The guvnuh's race

FiveBoysMom axes about our ghost hunting gubernatorial candidate*

Somehow I don’t think this is going to have the same outcome as You’re Not Elected, Charlie Brown when Linus runs for student body president, spends his last campaign speech on the Great Pumpkin and still wins the election.

I really think this is a perfect example of how NOT to get elected.

... I wonder if El Borak will have a take on this. If he does, it should be interesting.

I got two words for ya: "Alvin Greene."  I'm kidding and you're right: Senator Switchback is not about to be defeated in the primaries by a woman who claims, "I also met with a man named James Wolbert in Feb. of this year. He had five microchips implanted in him (by satellite) because the government wanted his billion dollar invention, and he refused to turn over the patent and the rights**." Whether she's correct is irrelevant. She's simply not going to win.

I was kind of amused at the comments intimating that this woman was some kind of a plant by the Switchback campaign. She's not. No other "legitimate"*** candidate is going to take on a sitting senator who has signaled for the last three years that he wants the governor's mansion - it would be a personal affront to the most powerful Republican(s) in the state. And Switchback would likely win anyway, so why bother? But having a lunatic opponent is still worse than having no opponent at all. Ask Senator Vic Rawl of South Carolina. Oh, wait...

The way to use plants in the primaries is to split your main opponent's vote.  So let's say you're a conservative who faces a liberal**** in the primary.  You use a plant by recruiting and funding a person who will mimic your opponent's views almost perfectly, and then you start a personal shit fight in the primary with the more popular of your opponents.  Bases of both sides will be fired up, but a certain number of people will be turned off. The liberal group of "hate them both" voters will likely vote for your plant, as will plenty of others who would not vote for you anyway.  If you can make the main campaign issue something that separates you from two, and since they are then splitting the same vote pool, you win.

FWIW, I fully intend to vote for Switchback this fall - I would really love to replace a few supreme court justices and have a shot at no-permit concealed carry and a couple other things that the last four governors spent their free time vetoing.

* Not Senator Switchback (pictured), the other one.
** Like the government wouldn't just take it if they really wanted it.  Who does she think runs the patent office anyway?
*** as defined by party officials and campaign-funders
**** in Kansas, this person will be identified by the moniker 'moderate.'

Does this sign make my butte look big?

This won't last long

When I explained to the lovely and gracious Rogue the background of this particular video, her response was short and to the point:

Good.

Much, much less than a river in Egypt

CNBC shows 10 ways the government can reduce wasteful spending:

Here, we take a look at 10 cost-saving measures the administration is considering that do not involve staffing reductions or elimination of programs — measures that could be implemented today.

The problem is not that these are the same kind of silly little things that every administration proposes, it's that when you're talking about saving $2m by not throwing away medicines in VA hospitals, or with $150,000 in savings for making people with Social Security questions make appointments online*, it's not even worth talking about.  Deficit hawks will say, "every little bit counts," but every little bit doesn't count.  Many little bits are simply distractions that allow the government to look busy not dealing with the problem at all.

Imagine that you are coaching a woman who came to you with a severe weight problem. You patiently explain to her that she's going to have to either take in fewer calories or burn more. The math is not complicated, it's just hard to manage consistently, especially when you have a lifetime of emotional reliance on food to deal with.

Then imagine the woman came back and said, "Exercise and diet and counseling are all well and good, but how about if I start by getting my nails trimmed and maybe have a few inches cut off my hair? There's also this callous on my foot that could go. Maybe I'll start giving blood. All those things will reduce my weight, and every little bit counts."

Yes, all of those things will reduce her weight, but what confidence do you have that she will actually lose a single pound? She is either not serious at all, or she is in serious denial about her present condition. Congestive heart failure is in her future, maybe her very near future**.

Uncle Sam is in precisely the same condition and position. Every bit counts, but the $3m the government could save by increasing teleconferencing counts for about 2 ten-thousandths of one percent of this year's budget deficit, a shortfall which is almost half of the entire budget. The problem is not that Uncle Sam throws away aspirin at hospitals, but that he spends $5 for every $3 of income he has, just like the woman's problem is not the length of her hair, but of her belt.

Talking about any number less than a billion when it comes to the federal budget is a waste of time. Talking about less than $10b chunks is mostly a waste of it. But I think people gravitate instinctively to small numbers for one of two reasons: either they can mentally grasp a million whereas a billion is just a word, or they are simply trying to look busy while hoping this fussy doctor who keeps talking about salads and treadmills will get bored and leave.

* I can't see any problem with that idea, can you?
** The bad news is that she appears to be on a taxpayer-funded health plan. The good news is that her pension liabilities will likely be rather limited.  

The consequences will never be the same

In light of the President of Iran's intimation that Obama might launch an attack on Iran in weeks or months, I just thought to bring back something of interest:

January 22, 2005 - By now you have probably heard about the Bush Administration's secret plan to attack Iran and how US Special Forces units have been operating in the country for some time. Seymour Hersh, the maverick journalist for The New Yorker, broke the story earlier this week.

Even before 2005 liberals and anti-war activists had been spouting about "the Bush Administration's secret plan to attack Iran," a plan so secret that apparently the Bush Administration never learned of its existence even in the four years following it revelation by a "maverick journalist*." At least they never actually made such an attack as far as I can tell.  It wasn't in the papers, anyway.

But buried deep within the bowels of this piece** was something that made me laugh pretty hard:

Recently, the Democratic Party's rising "progressive" star Barack Obama said he would favor "surgical" missile strikes against Iran.... Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."

Given that the rising progressive star(™) is currently dropping bombs on Pakistan, one can see how the President of Iran might expect that he is in the crosshairs as well.

However, a number of people are making the same kinds of political miscalculations as did the Bush accusers, especially if they expect that such an attack would result in a 'rally around the flag vote' just in time for November.  An American public tired of their sons dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially in light of the progressives' previous railings against those wars, are certainly not going to rally around*** dropping a few bombs out of planes, much less support an invasion based on vague Executive Branch warnings about WMDs. Been there, right?

Rather I suspect that, should such an attack be made, the reaction of the American public would be exactly the opposite.  Most ordinary people trust their president whether they like him or not, but such a transparently political "attack" would be viewed even more cynically than Clinton's bombing of an aspirin factory as Linda Tripp ascended the courthouse steps to testify to the Lewinsky grand jury - I don't remember the American people clamoring for war with Sudan after that.

* Not to be confused with John McCain.
** ironically titled, "Democrats and Iran: Look Who Supports Bush's Next War."
*** by which is meant, "vote for Pelosi and Democratic Congressmen," which is where that argument leads.

Interesting chart stolen from Elusive Wapiti. One potential problem* is the use of raw dollar numbers rather than deficit percentages or something weighed to population. Kansas, no matter how bad its budget woes, could not ever appear in the top category - its lower end is bigger than our whole budget. In fact, the chart seems to follow population more than not, with the significant exceptions of New Jersey and Arizona. New Jersey, at least, is doing something about their mess. I don't know what Arizona is doing. Besides fighting off the Obama administration, that is.

But it would be an interesting chart to see something like this for the whole world. Rather than four tiny, energy-producing states in decent financial shape, I suspect we would see a few tiny energy-producing countries surrounded in a similar sea of red.

It speaks volumes about modern governance that even prior to the Totally Awesome Recession, the vast majority of nations, even while taking more of their subjects' wealth than ever before, could not balance a budget except by accident.

* or at least where it is potentially misleading.

Happy to see Amos (repost for Eva)

I don't like my neighbor's dog all that much. He's constantly over at our place, eating Checker's and the cats' food and basically making a nuisance of himself. He'll sit in the road and wait until we leave, then sneak over for breakfast, hang out all day, then run home as soon as we pull up. But he doesn't kill chickens, which is why he's still alive.

I put down a drop-off brittany spaniel on Sunday. We had heard strange barking late Saturday night and awoke to find that a half-dozen of our chickens had been slaughtered during the night, and we knew it was a domestic dog because one of them (sans wings and guts) was on the back porch. Coyotes and owls don't eat there as a general rule.

About mid morning an uncollared brittany showed up and killed another chicken just for fun then lay down on the front porch to take in some sun. Son Nick got the BB gun and tried to convince it non-lethally to go away. It was having none of that and decided instead to kill another chicken that came wandering by at that time. I'd had enough, got the .22 hornet, and made the dog another ear hole. I don't like to shoot dogs, but I was pretty happy with the shot, nonetheless - you try shooting a bounding dog in the head thru a scope with poultry screaming all over the place. The boys dumped the carcass behind the dam while I went back to getting the foster kids down for nap.

So what has this to do with Amos? About 10 Sunday night, my neighbor calls and says, "I know I shouldn't call this late, but I was wondering if you've seen Amos. He didn't come home today and I know he likes to hang out at your place."

She's never called about that mangy mutt before. Shit. Becky heard the shot, her dog didn't come home, ergo, she thinks I killed her dog. Try this for making bad neighbor relations: "No, Becky, I shot a different dog. Yours must've gotten hit by a car or something. No, really. Heck of a coincidence, huh?"

Long story short, when I left for work this morning I saw that mangy yellow hound in my rearview just waiting for me to get out of sight so he could wander over for breakfast.

And this time I wasn't even mad about it.

UPDATE: That video must have hit MSNBC where it hurt

Do you see what I see?

I guess Code Pinko forgot there's a war going on.

Quick thoughts on the Sherrod Fiasco:

1) If your boss calls you and asks you to resign when you are clearly in the right, make him fire you. You're going to be referred to as 'fired' anyway, so you might as well get 99 weeks of unemployment pay. If you quit, you're screwed.

2) The White House and the NAACP are both filled with panickers. It was fairly obvious (even with the original mal-edited tape) where Sherrod was going with her story. The fact that they both publicly crucified her and now have to backtrack speaks volumes about their collective wisdom. I wonder if the call to Obama came at 3am?

3) As a tactical tit-for-tat this was brutally effective. This unfair broadside was obviously in retaliation for the NAACP's just-as-unfair paintbrushing of Tea Parties as being a safe-haven for racists*. Does anyone remember that resolution? No? The conservatives have learned some new tricks, it seems.

4) As a matter of strategy (as opposed to tactics) it's probably still more effective to be honest. The systematic takedown of ACORN last year proved that conservatives don't have to cheat or mislead: given enough rope, mooonbats will hang themselves every time. That had a lasting impact, while this, even though it had immediate impact, will probably not. Except may to make the NAACP think twice next time they want to call somebody racists.

Then again, maybe that's all it was really about anyway.

* I suspect that the vast majority of what passes for racism at tea party events is just progressive agents provocateur anyway**.  The rest is, well, racists. Even so, the call by the NAACP for the tea parties to somehow purge themselves of people carrying racist signs - in the absence of tea parties themselves actually doing anything racist - is the kind of thought-policing that is impossible in reality to do. Besides, half of the examples of "racism" on the NAACP site are exactly what the left has said about GWB for the last decade. Since when is calling Obama "Hitler" racist?

** bet me that a guy in a Texas flag shirt carrying a sign that says "niggar" and which then shows up on a "progressive" website is not really a liberal. Just bet me.

The last should really be "sarcastic genius grants" so I could get one. Except for the "genius" part.

On a completely unrelated note*, congratulations to Kane (real name: Glenn Jacobs, former fake wrestling name: Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS), who won the WWE World Heavyweight Championship on Sunday Night.

Kane was the character I always played in an old video game we used to have (title long unremembered) while son Nick would play the part of the Undertaker. Stephanie McMahon was no match for the Brothers of Destruction in a tag-team handicap match, I can tell you.

* I've had that picture in the hopper for a very long time, and will probably never have another or better chance to use it.

It's not the song that's separation

It's the separation that's separation:

"I love [Lift Every Voice and Sing]," said [Timothy] Askew, an associate professor of English at Clark Atlanta University, a historically black college. "But it's not the song that is the problem. It's the label of the song as a 'black national anthem' that creates a lot of confusion and tension." ...

"To sing the 'black national anthem' suggests that black people are separatist and want to have their own nation," Askew said. "This means that everything Martin Luther King Jr. believed about being one nation gets thrown out the window."

While there is a little irony in a professor at an historically black college speaking of the dangers of self-imposed racial separatism, I do think that (as in the case of historically-black colleges themselves) the potential for danger here is overstated. There is very little danger in blacks accidentally creating their own nation through a national anthem, and the danger from historically-black colleges is not that blacks are permanently separated from the American mainstream thereby*, but that HBCs too often put up with lunatics as faculty members** and too often cheat their students into thinking they are giving them an education when they are really giving them training in professional grievance-mongering. The absolute last thing a black worker needs to begin a career shackled with is a degree in black studies from an historically black college.

Of far more danger is the black habit of tagging their children with pseudo-African monikers that no one can read or pronounce and not even they can spell. Unlike the Asian immigrant habit of trying to fit into the mainstream by using Americanized names like David or Veronica, blacks seem to purposely go out of their way to make their kids sound African***.  And while I don't really care what other people name their kids, I can say that when our adoptions are finalized (it's looking like December - at least that's what the judge says) our girls will go from being named this to being named Tabitha Katherine and Molly Morgan.

No one's going to trash their resumes without looking into their beautiful dark eyes first, not if I can help it.

* Personally I think HBCs are no different in that respect than all-women's colleges, Christian colleges, or technology schools, or Amish, well, whatever the Amish do.  Not everyone needs to or ought to go to a 4-year, state-operated liberal arts college with students and faculty sporting a politically-correct proportion of colors, genders, religions, and psycho-sexual disorders.

** I do not include Askew in that number, FWIW. Not necessarily, anyway. While he seems like a decent fellow, every English professor I've ever met has been a little askew, if you know what I mean.

*** At the same time making it easier for employers to trash their job applications.

CNN = Fail

That's all I have to say about that*.

* Except that I'm having an ever-harder time arguing with this.

Big government as philosophy

Ezra Klein* fails to understand his own premises:

... A lot of conservatives believe**, I think, that their philosophical preference for small government is counterbalanced by other people's philosophical preference for big government. But that's not true: Their philosophical preference for small government is counterbalanced by other people's practical preference for larger government in certain areas where it seems to make sense.

The problem with Klein's "other people" (a.k.a. liberals) is that, well, larger government just seems to make sense to them in every conceivable circumstance. Schools, farms, housing, banking, television and radio, oil production, labor, income equalization, health care, retirement, home ownership demographics, prescription drug availability, credit and currency, alcohol, tobacco, firearms ... you would be hard pressed to find an area of modern life where it does not "make sense" to the liberal that the government be the guiding force in society and that it be the prime mover and organizer of the market. In short, if there is a problem in society, it is more likely than not that the philosophical liberal will propose a government solution for it, paid for via taxes and administered by properly-trained and credentialed professionals who by the way all need retirement benefits.

Klein is correct that liberals do not love big government simply because it's big, like one might admire an oversize moon or a huge statue - then again, Conservatives don't admire small government simply for its diminutiveness. Instead liberals must make government big because they have a limitless number of things they wish to use it for and those things cost a limitless amount of money. Government must grow because the implementation of new programs never reduces the number of programs yet to be implemented. But wishing for a government to bandage every knee, to put a chicken in every pot, to mold and organize society and make it fair and kind, is just as 'philosophical' as wishing for a smaller government - it is in fact even more so. Conservatism is in many ways simply a tactical reaction against the overstepping of past progressives and liberals***.

But problems are innumerable and eternal (as is the temptation to build monuments to ourselves) which means that under modern political administration there is no end to growth of government short of a) someone else somehow limiting its growth by external means, or b) utter financial collapse as government consumes more and more of society's productive activity.

UPDATE: David Brooks explains that last issue much more succinctly than I (via Vox):

This progressive era is ... being led by a large class of educated professionals, who have been trained to do technocratic analysis, who believe that more analysis and rule-writing is the solution to social breakdowns, and who have constructed ever-expanding networks of offices, schools and contracts....

"ever-expanding" being the key phrase here.  However, there is in reality no such thing. Brooks asserts that "If the reforms fail ... then the popular backlash will be ferocious."  But their failure is not an "if," it is a present action.  They are failing right now, as evidenced by the fact that there is not a single nation in the developed world that can balance a budget. Most of them consume half or more of their nation's GDP yet still continue to amass debts at an unsustainable rate.

When a course of action cannot be sustained, well then it simply won't be.

* Who is absolutely correct that Kyl is being irresponsible about tax cuts.  The old idea about cutting taxes to limit government was essentially (in addition to extra economic growth, which is marginal in the short run anyway) that limiting revenues necessarily limits outlays.  I think we can put that myth to bed now as far as the feds are concerned.

** A separate problem is that of taking Conservatives at their word.  While they want smaller government, they want a smaller government that does all the same things liberals want it to do, like run schools and pay people not to work and farmers not to grow. In a world of hundreds of TV channels, they won't get rid of PBS or the CPB. Conservatives want smaller big government to the liberals' bigger big government.

*** Which is in large part why conservatism is a failure as a political philosophy: it is tactical rather than strategic****. Besides, the man who operates the sail will usually win out over the one who operates the anchor. At least until the gale arrives.

**** It is also a strange beast wherein a progressive like GWB, who nationalized schools and created the biggest welfare program in four decades, can be called conservative, or where the conservative party's standard bearer publicly associates himself with a famous Progressive.

Slavery and Secession

It's fair to say that generally I'm in agreement with Vox; beginning from many of the same premises regarding man and government will do that. However, his downplaying of the role of slavery as a cause - I would argue the primary cause - of Secession has always bothered me*. Now it is of no use to quote this historian or that one on an issue so broad; historiography changes (and always in line with the ideology of times or places**), so who one quotes is liable to tell more about the quoter than the subject. But I would like to examine a couple of his statements on the subject today, because I think they illustrate a trend that is too common among newer and especially anti-state historians:

“...slavery could not possibly have been the primary issue inspiring secession due to the fact that four slave states remained in the Union.”

Here we have I think a decent argument, except that it ignores the possibility that slavery could have been the primary (i.e. the largest of many) issue inspiring secession and yet was not powerful enough to bring about secession everywhere it existed.  There is no need to presume that slavery was as important in Missouri - which officially (if arguably***) did not secede - as it was in Alabama, which did, just because they were both slave states.

This question is probably better examined on its head: is there a meaningful distinction between slave states who seceded and those who did not? Is there a trend we can discover that might explain that distinction? The answer to both is yes: it is the slavery "density" of the resident population. In Missouri the free population was 9 times that of the slave population (1,067,081 vs. 114,931), while in Alabama (519,121 vs. 435,080) they were nearly equal.  In South Carolina, the hotbed of secession, there were actually more slaves than free (301,302 vs. 402,406).

This is not cherry-picking the data for a couple states that fit. The total ratio of free to slave in the border states was 6.4:1 free, whereas in the Upper South it was less than half of that: 2.5:1 free. In the Lower South, the population was even less free, at a ratio of 1.1:1 free. Therefore one could argue - I do - that slavery was a significantly less important issue in those slave states that did not secede****, or put another way, that it proved decisive in those that did. It is no coincidence that those states with a lower free-to-slave ratio tended to secede first or that every state that seceded had a lower free-to-slave ratio than Kentucky, the lowest-ratio slave state that did not, at 4.1:1.

Missouri for example had a large, free, immigrant population that Deep South states did not, and that population was pro-Union and certainly less tied to slavery than the older "planter class."  It is of interest that those areas closest to Kansas, where slavery was most prevalent, were more secession-minded than was, say, Saint Louis, which received a huge German influx after 1840 and doubled in size to 160,000 between 1850 and 1860. The Dutch, as they were called, were generally considered anti-slavery (though their views varied) and made up a significant percentage part of Missouri's 100,000 troop allocation to Union armies. Missouri provided (if I remember correctly) 35,000 or so troops to the South. While Missouri was a "slave state" it was not so to the same extent as Alabama, and even within it, secessionist sentiment was generally proportional to the prevalence of slavery.

Now Vox does come up with an interesting analogy, which can only be done justice presented in full:

Suppose you want to fly a flag, as permitted by the rules of your homeowner's association, but the committee that runs the homeowner's association suddenly decides they don't want you to fly one. They show up at your house unannounced to inform you of their decision, then barge into your bedroom in order to confiscate any flags that they might find. If then you punch the head of the committee in the face, was your desire to fly a flag the cause?

That’s a bit unfair historically as it presumes the South punched the North only after the north invaded their bedroom and ignores the issue of secession altogether. It would be better analogized this way:

Suppose you want to fly a flag, as permitted by the rules of your homeowner's association, but you are certain that the incoming president will move to eliminate flags, even in your home. You then attempt to leave, only to find yourself physically restrained in your home by the association police.

Since you had in the past used homeowners’ association rules (e.g. the Fugitive Slave Act) against your neighbors, it is obvious that you have no problem with the rules in principle, your current protestations aside. But if you’re trying to leave now that a power you have used in the past might be applied against you, what can one conclude but that your desire to continue flying your flag is the decisive reason for your attempt to leave?

* the reasons for the war itself are a completely different story, and I am also skipping the question of state sovereignty. Sovereign or not, states still have the right to secede. The Declaration of Independence tells me so.
** historians are as faddish as 13-year-old girls. This is further complicated by the fact that slavery was hidden by euphemism and wrapped up in other issues by public speakers for decades. If you have ever listened to a speech praising 'choice,' you get the picture.
*** Like other border states, there was enough fraud and force to feed the IRS for a year. But it only would have worked under circumstances that will become clear.
**** Thereby allowing the aforementioned fraud and force to succeed.

The Fortune Cookie Bible*

Time for a religious rant. Be warned, it'll probably be pretty boring.

I've always liked fortune cookies. Each contains a pithy little saying like "Be more serious and re-evaluate your motives" or "You'll have good luck and overcome many hardships." They're self-contained, they're complete, they demand no thought for the most part and no study, and there's no trying to figure out what the saying means. The fortune has a complete and absolute application in real life, even if it's a little vague in the specifics. It's no wonder a fortune cookie Bible is a temptation to Christians.

How many of you have ever memorized a Bible verse? Or rather, how many have ever had such a verse thrown at you? "Judge not lest ye be judged," "Ask and ye shall receive," "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven." Christians continuously face the temptation of treating the Bible as a collection of fortune cookie sayings, with each verse separated from the rest of the book, made absolute, and thrown about with no thought for the sentences that came before of after, and even less for the referent of the speaker or the context in which the words were spoken. It's as if the Bible was not made up of history, philosophy, poetry, biography, and prophecy, but rather was the world's biggest fortune cookie collection, waiting only for us to open it up, smack someone with 5 or 6 well-chosen words, and walk away smugly knowing that we have just given someone God's final word on what they are facing in their life.

One only need to reflect briefly on the above verses (with which most of us are probably familiar) to see that this is the case. Should we never judge? Judge what? Does that mean the 10th DC Circuit is full of sinners**?  How about teachers, who must judge homework every day? You may well answer, "That's not what Jesus meant," and you'd be right, but it takes a lot mot more than 6 words to explain what He meant. Why not use them all?

Jesus himself judged (and condemned) on occasion: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all filth. Even so you outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." It's no wonder they killed him, the hypocrite.

However, I'm not going to examine when it's right to judge or "the rules" for judging, just like I'm not going to criticize the judges on American Idol***, I simply wish to point out that a minute's reflection will show that no 6 words can be extracted and used as a weapon of absolutism. Not even Jesus' most memorable words.

But from where does this temptation come? I believe it comes from the Bible itself. Not the Bible as written, but as it sits in our hands.  This may come as a surprise to many, but Paul did not break his letters up into chapters, and each of his sentences (or partial sentences) did not begin on separate lines with little numbers in front of them. The recipients did not receive cross-references, inserted commentaries by their favorite authors, or the words of Jesus in red. They received letters or prophecies or poetry or history written from the heart and to a specific audience.  It wasn't until the 12th Century that our 'modern' bibles with chapters and verses began to take shape, less than 800 years ago. Less than one-fourth of the time since many of the older books were written.

Yes, it makes for easy reference. If someone says to me, "For God so loved the world," I can find it at John 3:16. I can find Genesis 3:16 and Revelation 3:16 as well. It makes it easy to find what others are talking about.  It makes it easy. There's the temptation, and the fact that you can't find a Bible (at least I haven't found one) that does not have such intrusions into the text shows that acceptance of the system is universal. But have we ever thought that perhaps breaking the Bible up into fortune cookie-sized pieces, though it helps us locate, might be more of a hindrance to our calling than a help?

There are several reasons why I think the the chapter/verse system quite possibly causes more harm than good. The first of them is that, put quite simply, chapters and verses cause us to make a subconscious break in thought. When you come to the end of the chapter, just like in a mystery novel, your mind tells you that the previous thought has been completed and that it's time to clear the decks in preparation for a new one. Next time you're reading, note how many times your mind reads the numbers, the chapter marks, even the breaking in the middle of sentences. It's convenient, because the little cloth marker between the pages combined with a chapter number in bold will tell you where to begin tomorrow. But it's not how the book was written or was meant to be read.

The second is smaller than the first, but complements it.  The chapters and verses were simply added by men who thought they made a convenient stopping place.  In other words, in many cases the chapters end not where the text would make a logical break, but simply where a chapter had gone long enough. And in several cases (one might argue many cases) they begin or end in the "wrong" place. For example, in Genesis there is a recurring verse-type called a toledoth, which reads something like, "These are the generations of Adam" (the beginning of Genesis 5)  or "These are the generations of Noah" (the beginning of Genesis 8). In the last century, it was discovered by archaeologists that when the ancients used toledoths they went at the end of a piece of material, not at the beginning. In other words, chapter and verse has separated the summaries of a half-dozen passages in Genesis and made them into misleading if subconscious introductions to the material that follows.

The third is most important, however, and that is that breaking the bible into little fortune cookies makes us lazy. It makes it easier for us to wield our favorite verses against one another, but harder to understand what the author meant. It makes it easier for Christians to say "Judge not," when we are being judged, rather than reflecting upon whether the judgment is just. It reduces God's word, painstakingly preserved for us by Jewish and Christian scholars for 4000 years, to a simple twelve-step philosophy of absolute fortune-cookie principles, while ignoring everything else the speaker was writing, especially the nearby material that modifies the absolutism.

If one wonders why Christians tend to be so absolute, so black-and-white, so immovable, perhaps the biggest reason is that in reducing God's word to a few pithy phrases which we memorize and wield, we have removed the real-life lessons, the deep and hard study, the flow of thought necessary to understand what God is really trying to say.

We have made God's word a fortune cookie collection. It is not surprising then that many of us have no more insight into real life than "Wine is a mocker," "Wives, be subject to your own husbands," or especially, "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse." When we cease to read ALL of what God says to us in the complete thoughts he gave to us, we cease to think. And when we cease to think, we cease to be the witnesses of the One who created the mind.

* You'll have to forgive me if you've read this piece before. I just found a hard-copy of it (which I wrote originally in 2004) in the lovely and gracious Rogue's desk. I didn't see it in the archives, so I figured it would be safe to re-post.

** It might be, but if so, I don't know that.  The 9th, on the other hand...

*** The original said, The Gong Show, which dates me, I know.

For great justice

take off every zig:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that NASA Administrator Charles Bolden must have misspoken when he told Al Jazeera last month that one of his top priorities is to reach out to Muslim countries.

"That was not his task and that's not the task of NASA," Gibbs said.

Gotta hand it to Gibbs, he does get things right on occasion. But who would have ever thought that the thing he gets right is clarifying the fact that the National Aeronautic and Space Administration does not exist "to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and ... help them feel good about their historic contribution to science*"? Still, credit where it's due and all that. The man has a tough job, one I've had and which I would never want again.

So since Gibbs has such a firm grasp on the obvious, I'll accept his assertion that Bolton simply "misspoke.***" To "reach out to the Muslim world" must sound so similar "pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research" that it was just a matter of Bolden mispronouncing a word or two, and maybe some idioms lost in translation. Hey, we're all nervous when we know our words are going broadcast all over the world. We should just be thankful NASA's actual mission, translated into Arabic, doesn't sound very much like, "Hey, you want to see this cool cartoon of Mohammad eating a BLT I just drew?"

* I thought teaching people to feel good for what others who looked like them did** was the mission of the Department of Education.

** or bad, in the case of white protestants.

*** I mean, "lied his ass off to make this administration look good" just sounds so unprofessional. And what administration would be so uncouth as to say 'ass,' especially on TV?

Great ideas should be copied

Now that he's safely dead:

A University of Texas at Austin student dormitory named after a man prominent in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1800s may soon have its name changed, university officials said.

UT wants to change the name of a building because the former professor it was named in honor of had been a member of the KKK*. Obviously, this name cannot stand, lest its very existence make "a group of people uncomfortable" and damage the university's reputation.

I certainly have no problem with that. In fact, I've a few other buildings named for Klansmen - these ones paid for with my tax dollars, unlike UT dorms - that I'd like to see the same treatment applied to:

Robert C. Byrd Appalachian Highway System
Robert C. Byrd Bridge linking Huntington with Chesapeake, Oh.
Robert C. Byrd Drive between Beckley and Byrd’s hometown of Sophia
Robert C. Byrd Expressway near Weirton
Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam across the Ohio River in Mason County
Robert C. Byrd Inter-modal Transportation Center in Wheeling
Robert C. Byrd Aerospace Technology Center at Bridgeport
Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope
Robert C. Byrd Hardwood Technologies Center at Princeton
Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing
Robert C. Byrd Industrial Park of Moorefield
Robert C. Byrd Metals Fabrication Center
Robert C. Byrd Hilltop Office Complex in Mineral County
Robert C. Byrd Cancer Research Laboratory at WVU
Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center at WVU
Robert C. Byrd Rural Health Center at Marshall University
Robert C. Byrd Clinic at the WV School of Osteopathic Medicine in Lewisburg
Robert C. Byrd Clinical Addition to the Veteran’s Hospital in Huntington
Robert C. Byrd Health and Wellness Center of Bethany College
Robert C. Byrd Clinical Teaching Center at Charleston Area Medical Center
Robert C. Byrd High School of Clarksburg
Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center of MU at South Charleston
Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center at Marshall University
Robert C. Byrd Biotechnology Science Center at Marshall University
Robert C. Byrd Center for Legislative Studies at Shepherd University
Robert C. Byrd Center for Pharmacy Education
Robert C. Byrd Center at Davis & Elkins College
Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center
Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarships
Robert C. Byrd Library and Learning Resource Center
Robert C. Byrd Life Long Learning Center at WVU
Robert C. Byrd Science and Technology Center at Shepherd University
Robert C. Byrd Technology Center at Alderson-Broaddus College
Robert C. Byrd United Technology Center
Robert C. Byrd Visitor Center at Harpers Ferry National Historic Park
Robert C. Byrd Addition to the Lodge at Oglebay Park in Wheeling
Robert C. Byrd Community Center of Pine Grove
Robert C. Byrd Auditorium at the National Conservation Training Center
Robert C. Byrd Community Center at Sugar Grove
Robert C. Byrd Youth Fiddle Contest at Marlinton
Robert C. Byrd Federal Building and Courthouse at Charleston
Robert C. Byrd Federal Building and Courthouse at Beckley
Robert C. Byrd Federal Correctional Institution at Hazelton

Surely we can all agree that the name of an Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan ought not adorn buildings** paid for by the tax dollars of Americans, whether black or white. I suspect, however, that stripping these building of the thief's name so quickly after his death and replacing that name with something related to those from whom he stole it*** might make a different group of people uncomfortable.

* And while a prominent member, that was apparently before he was a professor at UT, and the building was named for him because of the latter, not the former. I point that out not to excuse his membership, but to note that it is not related to the existence of the building. If one is going to be offended in this case, one has to try pretty hard.

** I pretty much laughed out loud when I saw that one of them was the Visitor's Center at Harpers Ferry. 

*** I think "The Hoodwinked Taxpayer Youth Fiddle Contest at Marlinton" has a nice ring to it.

Playing at economics

When it's really, and always, about social coercion:

While President Hugo Chavez struggles to revive the battered bolivar, in a hillside slum overlooking his palace, die-hard supporters are talking about getting rid of the Venezuelan currency altogether...

"We are creating a popular bank and are going to issue a communal currency: little pieces of cardboard*," says Salvador Rooselt, a soft-spoken 24-year-old law student and community leader who often quotes Lenin and Marx. ...

A deeply-rooted socialist ideology, absolute territorial control and financing from the government have allowed Alexis Vive to put into practice some of the ideas Chavez is struggling to implement in the rest of Venezuela.

The one thing that gets missed, by both the reporters who write about it and the people who receive half-price milk** through the wonders of socialist pricing, is those four little words "financing from the government."  All of these wonderful socialist advantages are possible only because Chavez steals from actual producers to underwrite their inefficiencies and in exchange for their political support. Socialism must always have financing from someone else, and socialism in Greece underwritten by the bond market is no different in this case than Chavez stealing oil rigs to underwrite his supporters' "revolutionary car washes."

But the one question they never ask is, if Chavez must steal from the rest of the nation in order that the few might put these ideas into practice, from whom will Chavez steal once he implements these ideas in the rest of the nation?

The result will be same as if Kansans all tried to live via the state lottery: a few would live very well for a while, the rest just end up with lots of little pieces of cardboard. ¡Buen apetito!

* Socialist experiments always end up as slums in the "absolute territorial control" of law students with guns while The People end up with little pieces of cardboard. And they always get written up in the newspapers as if that represents some new and successful economic system.

** That is, where there is any available at all.

More good news

The states are still coming up short:

(Reuters) - U.S. states in fiscal 2011 could be facing the worst budget situation since the recession began in 2007, according to a think-tank report released on Tuesday.

States' cumulative budget shortfall "will likely reach $140 billion in the coming year, the largest shortfall yet in a string of huge annual gaps that date back to the beginning of the recession," said the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Not surprisingly, the press is trying to make the situation to be a tragedy, when it's actually very good news: the state cutting budgets means that they will be taking less money from the real economy, employing fewer people who do not produce real goods, and paying less in pensions every year going forward. Yet such good news is delivered to the public with all the subtlety and in the form of a mugging: if you don't pay up, there will be fewer public libraries, fewer social workers, fewer cops. Not that anyone wants to meet a cop or a social worker.  And only Asian students ever go to the library anyway*.

That is unless, of course, the states get what they want:

TOPEKA | Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson joined more than a dozen governors Wednesday to plead with Congress for $25 billion in additional aid to states.

Parkinson warned that he will have no choice but to slash school funding if Congress doesn’t approve an extension of emergency Medicaid dollars.

Now this is a funny thing: if government A, which has no money, does not give money to government B to spend on medical care for the indigent, then government B will have to lay off schoolteachers.

Fear not, however badly politicians try to use children as hostages. While the $25 billion ransom governors want will probably be paid, it's not going to make a dent in the real state budget shortfalls.  I mentioned before that FY 10 was going to be the first year of real cuts (as opposed to budget shenanigans). FY 11 will be the year in which real and meaningful changes will begin to be made to state and local governments that will have to adjust to the end of virtually unlimited taxpayer-funded largess. But it will not be the last year.

* You think I kid, but you obviously haven't been to one recently. Part of the reason is that, being foreigners, they really don't have anywhere else to go.  The other part is, they are doing their homework.  Perhaps the two are not unrelated**

** and riddle me this: every small town in America, it seems, has a Chinese restaurant, and it's run by a big Chinese family***. But you never see any Chinese people around town. Never at Wal Mart or at the football games. It seems they never go outside. But the question isn't why Chinese people never go outside or even how they then get to the library. The question is, how do they become so thinly yet evenly distributed across the Midwest in the absence of a master plan?

*** Except Fort Scott, whose one Chinese restaurant is run by white people and plays country music. I ate there once, the day I closed on my current house, in 1998. We had one run by a big Chinese family, but it went out of business. I don't know where they went. Dodge City, maybe.

Too hard on Mr. Stone

Rather than drawing the right lessons, Dick Hughes draws no lessons at all:

Al Gore tried to get frisky during a late-night massage in Portland. Or so the masseuse says several years later...

But in a sexual assault case, the accuser should not be judged — pro or con — based on her or his past. Neither should the accused.

If nothing else, Gore was dumb. The former vice president should never put himself in a potentially compromising situation. If he needs a legitimate late-night therapeutic massage in his hotel room, then have other people present as well.

Am I the only one who finds the very idea of a "legitimate" late-night therapeutic massage in one's hotel room laughable on its face?  I mean seriously. Try to explain to your wife that the woman photographed leaving your room at 3am was just there to relieve some shoulder spasms. It's not going to work. Why? Because legitimate female massage therapists are not going to enter a man's hotel room unattended late at night. Legitimate customers do not use fake names*. It's not that Gore was dumb, it's that Gore hired the wrong hooker. Hey, it could happen to anyone.

But that's not really the funny part**. The funny part is the assertion that neither accuser nor accused ought to be judged "based on his or her past."  Really? Let's say a woman who has falsely accused five pro ball players of rape in the past accuses a sixth.  Does her past really not give us any information about the likely truthfulness of her claim?  Is the fact that a man is a thrice-convicted rapist really irrelevant to a current rape case?  Is one's character - which is nothing more or less than the acts of one's past - irrelevant when judging one's claims?

No wonder columnists know so little about reality - they refuse to let it impinge on their judgment of it.

* "According to the [police] report, the woman said Gore booked the appointment using the pseudonym 'Mr. Stone.'"
** That's just the part where Tipper Gore is proven smarter than the average newspaper columnist.