for the privilege of occupying. So perhaps Poland's not really an ally.

On the functional impossibility of miracles

Arguing with atheists can be a lot of fun. Not very often, of course, but on occasion it's fun to jump into the trenches and see if the machine guns still fire. Of course, there are several kinds of atheists* one will find there.

The first kind is the fun kind in the short run. Odin in the above-mentioned thread is a particularly useful example. If you can get him to make a comprehensible post, you'll find that his "facts" are a lot like walking through a spider web with your mouth open. You get a bit of a shock and may be momentarily blinded, but as soon as you start to pull at the gossamer you'll see that it is wholly insubstantial. Odin asserted that John's story of Peter catching 153 fish was obviously copied from the mythical story of Pythagoras catching 153 fish - except that Pythagoras in his story did not himself fish, nor did those he was with have 153 - he simply guessed correctly how many they had. When pointed out that his assertion was baseless, he simply slunk away, only to appear in another thread with the same manner of (non) argument.

But Odin is neither here nor there, because while in dealing with him one can understand why cats love toys (especially the ones that squeak), even cats eventually bore of toys like that.

But there is a second kind with whom I enjoy sparring far more. They are more intelligent and better read**. Veil over at Vox's is a good example, though I think he seemed rather surprised after asking for (non-documentary) proof of a miracle - he asked specifically for a resurrection - that I responded that even if I provided it, he would not believe it.

Of course, the Christian is at a real disadvantage in such a case, because I personally do not know of any miraculous resurrections in the past, say, 1900 years, and he has already argued that documentary evidence is insufficient: no, we need a "real" modern-day resurrection. But then I realized that illustrating that the atheist would not believe one does not require a miracle; all it requires is an event that the evidence showed could be one***.

For example, here's a resurrection, exactly what Veil asked for. Now, what is a resurrection? Well, it's when a person who was dead comes back to life. It doesn't have to be a Jesus; the centurion's servant and the widow's son are just as miraculous and pretty similar "quickly back to life" events.

So in the linked story (there's more than I explain), the cop is dead. The machines say so, the doctors say so. The family says goodbye. 5 minutes later, the nurse notices that he has a heartbeat again, and he is alive today. We don't know how, and we certainly can't prove God is responsible, but we can show that, if He was, the atheist would not believe it.

We only have three possible explanations for dead then not-dead:

#1 He wasn't really dead.

#2 He was dead and came to life by some natural process.

#3 He was dead and came back by a supernatural process, a miracle.

To believe or assert #1 is to propose Science Fail. The best medical knowledge and the best tools we have said he was dead. All the evidence is that on the dead/not dead binary, he was dead. One could assert that the machines are not good enough or that the doctors and paramedics made a mistake - and one may be correct - but notice what is happening? The person is arguing against the available evidence, not with it. If we are going to act in an orderly and proficient scientific manner, we have to believe that when the doctors walked out of the room, they left a dead man behind.

That leaves either #2 or #3, but we have a problem: no physical evidence can help us decide between them. We have the result of an unknown process, and there is no way to tell by weighing the actual facts whether it happened by some unknown natural one or by some unknown supernatural one.

Most atheists (in fact, most people other than the man's family or maybe his church) would assert #2: we don't know what happened, but whatever happened was wholly natural. It could have happened to anyone. God need not be involved.

It's perfectly reasonable and it conforms with our lives and experiences. But I would assert that if exactly the same thing happened with a man standing over the policeman saying, "Young man, I say to thee, arise," whatever chain of arguments can get us from "unknown process" to "unknown natural process" without evidence can surely account for him. If we are going to make the mental jump that most people make, that seems most reasonable to us, then it is impossible to prove that something was a miracle. It might not be understood, it might be a heck of a coincidence, but it cannot be accepted as a miracle.

If one makes the mental jump from "unknown process" to "there must be some natural explanation" then while one is certain to see things he does not understand, he will never see a miracle. And it is not the available evidence but his philosophy that will not allow it.

* As there are the same kinds of Christians. They are like Superman and Bizarro Superman.

** and probably don't need a co-signer for a loan.

*** From this point the argument is "virtual" and one-sided as, being as how I answered it after work, he has either not been back to see it or has decided to ignore it. I suspect the former.

How black do you want them?

New black dolls are still better than old ones:

The new black Barbies released by Mattel have fuller lips, curlier hair and other features that the company says more accurately represent African-American women.

Some have cheered the new dolls. Others jeered them, saying they're not black enough.

Most of you probably know that Rogue and I have black daughters. TK and Molly came to us almost 3 years ago when the latter was 5 weeks old, with a shock of wavy hair that quickly became a curly nightmare. And she can't get it done, either, or rather, as soon as she does, she twists out whatever is in it. TK has extensions, with long, straight rows of beads hanging on both sides. Molly? She has little short pigtails with beads all over her head.

But anyway, about a year ago Rogue noticed the dearth of black dolls in our house* and decided to buy a couple. It turned out to be a little more of a challenge than we thought as, even though Wal-Mart had nice new ones, we seldom buy toys new - with as many kids as we have coming through here, it's a lot cheaper to let them destroy old ones. So she ordered three nice-looking black rag dolls on ebay, one of which had hair all over the place, just like Molly. The package came and we opened it, ready to pass out a trio of new, black dolls. The one with the hair all over was so black, it even came with a little, wooden watermelon.

Yeah, that went right in the trash, but it does illustrate a problem with trying to create black dolls in the midst of people complaining about how black they are, because you constantly have to balance between "unreal" on one end and "stereotype" on the other. What if they have straight hair? Well, that's not realistic. What if they all have afros? I know very few black girls who wear Angela Davis style 'fros. Is the hair black? This town is full of orange-haired black women. Are the butts too small? Wow, how eurocentric. Are the butts big? What an invidious stereotype. Small lips or big? Thin noses or wide?

With white dolls, people may complain that Barbie sets an unrealistic standard of beauty, but at least no one screams racism. With black dolls, it seems that every choice is bound to offend someone. You can't win.

But hey, at least it doesn't come with a wooden slice of watermelon.

* I think we had but one, though to be honest the girls show no preference for it.

This could be taken a number of ways, I suppose...

Why war is preferable to sanctions

It's easy to say "We think the price is worth it" when we are not the one paying the price. Such arrogance reminds me of CS Lewis' contention that it's far preferable to be ruled by those who care most for themselves than by those who only want what's best for us*. The Progressive loves economic sanctions, even though they fall most heavily on the poorest and weakest; he thinks the death of half a million children is worth it because it's being done for their own good.

At least when you go to war, you actually have skin in the game, so to speak. You may or may not kill more people - few claim that US troops killed half a million Iraqi children, in any case - but you will certainly kill a few of your own. Pay the butcher bill yourself and then you can truly judge if it's worth it.

It is a hard question and a far more serious one to ask, "Is war on Iraq or Afghanistan worth the lives of 5000 Americans? 10,000? What price are we willing to pay in American blood, how many titanium legs must our young men wear, to impose our vision of the good life on others?"

That's why we never ask it.

* “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Miss South Carolina explains why atheists don't do geography

Well, because some people don't have maps, and...:

Luke indicates that the ascension took place in Bethany.

Acts says the ascension happened at the Mount of Olives, which it erroneously claims is a “Sabbath day’s journey” from Jerusalem one way. The Mount of Olives, which is still there today, is on the east side of Jerusalem and is a relatively short journey, even taking into account the boundaries of first-century Jerusalem...

The only two accounts we have of the event, which, ostensibly, were written by the same man, contradict each other on every important point...

There are 10 kinds of atheists in the world*: there's the humble, friendly kind of atheist who simply does not believe in God, and then there's the kind who feels the need to frantically page through his parents' bible looking for contradictions**. This contradiction is actually a rather comical one, because it so cleverly combines a number of easily falsifiable assertions in a single-serving, ready to microwave package.

The first error is in the assertion that there's some sort of contradiction between Bethany and the Mount of Olives. But a quick check of any map (here's the one from bibleatlas.org) will show that Bethany itself is right next to the Mount of Olives. In fact, it's so close that the Catholic Encyclopedia says that biblical (as opposed to modern) Bethany is "a village at the second milestone from Aelia [Jerusalem], on the slope of the Mount of Olives." Bethany is not only near the Mount of Olives, it's on the mount. So to complain that these two statements contradict each other is like saying a man could not have gone to Sacramento because he clearly says he went to California.

But for the record, Luke does not say that ascension took place "in Bethany," which would be rather odd for a private ascension party anyway, but "as far as," or as the Bible in Basic English*** aptly puts it, "near Bethany." So why doesn't Luke use the same word in both places? Luke likes to mix it up, I guess****. Besides, Luke said 5 chapters earlier that "And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives..." Apparently he figured his readers were paying attention.

But the funny part is the author's assertion that Luke "erroneously claims" the mount is a Sabbath day's journey when, in fact, it is "a relatively short journey" from Jerusalem. This is why I seldom give atheist bible critics the benefit of the doubt: they take the Bible too literally. A "sabbath day's journey" is a figure of speech, which means just over a mile. That's a relatively short journey in my book. To take it literally is like asserting that "a hop, skip, and a jump" is about 8 feet, rather than the indeterminate but short distance that the phrase is used to denote.

Luke in both cases said they went up on the Mount of Olives toward Bethany, pretty close by Jerusalem, and there Jesus ascended. He didn't say it the same way twice - Luke seldom says anything the same way twice. But that's only a contradiction in the minds of those desperately searching for one.

* those who do binary and those who don't.

** Or more likely, loopholes.

*** A version that would certainly be burned by some folks in North Carolina.

**** If you don't get JSTOR, just know that it's an article from the Harvard Studies in Classical Philology that notes that while "the uniformity of [Luke's] style is one of its striking characteristics," this uniformity "is accompanied by great variety within the similar phrases, by a manifest fondness for change of expression, and by a notable copiousness of vocabulary in the terms used for things and actions often mentioned." I would add places to that list.

It could be green shoots

Or it could be a lot of hot air:

Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. state tax collections tumbled the most in almost half a century in the second quarter as the economic recession curbed levies on incomes and sales.

The 16.6 percent plunge was the biggest since at least 1963, the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government said today. For the 12 months to June 30, the fiscal year for most states, revenue declined 8.2 percent, or $63 billion, about twice what states got from the $787 billion U.S. economic stimulus package, the institute said.

One of the raps so-called "perma-bears" get is that they are misanthropes who cheer bad news only for the joy of seeing others suffer. And while I'm not a perma-bear*, I do think the accusation carries with it a bit of a misunderstanding, for it presumes that falling tax revenue is a bad thing**. I happen to think it's a very good thing. I have long said that the only saving grace in big government is that it's inefficient: we should all be thankful we're not getting all the government we pay for. And since I want less of it, I'm perfectly satisfied to pay less for it.

Government is like aspirin. We do not have to choose between taking none or the whole bottle. While we do need a little, taking more is not going to help us, and taking too much is just going to give us ulcers or make us bleed profusely whenever the eventual cut or scrape comes along. In today's government there is this idea that we need to take all the aspirin we have, and the more the better; well, if we're going to do that, then I think it's better for us if we have less than a full bottle on hand.

But be that as it may, with the Dow crossing and re-crossing a big-round number this week, the financial press is full of "the recession is over" stories. Stocks are going up. The economy is growing. Happy days are here again. State governments say that's not true. Not only is it not true, it's not even close to true.

If one wants an excellent proportional measurement of economic activity, it's hard to find one better than sales tax revenue. Consumer spending is something like 70% of the economy, and state governments generally*** take a cut of every dollar. That's real money proportional to real sales, not mythical money like owner-imputed rent or hedonic adjustments. Real revenues are down 16% quarter to quarter and 8% year-to-year. In short, they are decreasing at an increasing rate. There is no way that if 70% of the economy is shrinking that fast, the entire economy is growing. Hot air about green shoots aside, it's just not happening.

But the big question is, is that a bad thing? Traditional economists think it's a bad thing. Politicians think it's a bad thing - but then again, they are the ones who get more play money when revenues rise. Permabears are presumed to think it's a bad thing (which is why they are so happy about it). I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing at all. It may be a bad thing or it may be a good thing. We'll have to see how it works out.

The thing about depressions - and have no doubt, we are in one - is that they do not end just because spending goes up in this quarter or that. Depressions hang around until the economy they are depressing adjusts to a new reality. When banks started lending hundreds of thousands of dollars to strawberry pickers to buy new houses on 125%, no-doc, no-money-down, adjustable-rate mortgages, that was a sign that the consumer economy was terminally ill. It had grown as old and big as it was likely to. Sales tax revenues falling in double digits is proof that it has died. It's all dead - Miracle Max cannot help us now - and something new must rise in its place.

That something could be good, or it could be very, very bad, and much of that decision will rest upon how hard governments cling to the corpse of the dearly departed.

* I just play one on the internets. If I hope certain markets drop - they will drop or not, regardless of my personal preferences - it's only because at some point I hope to get back in.

** It also presumes that those who say something bad will happen *want* it to happen, Therefore the Surgeon General wants you to get lung cancer. It says so on every pack.

*** Yes, a few states exclude items like food and clothing, but not enough to change the game unless we are going to argue that Price Chopper is somehow making up all that revenue that GM is losing.

The Norse is strong with this one

No one can long escape the Booty call:

Earlier in the week the Vikings tweaked their practice squad roster by releasing QB John David Booty and filling his spot with T Clint Oldenburgh.

At the end of this week, the Vikings again tweaked their practice squad roster.

And they did so by bringing Booty back to the squad and releasing Oldenburg.

Well, I'm not sure what that was all about, but this is the third time the Vikings have signed Booty this year, they must see something in him. With the depth they have at QB*, I suspect they're just waiting to pawn TJack or Dr. Rosenrosen off on some needy if unsuspecting divisional opponent for a third-round draft choice.

I'm not feeling really good about tomorrow. Of course, the Vikings are masters of inflicting on their faithful Ultimate Suffering™. I'm just not sure if this is it yet; there is that Packers game a few weeks hence...

* Surely I jest.

clarity

In two sentences, French President Sarkozy illustrates why NATO cannot and will not 'win' in Afghanistan:

"Is it necessary to stay in Afghanistan? I say 'yes'. And to stay to win ... But France will not send a single soldier more," Sarkozy told Le Figaro.

Sarkozy said he wants instead to see more home-grown Afghan troops fight the Taliban guerrillas.

"They will be the most effective in winning this war because it is their country. But we need to pay them more to avoid desertions that benefit the Taliban," said the French president.

It is their country, so we need to pay them more to win the war on our behalf. Brilliant. If what was truly necessary was to pay the Afghans not to be Taliban, why didn't we think of this 9 years ago?

UPDATE: Maybe this is what he meant:

A Taleban commander and two senior Afghan officials confirmed yesterday that Italian forces paid protection money to prevent attacks on their troops.

TOTALLY UNRELATED UPDATE: I'm done with CNN.com forever. The fact that there are not one but two separate front-page stories about Meghan McCain's decision whether or not she's going to continue to use Twitter makes me pine for the old days of Ted Turner. I mean, sure, he was (and is) a socialist one-worlder and probably a lunatic. But at least he knew the definition of the word "news."

Even Shatner's kidney stones were better

Seriously, these are pretty sorry excuses for relics:

Elvis Presley fans keen to own a chunk of their idol now can: locks of what is claimed to be The King's hair are up for auction next week.

And elsewhere:

SINGED strands of Michael Jackson's hair that were burned a Pepsi advert are coming up for sale.

Sure, it's one of a kind and all that. But you've gotta admit the hair of Elvis or Jackson does not quite rank up there with the trepanned skull of St. Dagobert* or the severed nipples of St. Elizabeth of Hungary**.

When it comes to the time-honored if futile practice of collecting relics of the revered, they just don't make 'em like they used to, I guess.

* pictured.
** not pictured.

How did I miss this so completely?

I guess I just don't pay enough attention to liberals giving awards to each other*:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - ... Obama on Sunday (Fed 10, 2008) won the spoken word Grammy for the audiobook version of his blockbuster tome "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream." It marked his second statuette, following a win in 2006 for "Dreams From My Father," an audiobook for a memoir first published in 1995.

I had no idea that Obama had won two Grammy awards. Frankly, I'm amazed that he won this, given the fierce competition of other liberals who simultaneously released completely unmemorable, clearance-table-in-a-month books: Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter (his second year in a row), Alan Alda, and Maya Angelou.

But it would be supremely ironic if it turns out he did just as much to earn his Grammys as he did to get the Peace prize.

* This is neither sour grapes nor a gratuitous insult. I learned in politics long ago that giving awards to one another is one way liberals make themselves and each other appear more credible - an upstart liberal politician can milk a single Outstanding Young Lawyer award for an entire career. Obama will be remembered as a Nobel laureate long after we've all forgotten everything else he didn't really do.

I'm a rerun, Hello.

Jesus was a pinko

Seriously. The folks over at Conservapedia have decided that a number of translations of the bible are too liberal, and so have decided to re-make it in their own image and create what "could become a text for public school courses." Of course, liberals are having a field day with it, as well they should. There are certain efforts that deserve to be taken seriously. This is not one of them.

The first problem is that, if one wants to create an authoritative translation, beginning with the KJV is ludicrous. I mean, sure, the KJV is public domain more or less, but then again so are a number of other, better texts*. Any translation 70 years old (ASV, Darby, Webster, even Young's Literal) would serve as a better starting point. Even better would be to have real translators who can translate the Greek and Hebrew texts.

Secondly, a bible "translated" by anyone with a computer picking any words they like could have no more authority than the Jehovah Witness Bible (New World Translation). It's not that all their word selections will be inaccurate; it's that one cannot know if they are, and it would be foolish to build any kind of theological (or political) superstructure on them.

A third problem is the short-sightedness of the entire effort. Modern conservatism is, at best, a 5-decade old ideology. It is a response to modern "liberalism," which itself grows from progressivism, which itself is a response to the real problems of early capitalism, which itself is, at most, one-fourth the age of the youngest books of the bible. Political conservatism will itself morph into something else, and probably surprisingly soon. The issues it grapples so hard with will pass from the political scene and will be no more. Its particular jargon will fade away just as fully.

But the real problem is the lack of respect the entire effort shows for the word of God, even as conservatives claim to rely on it. To assert that "Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well," is presumptuous in the extreme**. I find that if the Word of God impinges on my politics, it's wise to change my politics. Those who choose to go the other way deserve all the scorn that their opponents can pour on them.

* Not necessarily better translations, just better texts. But since the translation is just going to be "fixed" anyway, it would make sense to start with something closer to the original. And the KJV ain't it.

** seriously, If they are not in the Greek or Hebrew, then you are just importing your ideas into the Bible. First, become a prophet, then we can think about adding them.

Canton, OH (CNN) -- In a surprise move today, the National Football League awarded its annual Vince Lombardi Trophy to President Barack Obama. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell made the announcement outside the Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio.

"The Vince Lombardi Trophy is traditionally awarded to the team that wins the Super Bowl," Goodell told the assembled reporters. "But traditions cannot bind us to the past; today we establish traditions that will lead us into a hopeful and more audacious future.

"In addition, the NFL also announces the establishment of the Hall of Fame 'Zero Ballot.' This ballot will waive certain restrictions on eligibility for the Hall of Fame, without denigrating those players who are elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot, and who actually played football. I am proud to announce President Obama as our first Zero Ballot inductee into the NFL Hall of Fame. Any commercial use or re-broadcast of this press conference without the express written consent of the National Football League is prohibited."

In a related announcement, the Russian Academy of Sciences this morning awarded President Obama the The Demidov Prize, an award traditionally reserved for Russians who make notable contributions in the physical sciences. When asked about the surprising conferral, NAS President Wydonia Pizov simply shrugged his shoulders. "You know, we just thought, 'what the hell?'"

In case you wondered

Whether a Nobel peace prize had any meaning:

OSLO (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for giving the world "hope for a better future" and striving for nuclear disarmament, in a surprise award that drew both warm praise and sharp criticism.

The decision ... was greeted with gasps of astonishment from journalists at the announcement in Oslo*.

After AlGore won half a prize for his religious visions, I figured we had seen the least meaningful peace prize that would be awarded in my lifetime. Boy was I wrong.

The beauty of this selection is that, since it is inarguable that Obama has accomplished nothing of note, one no longer has to defend the assertion that the Nobel prize has devolved into a mere recognition of the political favor of hip, European liberals. The astonishment of the journalists is proof positive.

But I do wonder at the possibility that SNL is as responsible for this award as anyone; it was barely 6 days ago when they asserted - on TV no less - that Obama has accomplished nothing. Now he has, even if he did nothing to get it.

UPDATE: Magruder makes a brash prediction:

In a few weeks he'll become the first sitting president to win the Cy Young award.

Doubt it not, oh ye of little faith.

* Proof that journalists are not complete idiots. Foreign ones, anyway.

When memes collide

(language warning)

This just in!

Sarah Palin actually can't see Russia from her house:

Look, we know SNL isn't the Times, and that some people might consider it ridiculous to fact-check one of their skits. But political satire isn't legitimate if it's not based in truth. It's not that SNL's disenchantment with Obama is unsupportable; they just picked some faulty evidence to support it.

Rather than trying to decide whether SNL's political satire is legitimate*, New York Magazine, in attempting to defend CNN's preposterous "Fact Check," would have been much closer to the truth if they had said political satire is not effective if it's not based in truth - or at least perceived truth. Effective political satire simply exaggerates what we already believe. That's why no one would ever portray Nixon as an honest man or Bill Clinton as a faithful one. It would be perfectly legitimate to do so, but it would be wholly ineffective**. You cannot swap Robert Byrd into a Dan Quayle sketch and have it maintain any coherence.

But if NY Mag agreed that effective political satire is based in truth, then the fact that CNN felt the need to defend Obama from people making fun of him*** would force the conclusion that it was effective, and therefore it must be based on truth.

And that near-endless list of concrete Obama accomplishments that SNL ignored puts the lie to that idea, right?

* One can only imagine the outrage of NY Mag if Glen Beck or Rush had similarly deconstructed a Sarah Palin takeoff and declared it not "legitimate" satire. Philistines, all!

** Unless the point was to really portray Nixon as a crook. Then the more straight he played, the funnier and more crooked he would be perceived. Try as you might, you could not make Nixon appear honest, nor Clinton chaste.

*** but who will defend CNN from people making fun of them?

A reading from the Book of Chuck

Asking for the unwanted

But at least he's barking up the right tree:

Americans will have to save more in the future, transforming the global economy, and Europeans and Japanese must work to boost domestic demand, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was quoted as saying on Wednesday...

In one sense, it's neither a big deal nor a revelation; politicians are always telling everyone else what they need to do, and most of the time it's as effective as flying a kite in a forest.

But in another sense, it's an interesting pronouncement for what it doesn't say, or at least how it doesn't say it. Saying Americans need to save more is a roundabout way of saying they need to spend less*. They need to borrow less. They need to personally get their fiscal houses in order. They need to act responsibly.

This is a far cry from every government solution implemented thus far, all of which have been designed to get Americans to save less, to borrow and spend more. Stimulus checks, Cash-for-Clunkers, tax cuts, first-time homebuyer credits, all of these things are designed to increase economic activity by increasing consumer spending. Of course, the government's own increase in spending has been both unprecedented and incredible**.

So either Geithner and the administration have discovered the obvious - that Americans cannot continue to spend more than they make forever - or they have not quite made the connection that if you are going to save, that means that you cannot continue to spend like a drunken sailor.

Or maybe they they are like Augustine, who when asking God for the virtue of chastity, realized he was secretly saying, "but not just yet." Americans will need to save "in the future," says Geithner. I suspect that, whatever he is saying aloud about the need for Americans to pull in their horns and pay down their debts, the Administration is secretly hoping they won't do it just yet.

* What is savings but money not yet spent?
** And probably fatal.

If my grandmother had wheels...

If the Vikings ever manage to run and pass in the same game, they will be unstoppable.

Other than the eight sacks, the safety, the fumble, and the interception, Aaron Rodgers looked pretty good. Though I'm not sure he would have chosen that Favre post-game hug, all things considered.

The difference between this year and prior years is that the Vikings' offense is consistently putting points on the board. The defense hasn't had to win a single game yet. The special teams hasn't lost one, either.

Hey, wait a minute

I forgot all about that guy:

Fresh from a humbling loss in last year’s presidential election, Sen. John McCain is working behind-the-scenes to reshape the Republican Party in his own center-right image.

... those familiar with McCain’s thinking say he has expressed serious concern about the direction of the party and is actively seeking out and supporting candidates who can broaden the party’s reach.

It's all good if you like seeing Republicans treated like baby seals*. The guy blown out by a neophyte, half-a-freaking term funny-named Democrat senator from Chicago is on the warpath to make his own party just as much of a success as he is.

Well, considering that El Presidente Pasado used exactly that approach to transform the GOP from the New England Patriots of the political world into a Kansas City Chiefs equivalent, I think that John McCain's new-and-improved, extra-squishy, center-right** GOP is off to a pretty good start.

* I do, I just wish it didn't mean putting up with with Democrats.
** meaning left.

I don't hear no fat lady

so it might be a little early for a victory dance:

The recession is probably over, which means states' financial troubles have only begun.

History suggests it could take six or more years for sales and income taxes — which make up roughly two-thirds of states' revenue — to return to pre-recession levels. That augurs deeper cuts to state jobs and services in order to maintain funding for core programs such as public schools and Medicaid.

Check that, the recession is probably not over, which means that the seven lean years of state government will likely stretch into just a few more than that. Yes, there are "green shoots" if you look here and there, but you honestly did not expect the government's spending of $2 trillion that it doesn't have to have no effects, did you? But those effects will not last any longer than the money lasts. Just as auto sales plunged to new record lows as soon as Cash for Clunkers ended*, so will every other market that is being similarly artificially inflated. Stimulus does not an economy make.

Housing indexes are still falling**, unemployment is still rising, bank failures for this year will probably hit 100 on Friday. So what have we gotten for the trillions? Well, we have a few green shoots.

What we do not have is a fix, because the trillions that have been spent have been spent to avoid a fix. They have been spent to allow companies like GM and Chrysler that don't make money a chance to keep making cars no one wants at a loss***. They have been spent to bring two thirds of the nation's mortgages under the very government agencies that underwrote so much of the subprime mess and have been roiled in fraudulent accounting scandals for years. The government has taken over a few banks and insurance companies. In other words, nothing significant has changed.

This recession may technically end. I doubt it, but the numbers might just come up (or be presented) that way. GDP includes government spending for a reason. But as soon as the helicopters land, we will still have to face the problems that we are so pointedly ignoring now.

So don't lose those cigars; you are still going to need them. Because when the fat lady finally does sing, she's gonna bring the roof down.

* It is amazing to me that it was considered a success. Yes, it spent a lot of money, but even in August the seasonally-adjusted annual rate (SAAR) was 14.1 million units. Two years ago that rate was 16-17 million units.

** well, except the ones that measure foreclosures. I really love the use of "despite" in that article. That says it all.

*** It's not all bad news. While it is bad that the taxpayers will shoulder much of that loss, the rest will come from union coffers. Misery loves company and all that.

GTA Old Northwest

I'm starting to get the feeling

that we really don't know anything at all:

In a series of studies released today by the journal Science, researchers have revealed a creature that took the first upright steps toward human beings and fundamentally changes the way we look at our earliest evolutionary ancestors.

The research brings into question the belief that our most distant ancestors descended from apes.

What's closer to the truth is that our knuckle dragging cousins descended from us...

So anyway, Vox is involved in a back-and-forth with a (presumably) young atheist, and like his prior debate with an evolutionist named Scott, it is insightful and both sides are worth a thorough read. But I did have to laugh at one of the naive conclusions of his latest interlocutor, who wrote that: "Except that with evolution, we do independently arrive at the same tree of life from all points of inquiry. That’s no myth."

It is the biggest myth of all. In fact, according to 11 papers being run in Science this very week, we don't know whether humans have ape ancestors or apes have human ones. How can you possibly have a tree of life if you can't distinguish a branch from a root? You can't, of course. If after 150 years we don't know that, we don't know anything.

It's pretty much same problem I explained with indohyus, that theoretical raccoon-sized ancestor of whales, in that when your evidence for descent is similarity, and when you have an unlimited number of possible comparisons that rely on subjective measurements of similarity, you will either reach multiple possible conclusions or absurd ones* that must be accepted anyway because we have to go with something.

Hey, the new story may be right, or the old story may be right, and everyone can pick a side and fight it out. But let's not have any of this rubbish about how we have anything resembling a tree of life that can be supported by comparisons from "all points of inquiry." The only place the tree of life truly exists is in high school biology textbooks.

* e.g. that the ancestor of the whale as per DNA is the hippo, which is too late and in the wrong part of the world.