Can the U.S. with its PATRIOT Act and "Free Speech Zones" (along with the history of such tyrants as Abraham Lincoln--who arrested oppositionist newspapermen, suspended habeas corpus, endowed himself with unconstitutional "emergency/war powers," and waged a terrible war that brought death and destruction to the country) really criticize Pakistan's government?
If you think that Pakistan's government is out of line, then you must agree with me that the United States is--and has been since the Civil War--out of line.
The Bush administration cries "Wolf" and we duck and cover and accept whatever he does in our "defense." We only see the evil of government in other lands (e.g. Musharraf's Pakistan).
Monday, November 05, 2007
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Christianity and Such
As the Christmas season approaches (and retailers certainly won't allow us to forget it), we should reflect upon the magnitude of the gift.
Why does God so love us that he would become man and suffer such humiliation and pain?
Why did Jesus think that I was worth it? What have I done to deserve it?
Please comment on which of these versions you prefer and why.
I sometimes think that God requires too much of us in regards to faith. We are asked to believe based upon ancient documents written by rumored authors. A re-reading of C.S. Lewis usually sets me back on the right track.
Of Lewis's many insightful observations, one sticks out at the moment. He writes in reference to those who believe that Christianity specifically and God in general are the product of men. If you took it upon yourself to create a religion filled with rules and a recipe for eternal salvation, would you design such a difficult curriculum? Would you make it so hard to be good? Would you sell your religion to the masses by telling them that they are so bad that they can only be saved by grace?
The beauty of that observation is that it's so obvious. No sane man would simply make up Christianity, and so many people would not follow the preachings of a lunatic. Remember what it took for Saul/Paul to convert.
I still can't get over why Jesus would die for us. That, my friends, is the mystery of faith.
Why does God so love us that he would become man and suffer such humiliation and pain?
Why did Jesus think that I was worth it? What have I done to deserve it?
Please comment on which of these versions you prefer and why.
I sometimes think that God requires too much of us in regards to faith. We are asked to believe based upon ancient documents written by rumored authors. A re-reading of C.S. Lewis usually sets me back on the right track.
Of Lewis's many insightful observations, one sticks out at the moment. He writes in reference to those who believe that Christianity specifically and God in general are the product of men. If you took it upon yourself to create a religion filled with rules and a recipe for eternal salvation, would you design such a difficult curriculum? Would you make it so hard to be good? Would you sell your religion to the masses by telling them that they are so bad that they can only be saved by grace?
The beauty of that observation is that it's so obvious. No sane man would simply make up Christianity, and so many people would not follow the preachings of a lunatic. Remember what it took for Saul/Paul to convert.
I still can't get over why Jesus would die for us. That, my friends, is the mystery of faith.
Golf Guy's Comments
Golf Guy's computer has been acting up, and I can sympathize with him. There's a rumor that my "good" computer will be repaired and returned soon, but until then I'm stuck in Windows 98 limbo.
Anyways, Golf Guy's computer freezes up whenever he tries to comment to my posts. He blames the computer, but I think that it's Giuliani/Clinton orchestrated plot. Whatever the case, I will report Golf Guy's comment faithfully.
To my post regarding the actual meaning of the word "liberal," Golf Guy suggests that Democrats are indeed "liberal" with our money. I reply that the same sentiment could apply to Republicans (minus Ron Paul) as well.
However, I also suggest that Golf Guy himself is skewing the connotation of the word. He means that the Democrats spend our money freely (i.e. without control). This is true, but "liberal" is not the proper word. Since our money is our property, and we are free men with natural rights to our property, those people who take our property against our will cannot be liberal. In fact, such people are tyrannical--they deprive others of their freedoms. You are free to enjoy your freedoms. You are not free to inhibit others' freedoms.
He also suggested that Jeff Buckley's version of "Hallelujah" is even more haunting than John Lennon's "Imagine."
I'm not sure if "haunting" is an appropriate participle for "Imagine," but I'll give him that Buckley's song is haunting. "Imagine" might be called "hauntingly beautiful," but "Hallelujah" rings of "hauntingly tragic," even mournful.
Alas.
Anyways, Golf Guy's computer freezes up whenever he tries to comment to my posts. He blames the computer, but I think that it's Giuliani/Clinton orchestrated plot. Whatever the case, I will report Golf Guy's comment faithfully.
To my post regarding the actual meaning of the word "liberal," Golf Guy suggests that Democrats are indeed "liberal" with our money. I reply that the same sentiment could apply to Republicans (minus Ron Paul) as well.
However, I also suggest that Golf Guy himself is skewing the connotation of the word. He means that the Democrats spend our money freely (i.e. without control). This is true, but "liberal" is not the proper word. Since our money is our property, and we are free men with natural rights to our property, those people who take our property against our will cannot be liberal. In fact, such people are tyrannical--they deprive others of their freedoms. You are free to enjoy your freedoms. You are not free to inhibit others' freedoms.
He also suggested that Jeff Buckley's version of "Hallelujah" is even more haunting than John Lennon's "Imagine."
I'm not sure if "haunting" is an appropriate participle for "Imagine," but I'll give him that Buckley's song is haunting. "Imagine" might be called "hauntingly beautiful," but "Hallelujah" rings of "hauntingly tragic," even mournful.
Alas.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Imagine
I love this song, even though I disagree with a few premises. As a Christian, I obviously decline to imagine that there is no heaven. As a philosopher, I decline to imagine no possessions. You deserve what you have, if you haven't acquired it by violating another's rights. The irony is that when Lennon imagined no possessions, he was wealthier than the vast majority of the people in the world. It's like Hef promoting celibacy.
Nonetheless, the song is beautiful and it resonates.
Nonetheless, the song is beautiful and it resonates.
Computer Hell
Holy God Almighty, this computer is so slow and faulty, if it were a man, then I would punch it in the face, kick it in the groin, disembowl it with a spork, and strangle it with its own duodenum.
The rumor is that the motherboard on my good computer (yeah, the good one that always breaks the freak down) is being replaced as we speak, and it will be returned as good as new this weekend.
Holy God Almighty, I pray so.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; the wisdom to know the difference; and the opportunity to destroy all of my enemies.
The rumor is that the motherboard on my good computer (yeah, the good one that always breaks the freak down) is being replaced as we speak, and it will be returned as good as new this weekend.
Holy God Almighty, I pray so.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; the wisdom to know the difference; and the opportunity to destroy all of my enemies.
Liberals
In this accelerating political climate, I think that it's time that we the thinking people (who you must be, since you read this blog) take back the word "liberal." For too long it has been associated with big-government socialists. A true liberal does not advocate an activist government. A true liberal advocates a limited government--limited to protecting natural rights to life, liberty, and property--if he advocates a government at all.
"Liberal" comes from the Latin "Libere" (to free), hence "liberty" is interchangeable with "freedom."
That said--and there is no use arguing the point since it is irrefutable what the word is supposed to mean--Democrats are not liberal. Yes, it's Democrats who are commonly called liberal, but that's a load of horse manure. Democrats advocate a larger, more powerful, farther-reaching government. Government gains size, power, and reach only at the expense of its people's freedom. Therefore, Democrats are unliberal.
Republicans--with the exception of Ron Paul--are also unliberal. Any politician who does not advocate policies that directly return basic freedoms to the people cannot, by definition of the word, be liberal.
So the next time some idiot says, "Hillary Clinton is too liberal," please correct that person; and the next time some idiot says, "George W. Bush is not liberal enough," tell the person that he is right, but that he's probably too much of an idiot to realize why he's right.
Let's take back the damn word. Let's give today's so-called "liberals" their appropriate sobriquet: tyrants.
For further reading, see Ludwig von Mises's excellent Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition..
http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Classical-Ludwig-Von-Mises/dp/0930439236
"Liberal" comes from the Latin "Libere" (to free), hence "liberty" is interchangeable with "freedom."
That said--and there is no use arguing the point since it is irrefutable what the word is supposed to mean--Democrats are not liberal. Yes, it's Democrats who are commonly called liberal, but that's a load of horse manure. Democrats advocate a larger, more powerful, farther-reaching government. Government gains size, power, and reach only at the expense of its people's freedom. Therefore, Democrats are unliberal.
Republicans--with the exception of Ron Paul--are also unliberal. Any politician who does not advocate policies that directly return basic freedoms to the people cannot, by definition of the word, be liberal.
So the next time some idiot says, "Hillary Clinton is too liberal," please correct that person; and the next time some idiot says, "George W. Bush is not liberal enough," tell the person that he is right, but that he's probably too much of an idiot to realize why he's right.
Let's take back the damn word. Let's give today's so-called "liberals" their appropriate sobriquet: tyrants.
For further reading, see Ludwig von Mises's excellent Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition..
http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Classical-Ludwig-Von-Mises/dp/0930439236
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Icky Thump
Jack White is a genius.
My favorite line is "Well, you can't be a pimp and a prostitute too."
I enjoyed the irony of Spanish subtitles in this.
My favorite line is "Well, you can't be a pimp and a prostitute too."
I enjoyed the irony of Spanish subtitles in this.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Vincent
Some have called the song sappy or lame, but I think that it's beautiful, poetic, and tragic. Had I made the following presentation, I would have changed the timing of some of the slides differently, and I would have included a few different ones here and there. However, it's still a nice sample of Van Gogh's work.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
More Ron Paul and a Rant
Good Lord, I wish that more readers read this blog. I wish that I could reach out and embrace people and tell them that we can accomplish something good. I wish that I had the power to introduce everyone to Ron Paul.
Unless you are a bandit who wants government to redistribute wealth from the producers to the non-producers, unless you are a tyrant who wants government to tell people what to produce and what to consume (and how much to consume), unless you are a fool who thinks that the government is an instrument of socio-economic change, then you should support Mr. Paul.
All other Republicans are socialists in facists' clothing. All Democrats are socialists in communists' clothing. All together, with Mr. Paul as the exception, are demagogues who play upon your fears.
Mr. Paul is the only major candidate for president who not only knows the constitution but adores it. His record as a congressman shows that he doesn't just preach limited government. He practices it. He believes that human beings are born with natural rights. These are not rights granted to us by the state. We are born with these rights. As Jefferson said, all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." And the only purpose of government is, as Jefferson also said, "to secure these Rights."
Look at the other candidates. To them, the government exists for far more. Consider what happens to your liberty when you grant the government that much more power. Power to the government is paid by your liberties.
You are not better off less free. What separates man from the beasts is our ability to think freely and abstractly. Defer this right to the state, and you are by definition less of a man (or woman--I must make room, after all, for Surrealist!).
I belong to no one else. I am myself, and I am my own. If I could hold Locke's so-called "Social Contract" in my hands, I would tear it to pieces because I have yet to experience a government with true respect for my rights. How am I held to this so-called contract if I never signed it?
What's mine is mine, and I'll take it and keep it and covet it. Unless I wrongfully take what is yours, then leave me alone and call your government off, for it has no right to my life, my liberty, or my property.
Vote Ron Paul
Unless you are a bandit who wants government to redistribute wealth from the producers to the non-producers, unless you are a tyrant who wants government to tell people what to produce and what to consume (and how much to consume), unless you are a fool who thinks that the government is an instrument of socio-economic change, then you should support Mr. Paul.
All other Republicans are socialists in facists' clothing. All Democrats are socialists in communists' clothing. All together, with Mr. Paul as the exception, are demagogues who play upon your fears.
Mr. Paul is the only major candidate for president who not only knows the constitution but adores it. His record as a congressman shows that he doesn't just preach limited government. He practices it. He believes that human beings are born with natural rights. These are not rights granted to us by the state. We are born with these rights. As Jefferson said, all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." And the only purpose of government is, as Jefferson also said, "to secure these Rights."
Look at the other candidates. To them, the government exists for far more. Consider what happens to your liberty when you grant the government that much more power. Power to the government is paid by your liberties.
You are not better off less free. What separates man from the beasts is our ability to think freely and abstractly. Defer this right to the state, and you are by definition less of a man (or woman--I must make room, after all, for Surrealist!).
I belong to no one else. I am myself, and I am my own. If I could hold Locke's so-called "Social Contract" in my hands, I would tear it to pieces because I have yet to experience a government with true respect for my rights. How am I held to this so-called contract if I never signed it?
What's mine is mine, and I'll take it and keep it and covet it. Unless I wrongfully take what is yours, then leave me alone and call your government off, for it has no right to my life, my liberty, or my property.
Vote Ron Paul
Monday, October 22, 2007
St. Natalie
Before you read this post, I'll introduce you to a new term. "Eddie" is my mother's new husband. I won't call him my step-father because a). he didn't raise me, and b). he's only nine years older than me. While my mom wants the kids to call him "Grandpa Eddie," I tell them to call him "Mr. Ed" (of course, of course). It's not that I hate the guy, it's just...well, that's another post for another day when I've had too many fermented beverages.
The story begins after mom and Eddie left following Robbie's christening. They had purchased gifts for Mark and Robbie, but had not done so for Natalie due to not knowing exactly which Hannah Montana DVD's she already had. However, they departed with a promise to send her a gift.
Here's the story, which takes place a few days later (about a week ago).
Natalie, my dear, sweet daughter just the other day looked down in the dumps. My wife asked, "What's wrong?"
"Oh, nothing," Natalie replied." It's just that I broke one of the ten commandments."
"What did you do?" my wife asked.
"Oh, I was jealous because Mark and Robbie got gifts from Eddie, and I didn't," she confessed.
The next time that I get angry with her for whining and such, I hope that I remember her sorrow at having envied. "The faith of a child," indeed. Of course, she ended up receiving a Hannah Montana DVD in the mail shortly thereafter. And, of course, I have at least reminded her three or four times that "Honor thy father" is also a commandment...
The story begins after mom and Eddie left following Robbie's christening. They had purchased gifts for Mark and Robbie, but had not done so for Natalie due to not knowing exactly which Hannah Montana DVD's she already had. However, they departed with a promise to send her a gift.
Here's the story, which takes place a few days later (about a week ago).
Natalie, my dear, sweet daughter just the other day looked down in the dumps. My wife asked, "What's wrong?"
"Oh, nothing," Natalie replied." It's just that I broke one of the ten commandments."
"What did you do?" my wife asked.
"Oh, I was jealous because Mark and Robbie got gifts from Eddie, and I didn't," she confessed.
The next time that I get angry with her for whining and such, I hope that I remember her sorrow at having envied. "The faith of a child," indeed. Of course, she ended up receiving a Hannah Montana DVD in the mail shortly thereafter. And, of course, I have at least reminded her three or four times that "Honor thy father" is also a commandment...
Friday, October 19, 2007
"Nobel" Gas That's Not Inert
So Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize, even though his work has neither promoted nor secured world peace. In fact, Gore's plan for us would lead to widespread global poverty, to such an extent that tensions would almost certainly increase, making war between nations and civil wars much more likely if not extremely probable. Ladies and gentlemen, that's called irony.
On the other hand, if Gore can win a Nobel Peace Prize, then there's really nothing stopping me from winning the Nobel Prize for Literature--the award being based upon this blog, of course. Sure, this blog isn't really literature, but it's pretty clear that the Nobel crew doesn't really give a darn about truth or merit.
Click on the following link to read an interesting article that mentions, among other things, the potential and likely benefits of global warming.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08
On the other hand, if Gore can win a Nobel Peace Prize, then there's really nothing stopping me from winning the Nobel Prize for Literature--the award being based upon this blog, of course. Sure, this blog isn't really literature, but it's pretty clear that the Nobel crew doesn't really give a darn about truth or merit.
Click on the following link to read an interesting article that mentions, among other things, the potential and likely benefits of global warming.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
What Now?
When will the maddness stop? When can we get on with our lives as we intend to live them?
When you turn out for Ron Paul, that's when. Everyone else is the same old trash: a little socialism, a little fascism, a little mercantilism, a lot of tyranny.
Don't say that I didn't warn you. Go for anyone else, and you'll get more of the same but worse.
When you turn out for Ron Paul, that's when. Everyone else is the same old trash: a little socialism, a little fascism, a little mercantilism, a lot of tyranny.
Don't say that I didn't warn you. Go for anyone else, and you'll get more of the same but worse.
Football
We lost our first football game in over two seasons by a score of 14-18. Alas!
Why did we lose?
Reason #1: Three fumble losses.
Reason #2: 50 yards in penalties.
Reason #3: Scant downfield blocking.
Reason #4: Defensive Ends did not contain (All three opposing TD's came from sweeps).
I told the boys that we would go undefeated this season IF we played with our heads. We did not play with our heads. Therefore, we are not undefeated. Alas!
Why did we lose?
Reason #1: Three fumble losses.
Reason #2: 50 yards in penalties.
Reason #3: Scant downfield blocking.
Reason #4: Defensive Ends did not contain (All three opposing TD's came from sweeps).
I told the boys that we would go undefeated this season IF we played with our heads. We did not play with our heads. Therefore, we are not undefeated. Alas!
Monday, October 15, 2007
Christ or Hitler?
Here's a false dilemma for you.
T.S. Eliot wrote that any nation unwilling to be Christian can pay its respects to Hitler or Stalin. As much as I like Christianity and loathe Hitler and Stalin, Eliot's statement is a logical error.
Making the alternatives to Christ as bad as Hitler and Stalin is a dishonest comparison. Especially when other alternatives may be no better than George W. Bush.
T.S. Eliot wrote that any nation unwilling to be Christian can pay its respects to Hitler or Stalin. As much as I like Christianity and loathe Hitler and Stalin, Eliot's statement is a logical error.
Making the alternatives to Christ as bad as Hitler and Stalin is a dishonest comparison. Especially when other alternatives may be no better than George W. Bush.
Am I a Hater?
I was on a tirade about people whom I hate (e.g. Hugo Chavez, Al Gore, George W. Bush, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Abraham Lincoln, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudi Giuliani, Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden, Scott Baio, etc.), and a friend quipped that I seem to hate everyone.
My response was simple. I hate everyone who presumes that I am an idiot. I hate everyone who thinks that he or she can make my life better by telling me what to do with it. I hate everyone who's hands are in my pockets. I hate everyone who thinks and acts as if the world exists to serve her (e.g. Hillary) or him. And I hate Scott Baio for the same reason that I hate Ben Affleck (I take it that I don't have to explain this).
I do not hate everyone. I do not hate anyone who leaves me alone to live as I choose and to enjoy the fruits of my own labor. I do not hate anyone who strives for justice truly. In short, I do not hate Ron Paul. Vote for him. I've never had faith in the electoral process, but if Ron Paul makes it, then I will convert! Do it for me, but do it moreso for America and humanity in general.
But I hate Scott Baio, and there's nothing that can shake me of that. Al Gore and the rest can admit publicly that they are liars and demagogues, and I'll let them slip away into obscurity. But not Scott Baio. Damn him. Damn him forever. I cannot forgive Charles in Charge. Besides, we all know that Buddy was the heart and soul of that show.
My response was simple. I hate everyone who presumes that I am an idiot. I hate everyone who thinks that he or she can make my life better by telling me what to do with it. I hate everyone who's hands are in my pockets. I hate everyone who thinks and acts as if the world exists to serve her (e.g. Hillary) or him. And I hate Scott Baio for the same reason that I hate Ben Affleck (I take it that I don't have to explain this).
I do not hate everyone. I do not hate anyone who leaves me alone to live as I choose and to enjoy the fruits of my own labor. I do not hate anyone who strives for justice truly. In short, I do not hate Ron Paul. Vote for him. I've never had faith in the electoral process, but if Ron Paul makes it, then I will convert! Do it for me, but do it moreso for America and humanity in general.
But I hate Scott Baio, and there's nothing that can shake me of that. Al Gore and the rest can admit publicly that they are liars and demagogues, and I'll let them slip away into obscurity. But not Scott Baio. Damn him. Damn him forever. I cannot forgive Charles in Charge. Besides, we all know that Buddy was the heart and soul of that show.
Bad Day
I coach 7th grade football. We've not lost a game in three years, but that's not my point (the point of that was to brag).
Today, as my team suited up, the assistant principal of the school at which I coach came into the locker room and asked for a particular boy. He--the assistant principal--was there because this boy's mother and uncle were waiting in the office to tell the boy that his dad had just died.
I asked what happened, but the AP didn't know. All he knew was that the kid's dad was dead.
On more than one occasion, I recall uttering "Jesus," to myself.
We located the boy, and he was just about finished donning his equipment. I saw that he was happy. The only care that he had in the world was whether or not he would play second or third string in tomorrow's game.
I pointed him out, and the AP asked him to come with him to the office. The boy said, "OK," and waited to go. The AP asked him to change back into his clothes, and the boy complied. However, I noted a distinct confusion in his face, as if he was thinking, why am I going to the office? After changing into his regular clothes, he said, "OK," and the AP told him to grab all of his stuff (e.g. his backpack). "OK," the kid said, and I could see that he was baffled.
I wanted to reach out to him and give him a hug, but I knew that I would only add to his confusion. Instead, I watched him leave: confused but still happy. He had no idea that he was living the final moments of his life in which he thought that he still had a dad.
I was, by this time, somewhat nauseous. I was five years old when my own father passed away, but my father died of cancer, and it was not a surprise even for a five year old. This kid, however, had no idea that his dad had just hours earlier keeled over with an apparent heart attack.
The next time that you think you're having a bad day, try to think of this kid who was getting ready for football practice, smiling and talking to his buddies, and then led away to be told that his father was a corpse.
Today, as my team suited up, the assistant principal of the school at which I coach came into the locker room and asked for a particular boy. He--the assistant principal--was there because this boy's mother and uncle were waiting in the office to tell the boy that his dad had just died.
I asked what happened, but the AP didn't know. All he knew was that the kid's dad was dead.
On more than one occasion, I recall uttering "Jesus," to myself.
We located the boy, and he was just about finished donning his equipment. I saw that he was happy. The only care that he had in the world was whether or not he would play second or third string in tomorrow's game.
I pointed him out, and the AP asked him to come with him to the office. The boy said, "OK," and waited to go. The AP asked him to change back into his clothes, and the boy complied. However, I noted a distinct confusion in his face, as if he was thinking, why am I going to the office? After changing into his regular clothes, he said, "OK," and the AP told him to grab all of his stuff (e.g. his backpack). "OK," the kid said, and I could see that he was baffled.
I wanted to reach out to him and give him a hug, but I knew that I would only add to his confusion. Instead, I watched him leave: confused but still happy. He had no idea that he was living the final moments of his life in which he thought that he still had a dad.
I was, by this time, somewhat nauseous. I was five years old when my own father passed away, but my father died of cancer, and it was not a surprise even for a five year old. This kid, however, had no idea that his dad had just hours earlier keeled over with an apparent heart attack.
The next time that you think you're having a bad day, try to think of this kid who was getting ready for football practice, smiling and talking to his buddies, and then led away to be told that his father was a corpse.
Al Gore and Another Note
I enjoyed the following article, forwarded to me by Golf Guy. It's about the whole Al Gore getting the Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps George W. Bush is next, since he has helped so many rest in peace.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/miranda-devine/2007/10/13/1191696237215.html
Also, my dear old aunt (great-aunt), actually, took my advice and went to see 3:10 to Yuma. She disliked it. One of her primary complaints was that the pistolship of the antagonist was too accurate, and that much of the violence was unrealistic (especially the marksmanship).
Of course she is correct in noting that the skills necessary to do what is done in the film exceeds likelihood, if not reality. However, I decline to accept that as a real reason to dislike the film.
There's a difference between reality and realism in movies. A good movie can take something utterly unreal and make it realistic, in that you accept what is happening without complaining. Based on Russel Crowe's portrayal of Ben Wade, the film's antagonist, I, at least, was able to believe him capable of such fast and accurate shooting. The desperateness of Christian Bale's protagonist, Dan Evans's, situation allowed me to excuse the fact that a man with a Civil-War era prosthesis was able to leap from rooftop to rooftop.
If I let reality interfere with my entertainment, then I would dislike some of the greatest movies ever made, including Star Wars because things can't explode in flames with great noises in space. I would hate Disney/Pixar's Toy Story because toys aren't alive with personalities, and I would despise The Chronicles of Narnia because it is just plain silly to think of talking beavers and all of the other utter nonsense.
I suppose it's a matter of being able to suspend disbelief. It's why were're able to say, "It's just a movie." If we couldn't do that, then movies would be pretty dull.
On the other hand, this criticism came from the same woman who urged me to see Victor/Victoria...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/miranda-devine/2007/10/13/1191696237215.html
Also, my dear old aunt (great-aunt), actually, took my advice and went to see 3:10 to Yuma. She disliked it. One of her primary complaints was that the pistolship of the antagonist was too accurate, and that much of the violence was unrealistic (especially the marksmanship).
Of course she is correct in noting that the skills necessary to do what is done in the film exceeds likelihood, if not reality. However, I decline to accept that as a real reason to dislike the film.
There's a difference between reality and realism in movies. A good movie can take something utterly unreal and make it realistic, in that you accept what is happening without complaining. Based on Russel Crowe's portrayal of Ben Wade, the film's antagonist, I, at least, was able to believe him capable of such fast and accurate shooting. The desperateness of Christian Bale's protagonist, Dan Evans's, situation allowed me to excuse the fact that a man with a Civil-War era prosthesis was able to leap from rooftop to rooftop.
If I let reality interfere with my entertainment, then I would dislike some of the greatest movies ever made, including Star Wars because things can't explode in flames with great noises in space. I would hate Disney/Pixar's Toy Story because toys aren't alive with personalities, and I would despise The Chronicles of Narnia because it is just plain silly to think of talking beavers and all of the other utter nonsense.
I suppose it's a matter of being able to suspend disbelief. It's why were're able to say, "It's just a movie." If we couldn't do that, then movies would be pretty dull.
On the other hand, this criticism came from the same woman who urged me to see Victor/Victoria...
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Two Mark Quotes
Today I trimmed my beard a bit. While I was doing so, Mark looked up and asked, "Why are you doing that? Are you trying to look like me?"
A few days ago, Mark found Natalie's school ID. "How did Natalie get a driving license?" he asked in disbelief.
A few days ago, Mark found Natalie's school ID. "How did Natalie get a driving license?" he asked in disbelief.
Ron Paul Article
I took the liberty of lifting this article, written by a friend. It is originally posted at lewrockwell.com.
FAQ on Ron Paul
by Bob Murphy
In the interest of providing a one-stop introduction to Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, I offer the following list of Frequently Asked Questions:
Q: Who’s this Ron Paul guy I keep hearing about?
A: Ron Paul is a 10th term U.S. Congressman from Texas. He held office from 1976–1977, then from 1979–1985, and then again from 1997 until the present. He ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. In his private life he was an ob-gyn, who received his medical degree from Duke University School of Medicine.
Q: What are Ron Paul’s political views?
A: Ron Paul is a strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Because he votes against any Congressional bill that is not authorized under a commonsense reading of the Constitution, people call him "Dr. No." Lobbyists learned long ago not to bother taking Ron Paul out to dinner or a baseball game.
Dr. Paul is dedicated to liberty and limited government, in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson. As such he opposes the welfare state, but he also opposes the warfare state. To him, this is not an eclectic blend of "conservative" and "liberal," but rather the only consistent position that is very distrustful of the central government in D.C. After all, conservative Republicans know only too well that efforts to fix the economy and help the poor – through taxes and regulations – always backfire and end up hurting the very groups whom the compassionate Democrats want to help. But by the very same token, why should we trust the same government to send bombers and tanks across the ocean in order to liberate entire countries and give them peace and democratic government?
If elected, Ron Paul pledges to bring the troops home immediately, abolish the IRS, and end the failed War on Drugs. He is personally pro-life (having delivered many babies) but believes abortion is a matter left to the states – this is again a reflection of his principled belief in the federalist design of our government. (It’s not the federal government’s job to punish adult homicide, either.)
Q: I personally agree with most of these positions, but c’mon, isn’t Ron Paul just a fringe candidate? Doesn’t his support basically consist of about 3,000 people on the Internet?
A: This was actually my opinion, about six months ago. I thought Ron Paul was great but that nobody outside of small libertarian circles would even hear about him. But then I was shocked to see him on Bill Maher’s show, where he was received as a rock star. (Look at this clip about 7:00 into it, to see fellow guest Ben Affleck clapping along with the crowd at Paul’s statement.)
There are plenty of other indicators that Ron Paul has widespread – and exponentially growing – support. As is well known, he either wins or places in all of the televised debates. (Watch this hilarious clip to see the disbelief and goofy excuses from people at Fox News over this.) In the third quarter, he raised over $5 million, and in fact got $1.2 million of it in one week alone. (See this short but very flattering ABC story about this impressive fundraising feat.)
Ron Paul is also a star among college students and young people generally. Have you seen Ron Paul signs hanging on overpasses while on a road trip? I sure have. (And I haven’t seen any signs from other candidates.) On a recent trip to New York City, my wife and I were approached by his supporters in Union Square, who said, "Have you heard about the antiwar candidate Ron Paul?" I didn’t see anybody trying to convince the cool West Village passersby about the "anti-terrorist candidate Rudy Giuliani."
Another fact that might surprise you: Among the GOP candidates, Ron Paul has raised the most money from military personnel. Isn’t that odd, since he is supposedly the cut-and-run traitor? The people who are actually over there in Iraq winning hearts and minds apparently support his pledge to bring the troops home and to stop meddling in foreign affairs.
Finally, just look at how Ron Paul is making mincemeat of everyone else at the various straw polls so far. (If you don’t really know what a straw poll is, you might want to consult this Wikipedia explanation.) To summarize the results as of this writing: Of the 31 straw polls, Ron Paul placed first in 14 of them, he placed second in 6 of them, and he placed third in 5 of them. In each of his three most overwhelming victories, he received more than seventy percent of the total votes cast! (His best performance was in the West Alabama straw poll on August 18, where he garnered an amazing 81.2 percent of the votes.) Incidentally, these straw polls are from various regions of the country, too – it’s not that Ron Paul does well in the Deep South but nowhere else.
Q: OK you’ve made a good case that there are certain pockets of American society that heavily favor Ron Paul. But he’s still only getting a few percentage points in general surveys, right?
A: It’s true that Ron Paul still polls in the single digits in scientifically conducted random surveys. However, that’s not necessarily the best gauge of how someone will do in the primaries. After all, the Republican Party isn’t going to pick its nominee by calling random telephone numbers. Supporters have to care enough to register and vote for their preferred candidate. So if I’m telling you that Ron Paul is absolutely blowing people away – sometimes receiving over 80 percent of the votes cast – amongst people who watch the Republican debates and care enough to cast a cell phone vote, or who care enough to drive out to a Republican straw poll and plunk down the $35 to cast a vote, while people who receive random phone calls might not have heard about Ron Paul… Which bit of information is more relevant to how the primary votes will go?
But don’t just take my word for it. Here’s an interesting analysis of why Ron Paul could conceivably win the Iowa caucuses, and note that this analyst isn’t saying, "Oh Ron just has to win for the future of this country!" No, this writer is bringing up the fact that evangelicals can’t unite behind Rudy, Ron Paul has a great organization, etc.
Q: Fair enough, Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas and a lot more support than I had realized. But still, I’m a conservative Republican who is practical. Isn’t a vote for Ron Paul basically a vote for Hillary Clinton?
A: There are two levels to this question. First, if we’re talking about voting in the primaries, then no, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul. If you think (say) Rudy Giuliani is the best person to face off against Hillary Clinton, then you don’t need to worry about "wasting" your primary vote. You can go ahead and vote your conscience for Ron Paul in the primary. If (as you suspect) he only gets 5 percent, then no harm; Rudy or Mitt or Fred wins the GOP nomination, and then you can go vote for him against Hillary Clinton (assuming that is how you rank things).
But let me push the question deeper. I challenge the premise that Rudy or Mitt or Fred is a stronger GOP candidate in the general election against Hillary Clinton. Like it or not, the general public is fed up with George Bush and his war. Even though she won’t pull the troops out, Hillary Clinton will have a huge edge just on that ground alone. But she loses this edge completely against Ron Paul. Ron Paul actually voted against the Iraq invasion (and against the Patriot Act). He is the one GOP candidate who can neutralize the baggage of the war for the Republicans. On top of that, he can beat Hillary on socialized medicine because he is an actual medical doctor, and so he can credibly talk about the dangers of bringing more government into the equation.
In conclusion, if you will vote in the Republican primaries and the only thing holding you back from voting for Ron Paul is the fear of President Clinton, then I think you need to carefully reevaluate that strategy. Ron Paul is the one GOP candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. And on top of that pragmatic edge, Ron Paul is also the only true conservative running.
FAQ on Ron Paul
by Bob Murphy
In the interest of providing a one-stop introduction to Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, I offer the following list of Frequently Asked Questions:
Q: Who’s this Ron Paul guy I keep hearing about?
A: Ron Paul is a 10th term U.S. Congressman from Texas. He held office from 1976–1977, then from 1979–1985, and then again from 1997 until the present. He ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. In his private life he was an ob-gyn, who received his medical degree from Duke University School of Medicine.
Q: What are Ron Paul’s political views?
A: Ron Paul is a strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Because he votes against any Congressional bill that is not authorized under a commonsense reading of the Constitution, people call him "Dr. No." Lobbyists learned long ago not to bother taking Ron Paul out to dinner or a baseball game.
Dr. Paul is dedicated to liberty and limited government, in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson. As such he opposes the welfare state, but he also opposes the warfare state. To him, this is not an eclectic blend of "conservative" and "liberal," but rather the only consistent position that is very distrustful of the central government in D.C. After all, conservative Republicans know only too well that efforts to fix the economy and help the poor – through taxes and regulations – always backfire and end up hurting the very groups whom the compassionate Democrats want to help. But by the very same token, why should we trust the same government to send bombers and tanks across the ocean in order to liberate entire countries and give them peace and democratic government?
If elected, Ron Paul pledges to bring the troops home immediately, abolish the IRS, and end the failed War on Drugs. He is personally pro-life (having delivered many babies) but believes abortion is a matter left to the states – this is again a reflection of his principled belief in the federalist design of our government. (It’s not the federal government’s job to punish adult homicide, either.)
Q: I personally agree with most of these positions, but c’mon, isn’t Ron Paul just a fringe candidate? Doesn’t his support basically consist of about 3,000 people on the Internet?
A: This was actually my opinion, about six months ago. I thought Ron Paul was great but that nobody outside of small libertarian circles would even hear about him. But then I was shocked to see him on Bill Maher’s show, where he was received as a rock star. (Look at this clip about 7:00 into it, to see fellow guest Ben Affleck clapping along with the crowd at Paul’s statement.)
There are plenty of other indicators that Ron Paul has widespread – and exponentially growing – support. As is well known, he either wins or places in all of the televised debates. (Watch this hilarious clip to see the disbelief and goofy excuses from people at Fox News over this.) In the third quarter, he raised over $5 million, and in fact got $1.2 million of it in one week alone. (See this short but very flattering ABC story about this impressive fundraising feat.)
Ron Paul is also a star among college students and young people generally. Have you seen Ron Paul signs hanging on overpasses while on a road trip? I sure have. (And I haven’t seen any signs from other candidates.) On a recent trip to New York City, my wife and I were approached by his supporters in Union Square, who said, "Have you heard about the antiwar candidate Ron Paul?" I didn’t see anybody trying to convince the cool West Village passersby about the "anti-terrorist candidate Rudy Giuliani."
Another fact that might surprise you: Among the GOP candidates, Ron Paul has raised the most money from military personnel. Isn’t that odd, since he is supposedly the cut-and-run traitor? The people who are actually over there in Iraq winning hearts and minds apparently support his pledge to bring the troops home and to stop meddling in foreign affairs.
Finally, just look at how Ron Paul is making mincemeat of everyone else at the various straw polls so far. (If you don’t really know what a straw poll is, you might want to consult this Wikipedia explanation.) To summarize the results as of this writing: Of the 31 straw polls, Ron Paul placed first in 14 of them, he placed second in 6 of them, and he placed third in 5 of them. In each of his three most overwhelming victories, he received more than seventy percent of the total votes cast! (His best performance was in the West Alabama straw poll on August 18, where he garnered an amazing 81.2 percent of the votes.) Incidentally, these straw polls are from various regions of the country, too – it’s not that Ron Paul does well in the Deep South but nowhere else.
Q: OK you’ve made a good case that there are certain pockets of American society that heavily favor Ron Paul. But he’s still only getting a few percentage points in general surveys, right?
A: It’s true that Ron Paul still polls in the single digits in scientifically conducted random surveys. However, that’s not necessarily the best gauge of how someone will do in the primaries. After all, the Republican Party isn’t going to pick its nominee by calling random telephone numbers. Supporters have to care enough to register and vote for their preferred candidate. So if I’m telling you that Ron Paul is absolutely blowing people away – sometimes receiving over 80 percent of the votes cast – amongst people who watch the Republican debates and care enough to cast a cell phone vote, or who care enough to drive out to a Republican straw poll and plunk down the $35 to cast a vote, while people who receive random phone calls might not have heard about Ron Paul… Which bit of information is more relevant to how the primary votes will go?
But don’t just take my word for it. Here’s an interesting analysis of why Ron Paul could conceivably win the Iowa caucuses, and note that this analyst isn’t saying, "Oh Ron just has to win for the future of this country!" No, this writer is bringing up the fact that evangelicals can’t unite behind Rudy, Ron Paul has a great organization, etc.
Q: Fair enough, Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas and a lot more support than I had realized. But still, I’m a conservative Republican who is practical. Isn’t a vote for Ron Paul basically a vote for Hillary Clinton?
A: There are two levels to this question. First, if we’re talking about voting in the primaries, then no, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul. If you think (say) Rudy Giuliani is the best person to face off against Hillary Clinton, then you don’t need to worry about "wasting" your primary vote. You can go ahead and vote your conscience for Ron Paul in the primary. If (as you suspect) he only gets 5 percent, then no harm; Rudy or Mitt or Fred wins the GOP nomination, and then you can go vote for him against Hillary Clinton (assuming that is how you rank things).
But let me push the question deeper. I challenge the premise that Rudy or Mitt or Fred is a stronger GOP candidate in the general election against Hillary Clinton. Like it or not, the general public is fed up with George Bush and his war. Even though she won’t pull the troops out, Hillary Clinton will have a huge edge just on that ground alone. But she loses this edge completely against Ron Paul. Ron Paul actually voted against the Iraq invasion (and against the Patriot Act). He is the one GOP candidate who can neutralize the baggage of the war for the Republicans. On top of that, he can beat Hillary on socialized medicine because he is an actual medical doctor, and so he can credibly talk about the dangers of bringing more government into the equation.
In conclusion, if you will vote in the Republican primaries and the only thing holding you back from voting for Ron Paul is the fear of President Clinton, then I think you need to carefully reevaluate that strategy. Ron Paul is the one GOP candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. And on top of that pragmatic edge, Ron Paul is also the only true conservative running.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Ron Paul Resonds to Union Leader Editorial
*Note: I accessed the following text dated 10/8/07 from Mr. Paul's own website.*
Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.
If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?
A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.
American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?
It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.
I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.
A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.
Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.
If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?
A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.
American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?
It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.
I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.
A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
At the Christening
Today, at Robbie's baptism, I showed Mark how to daub his fingers in holy water and make the sign of the cross on his forehead, abdomen, and both shoulders.
"Why do I do this? Mark asked.
"Because it makes God happy," I replied.
"Why does God want my shirt to get wet?" he responded.
I had no answer. Add that to the other slew of theological dilemmas.
"Why do I do this? Mark asked.
"Because it makes God happy," I replied.
"Why does God want my shirt to get wet?" he responded.
I had no answer. Add that to the other slew of theological dilemmas.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
The Fight
It was my second day of 8th grade, and I was 13 years old by less than a month. Yet, in the final minutes of the school day, I would accomplish a feat that would solidify my reputation.
I lived 1.8 miles from school, which meant that I did not qualify for the school bus--the minimum distance being two miles. The nearest bus stop from home was half a mile. That was better than 1.8 miles, so I took the bus on days that I did not bring my tenor saxophone home (my mom usually picked me up when I brought the sax home)
So it's the end of my second day at Tyee Middle School in Bellevue, Washington, and I'm not bringing my sax home, so I get on the bus.
I seated myself next to beautiful Michelle. I probably didn't have a shot with her (and she probably rolled her eyes when I sat down), but I was sitting next to her nonetheless.
Everything was great. If she rolled her eyes, I didn't notice, and we had the beginnings of a perfectly delightful conversation.
That's when Woodsy showed up.
We called him Woodsy, but that wasn't his name. If it gives you any idea as to how big of a loser this kid was, I don't even remember his name--and I remember some pretty obscure stuff.
Woodsy was the fat kid who nobody liked. When I say the fat kid, I don't mean chubby. I mean grotesquely fat. 5' 9" and 300 pounds fat. When our gym class had the swimming unit, this kid was allowed to wear his t-shirt so that the rest of us wouldn't have to see his gigantic man-breasts. There is honestly no image that I can provide to help you really understand how enormous the kid was. He was taller than most and fatter than all.
And he walked right up to me and Michelle and ordered me to move.
"This is my seat," he said with the arrogant tone of a man who thinks that he's talking to a pipsqueak. I was about 5'6" and exactly 152 lbs--I know this because 155 lbs. was the maximum weight for my football league, and I had just weighed in.
I looked at him, and I looked at Michelle. I instantly knew that no good would come of this.
I'm a pretty clever man, and I was a pretty clever boy. So when he said, "You're in my seat," I replied with the cleverest thing that I could think of at the time.
Something like, "I don't see your name on it."
"Move it, or I'll make you," he threatened; and I could see that he truly meant it.
This kid had been teased for the majority of his life, and I was going to be the object of his vengeance. He had picked his victim carefully, for I was not one with a reputation for toughness (remember, I was in the band).
Once he'd told me that he'd make me move, everything slowed down. I was able to think clearly, but it seemed as though time was nonexistent. In the absence of space-time, I thought long and hard about my response. If I moved, I'd look like a wussy to Michelle. On top of that, it would surely be the talk of the school that I( had backed down to Woodsy.
I did not fancy the outcome of compliance, so I answered his threat defiantly with, "I'd like to see you try," and then something about his mother.
Like I said, time had come to a halt, so I remember everything with crystal clarity.
After I'd refused his command and insulted his mother, a look of pure rage came across Woodsy's face. He'd thought that for once someone else would be the victim of ridicule, but once again it was him. If a clock had been ticking in the background, each second would have counted ten in real time.
I knew that I was going to have to fight, but I was not prepared for what happened next. Instead of punching me--for which I was ready--he turned and sat on me. All 300+ lbs. of him came down on my lap.
I was not ready for this, but my adrenaline was pumping--and he was a bit off balance--so I threw him off of me and back into the bus aisle.
Remember how I said that time had nearly stopped? At this point it sped forward to make up for its lost seconds.
I jumped into the aisle to face him with my back against the back of the bus (I was about half-way between the front and the back of the bus).
He lunged forward with both hands outstretched, as if to choke me. I stepped back with my right foot and then leaned forward with my left and delivered a right hand punch to the top of his left eye socket.
He recoiled instantly, spewing forth a shower of spit and screeching in pain as his head snapped back.
I took a step back, waiting for him to recover. He shook his head like a bull and (like a bull) charged me. I back-peddled to the end of the bus, keeping him narrowly at bay with both of my arms outstretched.
I pushed back as he pushed forward, but I was stuck with my back pinned to the rear of the bus. I still remember the furious glare of his eye--the other one, the one I had hit, was swollen shut.
In only a few seconds, the bus driver was there, yelling for us to stop. Since I was not a bad kid, never before had I been in such serious trouble, I dropped my hands in submission.
Woodsy did not.
Instead, he reached out, snatched my glasses right off of my face, and crushed them between his hands.
I didn't even think about my next move. I just grabbed him by the collar, pulled him toward me and turned him around toward the back window. I remember looking at him, and I remember the surprised look on his face. Then I drew my right arm back and let loose with a furious jab that landed squarely on his nose. His head could not snap back this time because it hit the window, and I recall the popping sound as his nose broke. He squealed again, and this time blood flew from his mouth and peppered my face. He slowly slid down the back of the bus with his hands over his face and making the unmistakable sounds of a 13 year old in excruciating pain (half-way between a stuck pig and a sobbing toddler). Try to imagine how beat up the kid was. Four years later, a different guy backed down from a confrontation with me because a mutual friend of ours reminded him that I was a good fighter--and that was a direct reference to this fight.
The bus driver grabbed me by the shoulder and yanked me between her and Woodsy. I did not resist. I was shaking. I was scared. I'd never done anything like this before. She also grabbed Woodsy, and as she pushed me from behind, she pulled him down the aisle.
As I exited the bus, I saw my mother. She had come to pick me up with my sax. Instead, she'd spent the last minute terrified as kids told her that I was fighting. When she heard people yell, "Gross, blood!" like any mother she had feared that it was me. Instead, I passed her unscathed with just enough time to say, "He broke my glasses!" At that moment, she saw Woodsy being pulled from the bus, with his one eye swollen shut and his nose spewing blood. "Oh Jesus!" she said--and I have to admit that I was pretty proud of that. Take what you want from that admission, you Freudian creeps.
On the way to the main office, it occurred to me that I was in big trouble. I knew that I'd broken Woodsy's nose. There was no mistaking that sound--it was like a champagne bottle. I, on the other hand, was completely unhurt.
I still remember sitting in the Assistant Principle's office and explaining to Mr. Giadrone that I had never intended to fight and that I only hit the kid because he'd gone after me.
I was lucky. Since I'd never been in any real trouble before, I got away with only a one day in-school suspension. I managed this by being sufficiently contrite and convincing Mr. G that I actually hoped that Woodsy and I could become friends.
I still remember the look on Woodsy's face when I suggested that we might be cool. He had no friends at all, so this was like a birthday and Christmas present rolled in one. If he played his cards right, then he'd end up with a buddy.
Unfortunately for him, I had no intention of being friends. I'd only said it because I knew that it was what Mr. G wanted to hear.
Woodsy was absent for two days., and he spent his first day back in in-school suspension. I had already served my in-school suspension, and the outcome of the fight had bolstered my reputation to the point that one of my football friends, who went to another middle school, had even heard of the altercation. These were glory days for me.
So here I was, basking in glory during lunch recess, when Woodsy approached. He was wearing sunglasses, but anyone could still see the black and blue eye and the tape meant to straighten his broken nose. He'd looked like a loser before, but now he looked even worse.
I scarcely remembered suggesting that the two of us could be friends, and when I'd said it, I'd said it only to get out of trouble. However, to him it had been an answered prayer.
I stood there amongst several friends as he approached. I saw them look at me as he neared. Woodsy smiled, waved, and said, "Hi buddy!"
I knew how important it had been for me to beat the kid up, and I also knew that I could not be his "buddy" and retain the increased status that I had achieved by beating the holy hell out of him. And it was in this epiphany that I chose to do the one thing that I regretted from the whole thing.
I cocked my fist and glared at him. I told him to get his fat ass away from me or that I'd beat him again.
My friends laughed as Woodsy's smile sank. What I'd just said had hurt him more than my fists had three days ago. I'd convinced the kid that I was willing to be his friend, and for three days he had reveled in the idea of having at least one buddy. Instead, I tore that dream to shreds, and for what? To make me look cool to some other 13 year olds, none of whom do I even talk to today?
I don't regret cracking his left eye socket. He'd lunged forward as if to choke me.
I don't regret breaking his nose. When my guard was down, he swiped off and crushed my glasses.
But I do regret saying what I said three days after it had happened. When I'd hit him, it was honest to goodness self-defense. But when I said what I said, it was just mean.
Besides, in the end, Michelle never even went out with me.
I lived 1.8 miles from school, which meant that I did not qualify for the school bus--the minimum distance being two miles. The nearest bus stop from home was half a mile. That was better than 1.8 miles, so I took the bus on days that I did not bring my tenor saxophone home (my mom usually picked me up when I brought the sax home)
So it's the end of my second day at Tyee Middle School in Bellevue, Washington, and I'm not bringing my sax home, so I get on the bus.
I seated myself next to beautiful Michelle. I probably didn't have a shot with her (and she probably rolled her eyes when I sat down), but I was sitting next to her nonetheless.
Everything was great. If she rolled her eyes, I didn't notice, and we had the beginnings of a perfectly delightful conversation.
That's when Woodsy showed up.
We called him Woodsy, but that wasn't his name. If it gives you any idea as to how big of a loser this kid was, I don't even remember his name--and I remember some pretty obscure stuff.
Woodsy was the fat kid who nobody liked. When I say the fat kid, I don't mean chubby. I mean grotesquely fat. 5' 9" and 300 pounds fat. When our gym class had the swimming unit, this kid was allowed to wear his t-shirt so that the rest of us wouldn't have to see his gigantic man-breasts. There is honestly no image that I can provide to help you really understand how enormous the kid was. He was taller than most and fatter than all.
And he walked right up to me and Michelle and ordered me to move.
"This is my seat," he said with the arrogant tone of a man who thinks that he's talking to a pipsqueak. I was about 5'6" and exactly 152 lbs--I know this because 155 lbs. was the maximum weight for my football league, and I had just weighed in.
I looked at him, and I looked at Michelle. I instantly knew that no good would come of this.
I'm a pretty clever man, and I was a pretty clever boy. So when he said, "You're in my seat," I replied with the cleverest thing that I could think of at the time.
Something like, "I don't see your name on it."
"Move it, or I'll make you," he threatened; and I could see that he truly meant it.
This kid had been teased for the majority of his life, and I was going to be the object of his vengeance. He had picked his victim carefully, for I was not one with a reputation for toughness (remember, I was in the band).
Once he'd told me that he'd make me move, everything slowed down. I was able to think clearly, but it seemed as though time was nonexistent. In the absence of space-time, I thought long and hard about my response. If I moved, I'd look like a wussy to Michelle. On top of that, it would surely be the talk of the school that I( had backed down to Woodsy.
I did not fancy the outcome of compliance, so I answered his threat defiantly with, "I'd like to see you try," and then something about his mother.
Like I said, time had come to a halt, so I remember everything with crystal clarity.
After I'd refused his command and insulted his mother, a look of pure rage came across Woodsy's face. He'd thought that for once someone else would be the victim of ridicule, but once again it was him. If a clock had been ticking in the background, each second would have counted ten in real time.
I knew that I was going to have to fight, but I was not prepared for what happened next. Instead of punching me--for which I was ready--he turned and sat on me. All 300+ lbs. of him came down on my lap.
I was not ready for this, but my adrenaline was pumping--and he was a bit off balance--so I threw him off of me and back into the bus aisle.
Remember how I said that time had nearly stopped? At this point it sped forward to make up for its lost seconds.
I jumped into the aisle to face him with my back against the back of the bus (I was about half-way between the front and the back of the bus).
He lunged forward with both hands outstretched, as if to choke me. I stepped back with my right foot and then leaned forward with my left and delivered a right hand punch to the top of his left eye socket.
He recoiled instantly, spewing forth a shower of spit and screeching in pain as his head snapped back.
I took a step back, waiting for him to recover. He shook his head like a bull and (like a bull) charged me. I back-peddled to the end of the bus, keeping him narrowly at bay with both of my arms outstretched.
I pushed back as he pushed forward, but I was stuck with my back pinned to the rear of the bus. I still remember the furious glare of his eye--the other one, the one I had hit, was swollen shut.
In only a few seconds, the bus driver was there, yelling for us to stop. Since I was not a bad kid, never before had I been in such serious trouble, I dropped my hands in submission.
Woodsy did not.
Instead, he reached out, snatched my glasses right off of my face, and crushed them between his hands.
I didn't even think about my next move. I just grabbed him by the collar, pulled him toward me and turned him around toward the back window. I remember looking at him, and I remember the surprised look on his face. Then I drew my right arm back and let loose with a furious jab that landed squarely on his nose. His head could not snap back this time because it hit the window, and I recall the popping sound as his nose broke. He squealed again, and this time blood flew from his mouth and peppered my face. He slowly slid down the back of the bus with his hands over his face and making the unmistakable sounds of a 13 year old in excruciating pain (half-way between a stuck pig and a sobbing toddler). Try to imagine how beat up the kid was. Four years later, a different guy backed down from a confrontation with me because a mutual friend of ours reminded him that I was a good fighter--and that was a direct reference to this fight.
The bus driver grabbed me by the shoulder and yanked me between her and Woodsy. I did not resist. I was shaking. I was scared. I'd never done anything like this before. She also grabbed Woodsy, and as she pushed me from behind, she pulled him down the aisle.
As I exited the bus, I saw my mother. She had come to pick me up with my sax. Instead, she'd spent the last minute terrified as kids told her that I was fighting. When she heard people yell, "Gross, blood!" like any mother she had feared that it was me. Instead, I passed her unscathed with just enough time to say, "He broke my glasses!" At that moment, she saw Woodsy being pulled from the bus, with his one eye swollen shut and his nose spewing blood. "Oh Jesus!" she said--and I have to admit that I was pretty proud of that. Take what you want from that admission, you Freudian creeps.
On the way to the main office, it occurred to me that I was in big trouble. I knew that I'd broken Woodsy's nose. There was no mistaking that sound--it was like a champagne bottle. I, on the other hand, was completely unhurt.
I still remember sitting in the Assistant Principle's office and explaining to Mr. Giadrone that I had never intended to fight and that I only hit the kid because he'd gone after me.
I was lucky. Since I'd never been in any real trouble before, I got away with only a one day in-school suspension. I managed this by being sufficiently contrite and convincing Mr. G that I actually hoped that Woodsy and I could become friends.
I still remember the look on Woodsy's face when I suggested that we might be cool. He had no friends at all, so this was like a birthday and Christmas present rolled in one. If he played his cards right, then he'd end up with a buddy.
Unfortunately for him, I had no intention of being friends. I'd only said it because I knew that it was what Mr. G wanted to hear.
Woodsy was absent for two days., and he spent his first day back in in-school suspension. I had already served my in-school suspension, and the outcome of the fight had bolstered my reputation to the point that one of my football friends, who went to another middle school, had even heard of the altercation. These were glory days for me.
So here I was, basking in glory during lunch recess, when Woodsy approached. He was wearing sunglasses, but anyone could still see the black and blue eye and the tape meant to straighten his broken nose. He'd looked like a loser before, but now he looked even worse.
I scarcely remembered suggesting that the two of us could be friends, and when I'd said it, I'd said it only to get out of trouble. However, to him it had been an answered prayer.
I stood there amongst several friends as he approached. I saw them look at me as he neared. Woodsy smiled, waved, and said, "Hi buddy!"
I knew how important it had been for me to beat the kid up, and I also knew that I could not be his "buddy" and retain the increased status that I had achieved by beating the holy hell out of him. And it was in this epiphany that I chose to do the one thing that I regretted from the whole thing.
I cocked my fist and glared at him. I told him to get his fat ass away from me or that I'd beat him again.
My friends laughed as Woodsy's smile sank. What I'd just said had hurt him more than my fists had three days ago. I'd convinced the kid that I was willing to be his friend, and for three days he had reveled in the idea of having at least one buddy. Instead, I tore that dream to shreds, and for what? To make me look cool to some other 13 year olds, none of whom do I even talk to today?
I don't regret cracking his left eye socket. He'd lunged forward as if to choke me.
I don't regret breaking his nose. When my guard was down, he swiped off and crushed my glasses.
But I do regret saying what I said three days after it had happened. When I'd hit him, it was honest to goodness self-defense. But when I said what I said, it was just mean.
Besides, in the end, Michelle never even went out with me.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Quick Afterthoughts
But governments feed the poor...
No, governments steal from the productive to feed the unproductive. Don't give me any trash about morality. It's moral and charitable for someone who has a surplus to give freely to those in need. Forcing people to fork over money is not the same as the people giving money. It's robbery. If you have guns and you force others to surrender their money, then you are a robber or the government--essentially the same thing.
But governments sign free trade agreements...
No, "free trade agreements" like "NAFTA" are hundreds to thousands of pages long. "Free trade" is only two words long.
But governments sign peace treaties...
No, a peace treaty is only necessary after one has waged a war.
But governments prevent racism from being a factor in employment, housing, etc.
That's it. We free market people must always endure the argument that we have a naive view of human nature.
Who's really naive?
Is it naive to assume that people will act in what they believe is their own interest? Of course it isn't. It's not naive. It's obvious.
People get what they want or need by providing it themselves or trading with others, so it follows that people who have the most freedom to get what they want or need will do it better. Anything that gets in their way (e.g. government) is, therefore, bad.
This concludes my rant for today. CSI was awesome.
No, governments steal from the productive to feed the unproductive. Don't give me any trash about morality. It's moral and charitable for someone who has a surplus to give freely to those in need. Forcing people to fork over money is not the same as the people giving money. It's robbery. If you have guns and you force others to surrender their money, then you are a robber or the government--essentially the same thing.
But governments sign free trade agreements...
No, "free trade agreements" like "NAFTA" are hundreds to thousands of pages long. "Free trade" is only two words long.
But governments sign peace treaties...
No, a peace treaty is only necessary after one has waged a war.
But governments prevent racism from being a factor in employment, housing, etc.
That's it. We free market people must always endure the argument that we have a naive view of human nature.
Who's really naive?
Is it naive to assume that people will act in what they believe is their own interest? Of course it isn't. It's not naive. It's obvious.
People get what they want or need by providing it themselves or trading with others, so it follows that people who have the most freedom to get what they want or need will do it better. Anything that gets in their way (e.g. government) is, therefore, bad.
This concludes my rant for today. CSI was awesome.
A Very Minor Rant
I was talking with some teenagers today about basic economic principles, and the topic was Comparative Advantage. I argued that certain jobs were being outsourced because the United States simply no longer has the comparative advantage in the production of goods. Think about it. If the something can be produced elsewhere at an extremely reduced cost, then only a fool would produce that thing here.
So I asked, "What is America's comparative advantage?" I was thinking services and ideas--ready to cite the example that the iPod was conceived of and designed in California, even if it was assembled in China.
Instead, one of them shrugged and said, "Uh, government?"
Alas, they've been hoodwinked by the political-industrial complex before their 13th birthdays.
The only things that governments produce are wars, recessions, tyranny, and misery. When a people are at peace, doing well economically, free, and happy, it's not because of what the government is doing. It's because of what the government is not doing.
Governments don't wage peace. They wage wars.
Government policies don't create prosperity. They create poverty. It's the lack of government policies that allows free markets to create prosperity.
Governments don't create freedom. They create tyranny. The feds didn't have jack squat to do with our being free. We're born free with independent minds, and we'd stay free if only governments would get the heck out of the way.
Governments don't enhance happiness. They reduce it. They don't even ensure the pursuit of happiness, unless you mean that they leave people alone to pursue happiness as they see fit. That's not doing something. That is not doing something.
It seems counterintuitive to many, but governments do good only when they do nothing.
So I asked, "What is America's comparative advantage?" I was thinking services and ideas--ready to cite the example that the iPod was conceived of and designed in California, even if it was assembled in China.
Instead, one of them shrugged and said, "Uh, government?"
Alas, they've been hoodwinked by the political-industrial complex before their 13th birthdays.
The only things that governments produce are wars, recessions, tyranny, and misery. When a people are at peace, doing well economically, free, and happy, it's not because of what the government is doing. It's because of what the government is not doing.
Governments don't wage peace. They wage wars.
Government policies don't create prosperity. They create poverty. It's the lack of government policies that allows free markets to create prosperity.
Governments don't create freedom. They create tyranny. The feds didn't have jack squat to do with our being free. We're born free with independent minds, and we'd stay free if only governments would get the heck out of the way.
Governments don't enhance happiness. They reduce it. They don't even ensure the pursuit of happiness, unless you mean that they leave people alone to pursue happiness as they see fit. That's not doing something. That is not doing something.
It seems counterintuitive to many, but governments do good only when they do nothing.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Religious Conflict
I was cautioned by someone that suggesting that Mohammad was not God's prophet is extremely insulting to Muslims.
Really?
By that rationale, can I not counter that suggesting that Mohammed is God's prophet is extremely insulting to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, Athiests, Agnostics, etc.?
Obviously I must think that Mohammad was either crazy or a liar. Otherwise, I'd be Muslim. If I'm wrong, then Allah will punish me.
The difference is that I will not kill or in any way harm someone who suggests that Jesus was not God's Son. I might think that such a person will burn in Hell, but that's not my decision or my doing.
Really?
By that rationale, can I not counter that suggesting that Mohammed is God's prophet is extremely insulting to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, Athiests, Agnostics, etc.?
Obviously I must think that Mohammad was either crazy or a liar. Otherwise, I'd be Muslim. If I'm wrong, then Allah will punish me.
The difference is that I will not kill or in any way harm someone who suggests that Jesus was not God's Son. I might think that such a person will burn in Hell, but that's not my decision or my doing.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Ahmadinejad Speaks
During a speech at Columbia University, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fended off assaults on his view of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad has, in the past, denied the Holocaust as an actual event, implying that it is part of a Zionist conspiracy to claim Palestine. However, he seemed to backtrack a bit, granting the possibility that it might have happened, but again asserting that it did not justify Zionism.
Still, in reference to the historical record of the Holocaust, he replied “There’s nothing known as absolute."
I just wish that someone would have then pointed out that there is far more absolute evidence for the Holocaust than even a shred of possible likelihood that Mohammad is God's prophet.
The historical record of Mohammad being God's prophet consists in his saying that he was, and that his followers in centuries hence have been willing to murder anyone who denies or even questions it.
Put that in your Kool-Aid and drink it, Ahmadinejad.
Still, in reference to the historical record of the Holocaust, he replied “There’s nothing known as absolute."
I just wish that someone would have then pointed out that there is far more absolute evidence for the Holocaust than even a shred of possible likelihood that Mohammad is God's prophet.
The historical record of Mohammad being God's prophet consists in his saying that he was, and that his followers in centuries hence have been willing to murder anyone who denies or even questions it.
Put that in your Kool-Aid and drink it, Ahmadinejad.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Ron Paul, People!!!!
I maintain a certain thesis that the average person is a moron.
The fact that tyrants and scumbags such as Rudy, Hillary, Barack, and Fred capture the public eye more than Ron Paul is exhibit number one.
Go to Ron's website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/, and dare to refute one of his positions on this blog.
Hell, I triple dog dare you!
The fact that tyrants and scumbags such as Rudy, Hillary, Barack, and Fred capture the public eye more than Ron Paul is exhibit number one.
Go to Ron's website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/, and dare to refute one of his positions on this blog.
Hell, I triple dog dare you!
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Connotations (A Lesson for Backstreet's Back)
Words matter, and words that have somewhat similar meanings can and do carry vastly different connotations.
"He touched my face" can be worded as "He struck my face," but one is more accurate than the other depending on severity. "She's rather unwell" and "She's dying" can refer to the same thing, but there's a difference between someone who's simply under the weather and someone who's knocking on heaven's door.
Don't say "She's dying" when she has the flu, and don't say "She's rather unwell" when she's flatlining.
Rosie O'Donnell isn't "controversial." She's an attention hog.
Stevie Wonder isn't visually impared. He's blind.
Someone in convulsions from a drug overdose is not merely "buzzed," and someone whose brain is failing is not merely "high."
Put that in your Kool-Aid (sweetened with Splenda), and drink it.
"He touched my face" can be worded as "He struck my face," but one is more accurate than the other depending on severity. "She's rather unwell" and "She's dying" can refer to the same thing, but there's a difference between someone who's simply under the weather and someone who's knocking on heaven's door.
Don't say "She's dying" when she has the flu, and don't say "She's rather unwell" when she's flatlining.
Rosie O'Donnell isn't "controversial." She's an attention hog.
Stevie Wonder isn't visually impared. He's blind.
Someone in convulsions from a drug overdose is not merely "buzzed," and someone whose brain is failing is not merely "high."
Put that in your Kool-Aid (sweetened with Splenda), and drink it.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Sugar
To rebut a couple of comments made on my Kool-Aid post, go to "Ask a Scientist" at the web site for the Cornell Center for Materials Research.
Perhaps since our bodies convert glucose (i.e. blood sugar) into energy, people just assume that a massive intake of sugar equals a massive boost of energy. Of course, they make this assumption without considering how quickly the body reacts to and reduces increased glucose levels.
Perhaps since our bodies convert glucose (i.e. blood sugar) into energy, people just assume that a massive intake of sugar equals a massive boost of energy. Of course, they make this assumption without considering how quickly the body reacts to and reduces increased glucose levels.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Kool Aid
There's way too much sugar in Kool Aid, so I've started buying Splenda in bulk as a substitute. It works extremely well, and I recommend it.
What I do not recommend is forgetting the Splenda. That's what I just did ten minutes ago. Drinking Kool Aid without a sweetener is like drinking dehydrated musk ox urine. Hark my words. There's a reason why it wasn't a competition on Fear Factor. People wouldn't drink it for a mere fifty grand.
What I do not recommend is forgetting the Splenda. That's what I just did ten minutes ago. Drinking Kool Aid without a sweetener is like drinking dehydrated musk ox urine. Hark my words. There's a reason why it wasn't a competition on Fear Factor. People wouldn't drink it for a mere fifty grand.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Political Quiz
Click on this link and take The World's Smallest Political Quiz to determine where you stand as a political thinker.
Surprise, I scored as a Libertarian!
Surprise, I scored as a Libertarian!
Sportsline.Idots
Suppose that Farmer Joe owns the largest and most popular pumpkin patch on the planet. Customers purchase pumpkins online and are promised prompt delivery. He receives few orders throughout the late Autumn and all of Winter and Summer, so he keeps his staff small.
Now imagine that Farmer Joe does not hire any new hands come September. In late September and throughout October, the orders are pouring in, but Farmer Joe cannot fill the orders on time because he did not anticipate the drastic increase in pumpkin demand.
He apologizes to all of his customers, writing via email that the sheer volume of orders is making it difficult for him and his staff to deliver promptly. He begs for patience and forgiveness.
Many consumers might forgive Farmer Joe, expecting the guy to realize that he needs to expand his workforce when demand for pumpkins peaks. But what if the same thing happens year after year?
The above scenario is dedicated to the fantasy football folks at CBS Sportsline. They can't seem to understand why there is such a heavy amount of traffic on their website on weekends beginning in September and lasting through December.
Now imagine that Farmer Joe does not hire any new hands come September. In late September and throughout October, the orders are pouring in, but Farmer Joe cannot fill the orders on time because he did not anticipate the drastic increase in pumpkin demand.
He apologizes to all of his customers, writing via email that the sheer volume of orders is making it difficult for him and his staff to deliver promptly. He begs for patience and forgiveness.
Many consumers might forgive Farmer Joe, expecting the guy to realize that he needs to expand his workforce when demand for pumpkins peaks. But what if the same thing happens year after year?
The above scenario is dedicated to the fantasy football folks at CBS Sportsline. They can't seem to understand why there is such a heavy amount of traffic on their website on weekends beginning in September and lasting through December.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Buddy Holly the crash site
This video covers the ground upon which, according to Don MacLean, "The Music Died." It's where Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and J.P. Richardson (a.k.a. The Big Bopper) crashed in 1959.
The lyrics were written and performed by 50's rocker Eddie Cochran, a close friend of Holly's. Notice how Cochran's voice breaks in the verse about Holly.
Ironically, the song was released after Cochran's own untimely death in a car accident.
The opening and closing verse has been omitted:
"Look up in the sky, up towards the north
There are three new stars, brightly shining forth
They're shining oh-so bright from heaven above
Gee, we're gonna miss you, everybody sends their love"
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Russian Politics
So it's news that Putin fired Russia's Prime Minister.
On the contrary, it's news that Russia even has a Prime Minister.
I use Russia as an example for all of the idiots who think that possession of raw materials is necessary for a country to be wealthy. Japan has few natural resources, but it has wealth. Russia has a great many natural resources, and it's a case-study in misery.
Honestly, I don't understand the Russians. What did Churchill call them, a riddle wrapped in an enigma inside a puzzle? (or something like that). In 1917, they forced the Tsar to abdicate his authority to the Duma, and for the first time ever, Russia was free of tyranny. A few months later, they let the Bolsheviks take control, and they made the Tsars look like puppet monarchists. After decades of communism, the Russians finally stood up for themselves, only once again to slip back into their old habits.
Can the Russian people as a whole have something akin to a societal form of "Battered Women's Syndrome"?
On the contrary, it's news that Russia even has a Prime Minister.
I use Russia as an example for all of the idiots who think that possession of raw materials is necessary for a country to be wealthy. Japan has few natural resources, but it has wealth. Russia has a great many natural resources, and it's a case-study in misery.
Honestly, I don't understand the Russians. What did Churchill call them, a riddle wrapped in an enigma inside a puzzle? (or something like that). In 1917, they forced the Tsar to abdicate his authority to the Duma, and for the first time ever, Russia was free of tyranny. A few months later, they let the Bolsheviks take control, and they made the Tsars look like puppet monarchists. After decades of communism, the Russians finally stood up for themselves, only once again to slip back into their old habits.
Can the Russian people as a whole have something akin to a societal form of "Battered Women's Syndrome"?
Saturday, September 08, 2007
WNBA et al.
I picked up the newspaper this morning, and I felt violated.
The FRONT PAGE HEADLINE of the news announced that the Detroit Shock had won a game. Granted, it was a playoff-championship game: but the FRONT PAGE HEADLINE?
Honestly, I don't care about the WNBA, and I don't know anyone who does. But still, the media tries to cram it in our faces that the WNBA exists. It's a form of journalistic rape. We've said, "NO!," but they keep pressing us, trying to make us interested in it.
It's like with soccer. Apparently, we're all screwed up in this country because we don't enjoy watching soccer. They love it in Europe, so we need to love it over here.
Hey newsmen, here's some (apparently) news for you.
The WNBA is lame. We don't care about it. Give us real front page stories.
Soccer is lame. We don't care about it. Tell David Beckham that he can take a hike.
All of this forcing WNBA and soccer down our throats is equivalent to prison sodomy (well, then I guess forcing it "down our throats" was incorrect phraseology). We don't want it, and just because the media has the power to force it on us doesn't mean that they should. Let me do my time peacefully, thank you very much.
And 3:10 to Yuma is a great film, reminiscent of the great Westerns of old.
The FRONT PAGE HEADLINE of the news announced that the Detroit Shock had won a game. Granted, it was a playoff-championship game: but the FRONT PAGE HEADLINE?
Honestly, I don't care about the WNBA, and I don't know anyone who does. But still, the media tries to cram it in our faces that the WNBA exists. It's a form of journalistic rape. We've said, "NO!," but they keep pressing us, trying to make us interested in it.
It's like with soccer. Apparently, we're all screwed up in this country because we don't enjoy watching soccer. They love it in Europe, so we need to love it over here.
Hey newsmen, here's some (apparently) news for you.
The WNBA is lame. We don't care about it. Give us real front page stories.
Soccer is lame. We don't care about it. Tell David Beckham that he can take a hike.
All of this forcing WNBA and soccer down our throats is equivalent to prison sodomy (well, then I guess forcing it "down our throats" was incorrect phraseology). We don't want it, and just because the media has the power to force it on us doesn't mean that they should. Let me do my time peacefully, thank you very much.
And 3:10 to Yuma is a great film, reminiscent of the great Westerns of old.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Another Kid in Pre-School
My eldest son started pre-school this week. I asked him if he was ready to start school, and he said "No, I'm not going to schoo."
"But you have to go to school," I said. "Besides, you'll make lots of friends!"
"I will kick their butts," he replied.
"Not if you don't want to get in very big trouble," I warned.
To which he again asserted, "I'm not going to schoo!"
Well the day arrived, and my wife and I were a bit worried over how he'd do. However, he went, and he had a good time.
"How was school?" I asked.
"Good," he said with a smile. "I didn't kick any butts!"
I remember setting the bar much higher for his sister, but for now, we'll go with this for him because if he does decide to kick some butts, he'll really beat the hell out of those other kids. He's the toughest little guy that I've ever seen.
P.S. I think that he acquired the idea of going to school and kicking butts from a Spongebob Squarepants episode (the one in which Flats, the flounder, warns Spongebob that he's going to kick Spongebob's butt).
"But you have to go to school," I said. "Besides, you'll make lots of friends!"
"I will kick their butts," he replied.
"Not if you don't want to get in very big trouble," I warned.
To which he again asserted, "I'm not going to schoo!"
Well the day arrived, and my wife and I were a bit worried over how he'd do. However, he went, and he had a good time.
"How was school?" I asked.
"Good," he said with a smile. "I didn't kick any butts!"
I remember setting the bar much higher for his sister, but for now, we'll go with this for him because if he does decide to kick some butts, he'll really beat the hell out of those other kids. He's the toughest little guy that I've ever seen.
P.S. I think that he acquired the idea of going to school and kicking butts from a Spongebob Squarepants episode (the one in which Flats, the flounder, warns Spongebob that he's going to kick Spongebob's butt).
JIM CROCE
I never tire of listening to Croce. If this song means nothing to you now, then it will some day.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Football Season Approaches!
The best part about this year's American/real football season is that we can finally stop hearing about David Beckham and how he's supposed to make us Americans forget that soccer is lame.
Elvis Presley Sings Nirvana come as you are
I believe that this guy is an Irishman. Whatever the case, he's an outstanding Elvis impersonator. I also admire the idea of taking a modern song and imagining how Elvis would have sang it.
Lawdy Miss Clawdy
Pay attention to this one.
This is a clip from Elvis's 1968 Comeback Special--even today it's still one of the top rated television programs in history.
Does the setting remind you of anything? How about MTV Unplugged?--except cooler, yes, even better than Nirvana's Unplugged album, and that was awesome.
Elvis Presley - Jailhouse Rock (Music Video)
The King of Rock; the King of Cool.
Hey kids, this clip from the motion picture "Jailhouse Rock" is considered by many to be one of the first "music videos." I believe the Ricky Nelson also did what you might call "music videos" while on "Ozzie and Harriet," but I haven't got the dates for those, and they weren't this stinking awesome.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Johnny Cash
There simply aren't many who can top Cash. I was negative seventeen when this aired, but Golf Guy was probably six.
The Astronaut Farmer--See It
It's not the best picture of the year, but it's something that you ought to see nonetheless.
The Astronaut Farmer, starring Billy Bob Thorton is awesome.
Perhaps there are some of you who think that Michael Moore is able to throw out a massive middle fingered FU to president Bush.
Well I am here to tell you that the producers of The Astronaut Farmer sent out a giant FU not only to the US Government (in the form of the FAA) but to all governments that serve only to hold men (and women--lest I choose to anger a loyal reader twice in a week) below his or her full potential. My favorite part was when the head of the FAA announced that Billy Bob's character had not (when in fact he had) launched into orbit. Then again, that's what government's do. They lie.
That's why my second favorite part was when the federal inquisition asked "How do we know that you're not building a WMD?" And Billy Bob answered, "Because if I was building a WMB, then you wouldn't find it" (or words to that effect).
Critics who wish to disregard the value of The Astronaut Farmer because it is fictional must be willing to reject any other fictional story (like the one how Lincoln freed the slaves--you do realize that the Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves held in rebel territory, and that slaves held in union--i.e. Lincoln territory remained slaves).
The Astronaut Farmer, starring Billy Bob Thorton is awesome.
Perhaps there are some of you who think that Michael Moore is able to throw out a massive middle fingered FU to president Bush.
Well I am here to tell you that the producers of The Astronaut Farmer sent out a giant FU not only to the US Government (in the form of the FAA) but to all governments that serve only to hold men (and women--lest I choose to anger a loyal reader twice in a week) below his or her full potential. My favorite part was when the head of the FAA announced that Billy Bob's character had not (when in fact he had) launched into orbit. Then again, that's what government's do. They lie.
That's why my second favorite part was when the federal inquisition asked "How do we know that you're not building a WMD?" And Billy Bob answered, "Because if I was building a WMB, then you wouldn't find it" (or words to that effect).
Critics who wish to disregard the value of The Astronaut Farmer because it is fictional must be willing to reject any other fictional story (like the one how Lincoln freed the slaves--you do realize that the Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves held in rebel territory, and that slaves held in union--i.e. Lincoln territory remained slaves).
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Friday, August 31, 2007
Dianaphelia
Let's get back to what I hate. I hate all this mushy nonsense that marks the ten year anniversary of Princess Diana's demise.
Honestly, I've never come to grips with the significance of her celebrity. When I mentioned this to my wife, she ignorantly proclaimed, "It's also the 30 year mark of Elvis's death, so why don't you complain about that?"
My goodness, I married a silly woman.
Elvis Presley changed things, the kinds of things that we take for granted. Again, my wife says, "Diana led causes too." But that's half of my point. First of all, Elvis wasn't about "causes." He was about himself and his talent for music, a passion that truly changed the world. What was Diana about? According to my wife, Diana worked extensively to eradicate the world of landmines.
Hmm.
By "worked extensively," what exactly is meant? Did she actually go to minefields and start digging them up and dismantaling them, or did she merely speak out against them and pose for a few photo-ops with leaders from countries who would like to have old landmines from old wars removed at the expense of the taxpayers or philanthropists of some other country?
I'm not saying that the awful consequences of post-war landmines are not tragic or even a concern for caring people with the means to donate personal funds voluntarily toward landmine removal. What I'm saying is that Diana did not change the world with her "work," and all this ado regarding the anniversary of her death is ridiculous.
When was the last time that you commemorated Thomas Edison's, Henry Ford's, Plato's, or Andrew Carnegie's deaths? These are just a few names who did far, far more to improve the quality of human life.
Honestly, I've never come to grips with the significance of her celebrity. When I mentioned this to my wife, she ignorantly proclaimed, "It's also the 30 year mark of Elvis's death, so why don't you complain about that?"
My goodness, I married a silly woman.
Elvis Presley changed things, the kinds of things that we take for granted. Again, my wife says, "Diana led causes too." But that's half of my point. First of all, Elvis wasn't about "causes." He was about himself and his talent for music, a passion that truly changed the world. What was Diana about? According to my wife, Diana worked extensively to eradicate the world of landmines.
Hmm.
By "worked extensively," what exactly is meant? Did she actually go to minefields and start digging them up and dismantaling them, or did she merely speak out against them and pose for a few photo-ops with leaders from countries who would like to have old landmines from old wars removed at the expense of the taxpayers or philanthropists of some other country?
I'm not saying that the awful consequences of post-war landmines are not tragic or even a concern for caring people with the means to donate personal funds voluntarily toward landmine removal. What I'm saying is that Diana did not change the world with her "work," and all this ado regarding the anniversary of her death is ridiculous.
When was the last time that you commemorated Thomas Edison's, Henry Ford's, Plato's, or Andrew Carnegie's deaths? These are just a few names who did far, far more to improve the quality of human life.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Ramble On
Today's thought is based upon some scratchings I recently uncovered on a loose leaf sheet of paper. It looks like it might come from some my my old college work.
We often base religious arguments on deductions from scripture. We arge that
1. God inspired the Bible.
2. God does not lie.
3. Therefore, the Bible is without error.
The conclusion, however, is not necessarily sound, for it falsely equivocates errors with lies. Consider also that the first premise of the argument is that God inspired the Bible. That means that God Himself did not write it, but that the Holy Spirit directed his prophets to do so. This means that the Bible was written by men, and men are not immune to error--even when they are being truthful to the best of their abilities.
Take the situation at the Battle of Jericho. The Biblical author writes that the Sun stood still in the sky while Joshua's army "avenged themselves upon their enemies" (Joshua 10:13). A strict interpretation of the Bible (and it was this interpretation that led Copernicus to fear releasing his heliocentric theory, and the one that was used to threaten Galileo's life) suggests that the Sun must revolve around the Earth, for if it says in Joshua that "the sun stood still" then it must normally move.
However, a more rational approach to the issue reveals that the Biblical writer simply recorded what he observed. To us humans, it appears that the Sun revolves around the Earth from east to west. When the miracle occurred, it therefore seemed that the Sun stood still. If anything stood still, it was the Earth on its axis because the Sun doesn't move.
In Joshua 10:13, the Bible is therefore innaccurate--to a degree. But it's not a degree worth getting excited about. Too many Christians (and believers of other religions) assume some kind of slippery-slope worst-case scenario when something in their holy scriptures is criticized. Just because the author of Joshua erred minorly does not mean that everything in the Bible is false. All it means is that Joshua's author did not know that it's the Earth that moves. He wrote what he saw, and what he wrote was as truthful as we can expect.
Ironically, many Christian fundamentalists who interpret everything in the Bible literally still cut and paste to their whims. Many denominations preach against the consumption of alchohol, even though Jesus's first recorded miracle was at a wedding, during which he turned water into wine. In Ecclesiastes 8:15, Solomon writes that "there is nothing good under the sun except to eat, to drink and to be merry." And let us not forget that when the booze ran out, Jesus's first miracle, at the wedding in Cana, was to turn water into wine (John 2:1-11). Furthermore, most fundamentalists do not believe in transubstantiation--that, during Communion, wine and bread become the blood and body of Christ--even though Jesus minced no words when he said, "This is my body. . . This is my blood. . . Do this in remembrance of me." Some churches, on the rare occasions when they celebrate the eucharist, even substitute the wine with mere grape juice. What kind of arrogance is this, to assume that drinking wine would be wrong, even though that's what Jesus did and said to do?
On a completely different note, the current diagnosis of my computer problem is that it's the motherboard. I can think of a word to put right in the middle of that...
We often base religious arguments on deductions from scripture. We arge that
1. God inspired the Bible.
2. God does not lie.
3. Therefore, the Bible is without error.
The conclusion, however, is not necessarily sound, for it falsely equivocates errors with lies. Consider also that the first premise of the argument is that God inspired the Bible. That means that God Himself did not write it, but that the Holy Spirit directed his prophets to do so. This means that the Bible was written by men, and men are not immune to error--even when they are being truthful to the best of their abilities.
Take the situation at the Battle of Jericho. The Biblical author writes that the Sun stood still in the sky while Joshua's army "avenged themselves upon their enemies" (Joshua 10:13). A strict interpretation of the Bible (and it was this interpretation that led Copernicus to fear releasing his heliocentric theory, and the one that was used to threaten Galileo's life) suggests that the Sun must revolve around the Earth, for if it says in Joshua that "the sun stood still" then it must normally move.
However, a more rational approach to the issue reveals that the Biblical writer simply recorded what he observed. To us humans, it appears that the Sun revolves around the Earth from east to west. When the miracle occurred, it therefore seemed that the Sun stood still. If anything stood still, it was the Earth on its axis because the Sun doesn't move.
In Joshua 10:13, the Bible is therefore innaccurate--to a degree. But it's not a degree worth getting excited about. Too many Christians (and believers of other religions) assume some kind of slippery-slope worst-case scenario when something in their holy scriptures is criticized. Just because the author of Joshua erred minorly does not mean that everything in the Bible is false. All it means is that Joshua's author did not know that it's the Earth that moves. He wrote what he saw, and what he wrote was as truthful as we can expect.
Ironically, many Christian fundamentalists who interpret everything in the Bible literally still cut and paste to their whims. Many denominations preach against the consumption of alchohol, even though Jesus's first recorded miracle was at a wedding, during which he turned water into wine. In Ecclesiastes 8:15, Solomon writes that "there is nothing good under the sun except to eat, to drink and to be merry." And let us not forget that when the booze ran out, Jesus's first miracle, at the wedding in Cana, was to turn water into wine (John 2:1-11). Furthermore, most fundamentalists do not believe in transubstantiation--that, during Communion, wine and bread become the blood and body of Christ--even though Jesus minced no words when he said, "This is my body. . . This is my blood. . . Do this in remembrance of me." Some churches, on the rare occasions when they celebrate the eucharist, even substitute the wine with mere grape juice. What kind of arrogance is this, to assume that drinking wine would be wrong, even though that's what Jesus did and said to do?
On a completely different note, the current diagnosis of my computer problem is that it's the motherboard. I can think of a word to put right in the middle of that...
Monday, August 27, 2007
Coffee Blues
The latest study suggests that coffee consumption may contribute to hypertension (i.e. high blood pressure). Another recent study suggests that coffee consumption may prevent Parkinson's Disease.
So I can quit drinking coffee and avoid an increased risk of hypertension, but have to deal with 1.) nevermore enjoying the taste of the heavenly brew, 2.) having a harder time in the morning, and 3.) apparently having a higher risk of Parkinson's.
Or, I can keep drinking coffee and merely risk hypertension.
I'm not scoffing at hypertension, but compared to Parkinson's, I'll take a relatively quick heart attack.
Also, in case you don't remember, this site used to be called "What I Hate." It is now called "What I Think," but I still hate a lot of things. Here's a random list of things that I hate.
1.) When someone uses all of the toilet paper, and I'm left sitting there, looking at either the bath towel or the shower curtain as my only options.
2.) Al Gore
3.) Socialism (a.k.a. Communism, Leftism, the Democratic Party)
4.) Government (i.e. the legal mafia) in general; the coercive powers of government in particular).
5.) Movies starring Keanu Reeves (exception: The Matrix)
6.) Paying taxes to a government that does not represent me because I did not vote for a single one of the janks who presume to rule over me.
7.) When Kevin, who always has an inferior fantasy football team, beats me in the first round of the playoffs.
8.) When Kevin smugly reminds me that he beat me in the first round of the playoffs.
9.) When obviously overpaid and under qualified workers complain that foreigners are taking their jobs because they'll work for less money.
10.) That Tony Danza played the Ukulele on the Late Late Show (the one hosted by the guy who played Drew Carey's boss on The Drew Carey Show): Jake Shimabukuro and I have dedicated our lives to demonstrating that the Uke is a serious instrument (sure, Jake has done a better job of it, but that's not the issue), just so Danza can strum it like some brain-dead idiot and reinforce the popular belief that the Uke is just a toy guitar.
So I can quit drinking coffee and avoid an increased risk of hypertension, but have to deal with 1.) nevermore enjoying the taste of the heavenly brew, 2.) having a harder time in the morning, and 3.) apparently having a higher risk of Parkinson's.
Or, I can keep drinking coffee and merely risk hypertension.
I'm not scoffing at hypertension, but compared to Parkinson's, I'll take a relatively quick heart attack.
Also, in case you don't remember, this site used to be called "What I Hate." It is now called "What I Think," but I still hate a lot of things. Here's a random list of things that I hate.
1.) When someone uses all of the toilet paper, and I'm left sitting there, looking at either the bath towel or the shower curtain as my only options.
2.) Al Gore
3.) Socialism (a.k.a. Communism, Leftism, the Democratic Party)
4.) Government (i.e. the legal mafia) in general; the coercive powers of government in particular).
5.) Movies starring Keanu Reeves (exception: The Matrix)
6.) Paying taxes to a government that does not represent me because I did not vote for a single one of the janks who presume to rule over me.
7.) When Kevin, who always has an inferior fantasy football team, beats me in the first round of the playoffs.
8.) When Kevin smugly reminds me that he beat me in the first round of the playoffs.
9.) When obviously overpaid and under qualified workers complain that foreigners are taking their jobs because they'll work for less money.
10.) That Tony Danza played the Ukulele on the Late Late Show (the one hosted by the guy who played Drew Carey's boss on The Drew Carey Show): Jake Shimabukuro and I have dedicated our lives to demonstrating that the Uke is a serious instrument (sure, Jake has done a better job of it, but that's not the issue), just so Danza can strum it like some brain-dead idiot and reinforce the popular belief that the Uke is just a toy guitar.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Some Arguments that Annoy Me
I love to debate. It's good fun, especially with a knowledgeable and clever opponent. Rarely, however, do I encounter a knowledgeable and clever adversary. Much of the time, my knowledgeable foes are not clever, or my clever antagonists are not knowledgeable. Too often, my challenger is neither (as is usually the case with democrats--and if you take that to be a shot in favor of republicans, then you haven't been reading much of this blog).
The following list is of the usual responses when my less than able sparring partners realize that they have been backed into a corner.
1.) "Who's to say?" What I find objectionable about this less than witty retort is that it's really a red herring. The issue is not who's saying what; it's what's being said that matters. Whenever someone comes back from one of your major points with this one, you should know that you've got him or her on the ropes.
2.) "You think what you want, and I'll think what I want." At this point, your opponent has basically surrendered and is asking for generous terms. Now is the time to be General Grant. Offer no terms except for unconditional surrender, and remind him or her that you propose to move upon his or her works immediately (read some narrative history on the engagement at Fort Donelson in 1862 if you don't get this one). Once pressed further, your opponent is likely to suggest that it isn't worth arguing anymore because you are too stubborn to see his or her point. Again, this is a point to you, for you've now forced your adversary into relying upon ad hominem rebuttals. What they really mean to say (but won't, for pride stands in the way) is, "I cannot logically reject your argument, so I am backing off in an orderly fashion before this argument turns into a rout.
3. "You see things in black and white, but the world is painted in shades of gray." This argument starts off first with an absurd metaphor. Of course the world isn't painted in black and white, but it isn't painted in gray either. In fact, the world isn't painted at all. What your opponent is really saying here is something akin to "There are no absolutes" or "There is no such thing as right or wrong," or "Everything is relative." There are some major logical problems with this position.
First of all, you can't say that there are no absolutes. It's an autophagic argument (i.e. it destroys itself), for to assert that there are no absolutes is to make an absolute statement.
Second, you can't say that there is no such thing as right or wrong and be right about it, for if you're right, then the statement is false (since nothing is right).
Third, you can't say that everything is relative. If everything is relative, then the assertion that everything is relative is merely relative. This means, in fact, that there are absolutes. Therefore, everything is not relative. Questions of good and evil, elements of logic and moral principles cannot be relative. Of course, some things are relative: I like pizzas with lots of cheese, pepperoni, sausage, onions, green peppers, black olives, and mushrooms. My wife, on the other hand, prefers cheese and pepperoni. That's a relative issue because it's really about little more than taste preferences. It's a relative issue to argue if green peppers taste good. Whether or not green peppers have vitamins is not a relative issue. Even if you think that green peppers taste like elephant feces (by the way, how do you know what pachyderm poop tastes like?), you cannot say that green peppers don't have vitamins. Something like whether or not abortion should be legal is not relative. You might wish that abortion was OK, but that doesn't make it so.
Also, your opponent, if he or she relies upon tricks instead of reason, may resort to other techniques. For one, they may appeal to popularity (ad populum): well Michigan voters have spoken, and gay couples should not be allowed to marry or enjoy the legal benefits of marriage. Does this mean that an anti-Semitic majority that wishes to harm Jews is right? As far as I can observe, a majority proves only the ignorance or maliciousness of the masses. Seriously, if marriage is a religious act, then the law (as brought down by the state) ought to have none of it.
Then again, your enemy may wish to make you tremble in your boots. These are the kind who constantly tell you how crucial the issue of global warming is. If you for one second think, "Hey, hasn't the globe been warming naturally for tens of thousands of years since the last Ice Age?" then these people will thwart you by warnings that you and your children and your grand children and your great-grandchildren etc. will die. Since your really not dumb enough to fall into this trap, they'll make you feel sorry for penguins and polar bears (seriously, there's a conspiracy to make you feel bad for arctic and antarctic wildlife because deep inside you know that their predictions of what will happen to people is a load of BS). The fact that they resort to making you (and especially your children) simply sympathize with arctic/antarctic wildlife should be enough to make you see through their weak arguments.
There are more, but it's late, and I'm tired.
The following list is of the usual responses when my less than able sparring partners realize that they have been backed into a corner.
1.) "Who's to say?" What I find objectionable about this less than witty retort is that it's really a red herring. The issue is not who's saying what; it's what's being said that matters. Whenever someone comes back from one of your major points with this one, you should know that you've got him or her on the ropes.
2.) "You think what you want, and I'll think what I want." At this point, your opponent has basically surrendered and is asking for generous terms. Now is the time to be General Grant. Offer no terms except for unconditional surrender, and remind him or her that you propose to move upon his or her works immediately (read some narrative history on the engagement at Fort Donelson in 1862 if you don't get this one). Once pressed further, your opponent is likely to suggest that it isn't worth arguing anymore because you are too stubborn to see his or her point. Again, this is a point to you, for you've now forced your adversary into relying upon ad hominem rebuttals. What they really mean to say (but won't, for pride stands in the way) is, "I cannot logically reject your argument, so I am backing off in an orderly fashion before this argument turns into a rout.
3. "You see things in black and white, but the world is painted in shades of gray." This argument starts off first with an absurd metaphor. Of course the world isn't painted in black and white, but it isn't painted in gray either. In fact, the world isn't painted at all. What your opponent is really saying here is something akin to "There are no absolutes" or "There is no such thing as right or wrong," or "Everything is relative." There are some major logical problems with this position.
First of all, you can't say that there are no absolutes. It's an autophagic argument (i.e. it destroys itself), for to assert that there are no absolutes is to make an absolute statement.
Second, you can't say that there is no such thing as right or wrong and be right about it, for if you're right, then the statement is false (since nothing is right).
Third, you can't say that everything is relative. If everything is relative, then the assertion that everything is relative is merely relative. This means, in fact, that there are absolutes. Therefore, everything is not relative. Questions of good and evil, elements of logic and moral principles cannot be relative. Of course, some things are relative: I like pizzas with lots of cheese, pepperoni, sausage, onions, green peppers, black olives, and mushrooms. My wife, on the other hand, prefers cheese and pepperoni. That's a relative issue because it's really about little more than taste preferences. It's a relative issue to argue if green peppers taste good. Whether or not green peppers have vitamins is not a relative issue. Even if you think that green peppers taste like elephant feces (by the way, how do you know what pachyderm poop tastes like?), you cannot say that green peppers don't have vitamins. Something like whether or not abortion should be legal is not relative. You might wish that abortion was OK, but that doesn't make it so.
Also, your opponent, if he or she relies upon tricks instead of reason, may resort to other techniques. For one, they may appeal to popularity (ad populum): well Michigan voters have spoken, and gay couples should not be allowed to marry or enjoy the legal benefits of marriage. Does this mean that an anti-Semitic majority that wishes to harm Jews is right? As far as I can observe, a majority proves only the ignorance or maliciousness of the masses. Seriously, if marriage is a religious act, then the law (as brought down by the state) ought to have none of it.
Then again, your enemy may wish to make you tremble in your boots. These are the kind who constantly tell you how crucial the issue of global warming is. If you for one second think, "Hey, hasn't the globe been warming naturally for tens of thousands of years since the last Ice Age?" then these people will thwart you by warnings that you and your children and your grand children and your great-grandchildren etc. will die. Since your really not dumb enough to fall into this trap, they'll make you feel sorry for penguins and polar bears (seriously, there's a conspiracy to make you feel bad for arctic and antarctic wildlife because deep inside you know that their predictions of what will happen to people is a load of BS). The fact that they resort to making you (and especially your children) simply sympathize with arctic/antarctic wildlife should be enough to make you see through their weak arguments.
There are more, but it's late, and I'm tired.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Fantasy Football Season Is Coming!
Here's the roster for one of my new Fantasy Football leagues. In this league, we kept one player from last season (he is indicated by an *). I thought I drafted well, considering that there are twelve teams in the league, and that means that a lot of the talent gets snatched up pretty quickly.
QB: John Kitna (starter), Alex Smith, Brett Favre
RB: Frank Gore* (starter), Rudi Johnson (starter), Jamal Lewis,
WR: Larry Fitzgerald (starter), Javon Walker (starter), Braylon Edwards, Muhsin Muhammad
TE: Chris Cooley (starter), Daniel Owens
K: David Akers (starter), John Kasey
D/ST: Cowboys (starter), Raiders
In my other league (ten teams in this league), I was able to keep six players. I kept
QB: Peyton Manning
RB: Larry Johnson, Rudi Johnson
WR: Steve Smith
TE: Tony Gonzales
D/ST: Bears
I traded Plaxico Buress (WR) for a first round pick, so I have the fourth and the eighth picks of the first round.
QB: John Kitna (starter), Alex Smith, Brett Favre
RB: Frank Gore* (starter), Rudi Johnson (starter), Jamal Lewis,
WR: Larry Fitzgerald (starter), Javon Walker (starter), Braylon Edwards, Muhsin Muhammad
TE: Chris Cooley (starter), Daniel Owens
K: David Akers (starter), John Kasey
D/ST: Cowboys (starter), Raiders
In my other league (ten teams in this league), I was able to keep six players. I kept
QB: Peyton Manning
RB: Larry Johnson, Rudi Johnson
WR: Steve Smith
TE: Tony Gonzales
D/ST: Bears
I traded Plaxico Buress (WR) for a first round pick, so I have the fourth and the eighth picks of the first round.
Stupid Computer
My computer is acting up again, and worse than ever before. In so many ways, this computer (not the one that I'm actually using, but the one that's on the fritz) has been the best that I've ever had. In other ways, however, it's been a huge mess.
It's pretty much conclusive. I'm done with PCs. If it's not a Windows problem, then its a hardware problem. The only thing left is an act of God (who knows what might happen--I've said, "God damn this computer" so many times that He might just do it).
Once I've scraped together enough money, I'm going Mac, and I'm not turning back. Sure, Macs aren't impervious to problems, but a.) they don't use Windows, and b.) their hardware is much more reliable. c.) They appeal better to the eye, and d.) becoming a Mac owner will help me enjoy those "Hello, I'm a PC; Hi, I'm a Mac" commercials a lot more.
It's pretty much conclusive. I'm done with PCs. If it's not a Windows problem, then its a hardware problem. The only thing left is an act of God (who knows what might happen--I've said, "God damn this computer" so many times that He might just do it).
Once I've scraped together enough money, I'm going Mac, and I'm not turning back. Sure, Macs aren't impervious to problems, but a.) they don't use Windows, and b.) their hardware is much more reliable. c.) They appeal better to the eye, and d.) becoming a Mac owner will help me enjoy those "Hello, I'm a PC; Hi, I'm a Mac" commercials a lot more.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Holy Fart, Batman!
Pardon me. You may not wish to know this, but after yesterday's Hamburger Helper and today's very cheesy pizza, if farting were a crime, then I'd be sentenced to death.
However, the worst fart on record is still held by my good friend Jeff P.
However, the worst fart on record is still held by my good friend Jeff P.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Pointless Comment
For no good reason at all--heck, I haven't even heard it in months--the song "Scotch and Soda" by The Kingston Trio has been stuck in my head all day.
I just picked it out on my ukulele. In a word, it's delightful.
I just picked it out on my ukulele. In a word, it's delightful.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Keep Scrolling for Some Pics!
Forgive the indulgence on my part, but here are a few pics of my little ones.
The pictures are posted with permission from Pamela Heckel Photography. Not only is she a close, personal friend and a Hillsdale College graduate, she is a genius behind the camera. She operates out of Allen, Michigan, and is an outstanding professional. If you are ever in southern Michigan, especially the Allen, Quincy, Hillsdale, Jonesville, Litchfield areas, schedule an appointment with her!
Ironic Songs
In 1958, Bobby Darin recorded what Frank Sinatra called "the definitive version" of "Mack the Knife." It's an upbeat tune that really swings. The irony is that it's a song about a cold-blooded killer.
In a similar irony, The Beatles's "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" sounds like a delightful children's tune.
In a similar irony, The Beatles's "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" sounds like a delightful children's tune.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Orson Scott Card and Islam
Earlier, I posted my fondness for Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. Well, since then I have devoured the sequels and companion novels, enjoying all of them and wishing for more.
In Shadow of the Giant, Card makes a fine point about radical Islam. He says that Islam cannot be a legitimate religion until it recognizes peoples' rights to disbelieve and until it allows lapsed Muslims (i.e. people who leave Islam) to go freely and without harm. Until then, it is a tyranny. In a nutshell, he suggests that Islam ought to embrace the idea of separation of Church and State--that a religious offense is not punishable by violence (i.e. intimidation, fines, incarceration, torture, execution).
I can already hear the critics say that Islam already does this, that it is a religion of peace; but come on, who's kidding whom?
Show me the Islamic state with a good record on human rights in general, and the rights of religious minorities specifically.
Read some history. Islam spread via the sword, and it stays because of the sword.
Of course there are many Muslims who disagree and say that their brethren who so speak and behave are in a minority, but what they really mean is that such people are in a minority in the West. Where they are not in the minority, they rule with an iron fist. Look at the fatwah against Salman Rushdie.
By the way, just in case any half-wit reads this and figures that I'm saying something ridiculous like, "All Muslims are terrorists," re-read what I said, for I said no such thing. What I said is that presently, Islam--as it pours from the Middle East as it has for over a millenium--is aggressive, expansionistic, and imperialistic. Many nations have been this way in the past and changed. As Card points out, Islam is perfectly capable of changing too. Doing so will not dilute its theology, but will instead make it a rational religion that seeks members because they believe, not because they are frightened.
Now a truly astute critic will say that Christianity has just as much blood on its hands as Islam, and such a critic is probably (though I really mean absolutely) right.
However, Christianity long ago rejected the notion that men and women could (and should) be forced into the religion. Historically, Christianity must answer for much (e.g. the inquisition and the witch hunts in Europe and the American colonies).
Such an astute critic ought to see that the problem for both religions centers on the issue of Church and State. In the inquisition and the witch hunts, the coercive powers of the State were put to use for "religious" purposes. Only once predominantly Christian nations began to draw the line between crimes against God and crimes against society (i.e. harming the life, liberty, or property of others), did Christianity once again became a peaceful religion.
Yes, Christianity has blood on its hands, but it has long since coagulated. The blood on Islam's hands is still fresh.
In Shadow of the Giant, Card makes a fine point about radical Islam. He says that Islam cannot be a legitimate religion until it recognizes peoples' rights to disbelieve and until it allows lapsed Muslims (i.e. people who leave Islam) to go freely and without harm. Until then, it is a tyranny. In a nutshell, he suggests that Islam ought to embrace the idea of separation of Church and State--that a religious offense is not punishable by violence (i.e. intimidation, fines, incarceration, torture, execution).
I can already hear the critics say that Islam already does this, that it is a religion of peace; but come on, who's kidding whom?
Show me the Islamic state with a good record on human rights in general, and the rights of religious minorities specifically.
Read some history. Islam spread via the sword, and it stays because of the sword.
Of course there are many Muslims who disagree and say that their brethren who so speak and behave are in a minority, but what they really mean is that such people are in a minority in the West. Where they are not in the minority, they rule with an iron fist. Look at the fatwah against Salman Rushdie.
By the way, just in case any half-wit reads this and figures that I'm saying something ridiculous like, "All Muslims are terrorists," re-read what I said, for I said no such thing. What I said is that presently, Islam--as it pours from the Middle East as it has for over a millenium--is aggressive, expansionistic, and imperialistic. Many nations have been this way in the past and changed. As Card points out, Islam is perfectly capable of changing too. Doing so will not dilute its theology, but will instead make it a rational religion that seeks members because they believe, not because they are frightened.
Now a truly astute critic will say that Christianity has just as much blood on its hands as Islam, and such a critic is probably (though I really mean absolutely) right.
However, Christianity long ago rejected the notion that men and women could (and should) be forced into the religion. Historically, Christianity must answer for much (e.g. the inquisition and the witch hunts in Europe and the American colonies).
Such an astute critic ought to see that the problem for both religions centers on the issue of Church and State. In the inquisition and the witch hunts, the coercive powers of the State were put to use for "religious" purposes. Only once predominantly Christian nations began to draw the line between crimes against God and crimes against society (i.e. harming the life, liberty, or property of others), did Christianity once again became a peaceful religion.
Yes, Christianity has blood on its hands, but it has long since coagulated. The blood on Islam's hands is still fresh.
Miniver Cheevy
Miniver Cheevy, child of scorn,
Grew lean while he assailed the seasons.
He wept that he was ever born,
And he had reasons.
Miniver loved the days of old
When swords were bright and steeds were prancing;
The vision of a warrior bold
Would send him dancing.
Miniver sighed for what was not,
And dreamed, and rested from his labors;
He dreamed of Thebes and Camelot,
And Priam's neighbors.
Miniver mourned the ripe renown
That made so many a name so fragrant;
He mourned Romance, now on the town,
And Art, a vagrant.
Miniver loved the Medici,
Albeit he had never seen one;
He would have sinned incessantly
Could he have been one.
Miniver cursed the commonplace
And eyed a khaki suit with loathing;
He missed the medieval grace
Of iron clothing.
Miniver scorned the gold he sought,
But sore annoyed was he without it;
Miniver thought, and thought, and thought,
And thought about it.
Miniver Cheevy, born too late,
Scratched his head and kept on thinking;
Miniver coughed, and called it fate,
And kept on drinking.
--Edwin Arlington Robinson
Grew lean while he assailed the seasons.
He wept that he was ever born,
And he had reasons.
Miniver loved the days of old
When swords were bright and steeds were prancing;
The vision of a warrior bold
Would send him dancing.
Miniver sighed for what was not,
And dreamed, and rested from his labors;
He dreamed of Thebes and Camelot,
And Priam's neighbors.
Miniver mourned the ripe renown
That made so many a name so fragrant;
He mourned Romance, now on the town,
And Art, a vagrant.
Miniver loved the Medici,
Albeit he had never seen one;
He would have sinned incessantly
Could he have been one.
Miniver cursed the commonplace
And eyed a khaki suit with loathing;
He missed the medieval grace
Of iron clothing.
Miniver scorned the gold he sought,
But sore annoyed was he without it;
Miniver thought, and thought, and thought,
And thought about it.
Miniver Cheevy, born too late,
Scratched his head and kept on thinking;
Miniver coughed, and called it fate,
And kept on drinking.
--Edwin Arlington Robinson
Sunday, August 12, 2007
I Coulda Been a Contender
There's a lot of sentimental crap that comes out in movies. Watch Titanic if you don't believe me. Most of these stories involve rather flat characters and what I will call "forced" dialogue (again, see Titanic).
However, there are some times when a dialogue flows naturally from a well developed character, and it is in these times that we can discover insight into the human condition.
Take for instance the scene in On the Waterfront, when Martin Brando's character, Terry, says to his brother, (who had forced him to take a dive in his big fight--his one chance at the title):
"You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it."
This line has been replicated in many forms and parodied in its exact form. Even without the backdrop to the story, it means something to all of us. The idea that we "coulda" done something great, but we (for whatever reason) decided against it and took the easy (i.e. fast money--as Charlie reminds Terry) way out.
Perhaps I am out of line, or only speaking for myself, to suggest that we in the middle lament that if we had stood tall, ignored those pressuring us, dug in, and fought for ourselves alone, then we could have been more than we are.
There are times when I sit and sigh, for I do believe that "I coulda been a contender." There's still time, I suppose, but time is relative in more ways than Einstein imagined. While it creeps so unbearably slowly in your first twenty years, the remaining years seem to slip through your fingers like a heap of sand.
Then again, it's a load of crap. Terry chose to take the dive.
In the end, we all pocket our silver and reap the whirlwind. We sit in our cubicles and input data. We say, "Yes sir!" When we really should say, "What the hell are you thinking, sir?"
We sell ourselves short because it's so easy to be a "coulda been." It's harder actually to be, so we decide instead to hate such people and figure (dishonestly) that they simply had more opportunities.
The bottom line is that the contenders are there because they took the jabs and the hooks and kept their feet. Those who either couldn't keep their feet or took the dive for the short-term game belong in the middle or the bottom.
Either I need to sit my fat ass down and write the damn novel that's in my head, or I need to accept that I'll forever be just someone who "coulda been a contender" but decided not to be one.
At least I never paid a two-bit airline for a coke. Even if I did, I wouldn't decline my wife's bedside in lieu of a rant. You disappoint me, Murdock. Unlike you, I have never denied your wife...
However, there are some times when a dialogue flows naturally from a well developed character, and it is in these times that we can discover insight into the human condition.
Take for instance the scene in On the Waterfront, when Martin Brando's character, Terry, says to his brother, (who had forced him to take a dive in his big fight--his one chance at the title):
"You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it."
This line has been replicated in many forms and parodied in its exact form. Even without the backdrop to the story, it means something to all of us. The idea that we "coulda" done something great, but we (for whatever reason) decided against it and took the easy (i.e. fast money--as Charlie reminds Terry) way out.
Perhaps I am out of line, or only speaking for myself, to suggest that we in the middle lament that if we had stood tall, ignored those pressuring us, dug in, and fought for ourselves alone, then we could have been more than we are.
There are times when I sit and sigh, for I do believe that "I coulda been a contender." There's still time, I suppose, but time is relative in more ways than Einstein imagined. While it creeps so unbearably slowly in your first twenty years, the remaining years seem to slip through your fingers like a heap of sand.
Then again, it's a load of crap. Terry chose to take the dive.
In the end, we all pocket our silver and reap the whirlwind. We sit in our cubicles and input data. We say, "Yes sir!" When we really should say, "What the hell are you thinking, sir?"
We sell ourselves short because it's so easy to be a "coulda been." It's harder actually to be, so we decide instead to hate such people and figure (dishonestly) that they simply had more opportunities.
The bottom line is that the contenders are there because they took the jabs and the hooks and kept their feet. Those who either couldn't keep their feet or took the dive for the short-term game belong in the middle or the bottom.
Either I need to sit my fat ass down and write the damn novel that's in my head, or I need to accept that I'll forever be just someone who "coulda been a contender" but decided not to be one.
At least I never paid a two-bit airline for a coke. Even if I did, I wouldn't decline my wife's bedside in lieu of a rant. You disappoint me, Murdock. Unlike you, I have never denied your wife...
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Barry Bonds
Barry Bonds is the most hollow man to break a hallowed record. Some defend him--for now--saying that until actual proof exists that he used steroids and other enhancements to help catapult him past Hank Aaron, we cannot render judgment against him.
But this is not the case.
The issue of "Who is the best slugger in baseball history" is not one bound by the law of innocent until proven guilty. It is thoroughly a matter of public, nay individual, opinion.
Hank Aaron acquired and held his record for so long because he was purely talented, not because he was juiced. That makes him better than Bonds.
What we can't do is throw Barry Bonds in jail. What we can't do (yet) is strip him of his current title.
However, as thinking beings we can deny him our adoration and label him as the scumbag that he is.
Just because Michael Jackson hasn't been convicted of the crimes for which he is suspected doesn't mean that I wouldn't be a madman to let my children stay with him and share his bed.
Just because O.J. Simpson walks freely does not mean that I should trust and consort with the likes of him.
Just because Al Capone was only found guilty of tax-evasion does not make him any less of a cold-blooded killer.
There comes a point when circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming that only a fool looks the other way. Barry Bonds deserves jeers, not cheers. He should go down in hisses, not history.
But this is not the case.
The issue of "Who is the best slugger in baseball history" is not one bound by the law of innocent until proven guilty. It is thoroughly a matter of public, nay individual, opinion.
Hank Aaron acquired and held his record for so long because he was purely talented, not because he was juiced. That makes him better than Bonds.
What we can't do is throw Barry Bonds in jail. What we can't do (yet) is strip him of his current title.
However, as thinking beings we can deny him our adoration and label him as the scumbag that he is.
Just because Michael Jackson hasn't been convicted of the crimes for which he is suspected doesn't mean that I wouldn't be a madman to let my children stay with him and share his bed.
Just because O.J. Simpson walks freely does not mean that I should trust and consort with the likes of him.
Just because Al Capone was only found guilty of tax-evasion does not make him any less of a cold-blooded killer.
There comes a point when circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming that only a fool looks the other way. Barry Bonds deserves jeers, not cheers. He should go down in hisses, not history.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Happy Birthday to Me
Hey, I just turned 31.
There are some who say that they stop counting after 29.
Those people are pathetic. Even if you refuse to count (which you don't really do anyway), the number doesn't change.
There are some who say that they stop counting after 29.
Those people are pathetic. Even if you refuse to count (which you don't really do anyway), the number doesn't change.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Readings (and re-readings this summer), an assigned letter grade, and a very brief comment.
I recommend all of these except for A People's History of the Civil War. If you like to read in the bathroom, then pick that one up because it can at least be useful for spare paper (but beware of paper cuts).
Speaker of the Dead, by Orson Scott Card (A-)--Rarely has a sequel been so different than the original, but still great reading.
Xenocide, by Orson Scott Card (B)--Good, but a bit slow in many parts.
Children of the Mind, by Orson Scott Card (B)--The ending could have been a bit more satisfying.
Ender's Shadow, by Orson Scott Card (A)--If you liked Ender's Game, then you MUST read this.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, by J.K. Rowling (A)--My favorite of them all.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, by J.K. Rowling (B+)--As good as the first, second, and fourth installments.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, by J.K. Rowling (A-)--Tied with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkeban as my second favorite of the series.
The Civil War: A Narrative volume 3, by Shelby Foote (A)--Almost perfect.
A People's History of The Civil War, by David Williams (D)--Great reading, if you're a socialist who doesn't really care about the truth. When are Marxists going to realize that dialectical materialism is a load of crap, and that poverty is not the result of economic injustice in a capitalist system?
Superstrings: A Theory of Everything?, by P. C. W. Davies and Julian Brown (B)--This is very handy to people who don't like when scientists publish only for other scientists. It's geared toward the curious amateur.
Speaker of the Dead, by Orson Scott Card (A-)--Rarely has a sequel been so different than the original, but still great reading.
Xenocide, by Orson Scott Card (B)--Good, but a bit slow in many parts.
Children of the Mind, by Orson Scott Card (B)--The ending could have been a bit more satisfying.
Ender's Shadow, by Orson Scott Card (A)--If you liked Ender's Game, then you MUST read this.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, by J.K. Rowling (A)--My favorite of them all.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, by J.K. Rowling (B+)--As good as the first, second, and fourth installments.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, by J.K. Rowling (A-)--Tied with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkeban as my second favorite of the series.
The Civil War: A Narrative volume 3, by Shelby Foote (A)--Almost perfect.
A People's History of The Civil War, by David Williams (D)--Great reading, if you're a socialist who doesn't really care about the truth. When are Marxists going to realize that dialectical materialism is a load of crap, and that poverty is not the result of economic injustice in a capitalist system?
Superstrings: A Theory of Everything?, by P. C. W. Davies and Julian Brown (B)--This is very handy to people who don't like when scientists publish only for other scientists. It's geared toward the curious amateur.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Going to Africa
Mark wants to go to Africa. Specifically, he wants to go on a hunting safari. More specifically, he wants to shoot a lion.
"I'll tell you what, buddy," I said. "You get a full ride scholarship to college, and I'll take you hunting in Africa."
"Okay," He replied.
Unfortunately, he has no idea what college is, let alone a scholarship--remember, he just turned four--, so he had no idea that he had just made a deal with me that will take a full 14 years before it takes effect.
The poor kid thinks that we're going to Africa soon--really soon.
To wit, I was headed to the grocery store, and I figured that I'd bring Mark along.
"Mark," I called. "Get your shoes on and get in the car."
He came running with his shoes and a big smile on his face. "Are we going to Africa now?" He asked.
"Sorry, dude. We're just going to the store," I confessed. "We won't be able to go to Africa for a long time."
"Oh," he replied in a sinking tone to match his fading smile.
I decided on a compromise--I took him to the WalMart on 12 Mile road, but it wasn't enough to mend his broken heart.
Friday, August 03, 2007
No recent Posts
Just in case you're wondering why I haven't posted recently, there are two reasons.
One is that, since I'm married with three children, I haven't as much time to myself as I used to have.
The other is that the news sucks.
Lindsay Lohan is in and out of rehab and trouble?
She's about as much news as the fact that Budweiser makes me fart.
A government funded project (in this case a bridge in Minnesota that collapsed) failed?
There are times when I'm not sure if I shouldn't just go to the bathroom after a Budweiser (just to be on the safe side).
Hugo Chavez loves Sean Penn?
Idi Amin thought that Hitler was a great man.
That's our news, folks. And you wonder why I haven't posted much!
By the way, I just burped, and I tasted some of the White Castles that I ate over two hours ago.
Now that's news.
One is that, since I'm married with three children, I haven't as much time to myself as I used to have.
The other is that the news sucks.
Lindsay Lohan is in and out of rehab and trouble?
She's about as much news as the fact that Budweiser makes me fart.
A government funded project (in this case a bridge in Minnesota that collapsed) failed?
There are times when I'm not sure if I shouldn't just go to the bathroom after a Budweiser (just to be on the safe side).
Hugo Chavez loves Sean Penn?
Idi Amin thought that Hitler was a great man.
That's our news, folks. And you wonder why I haven't posted much!
By the way, I just burped, and I tasted some of the White Castles that I ate over two hours ago.
Now that's news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)