Brain Fertilizer

Need a hand? I went with another provider and that did okay on board ship--part of the reason you're getting the .nu block from the Air Force tech weenies is because of the pr0n sites (see today's USS Clueless for comments--oh, wait, maybe you can't).

I don't know if a redirect address works, or if they just ban the IP block. In any case, I would be glad to help if you need it to keep on posting.

Chap.

Also, the joption (that's a jo-option, you see) is still available if needed.

« Hide Comments

*Personally, I think "civilization" and "society" are expressedly for the protection of the weak. And children are the weak. Their minds are designed to learn and assimilate. Adults can resist and seek out what they want with far more ability and effectivenss than children. Because of this, I think we should have a child-safe society. Adults will always be able to find and enjoy their adult pleasures, but I don't think those pleasures should be in the open as the default, as it seems to be now.

**this has been said before, but I'll repeat: why does "adult" usually mean the content has a pre-adolescent obession with crudity, sex, and scatalogical themes?

Wow. Great minds run in the same channel. And on a different topic, I just posted about this very thing not 30 seconds ago. Well, I wasn't addressing exactly the same thing, but close.

Reading Andrew Sullivan on gay issues lately tends to be bad for my blood pressure, so I haven't seen his take on the Britney story. I don't think the issues it raises are useful only for the libertine lobby, though. The point that Britney (and Liz and Zsa Zsa and Mickey) are permitted to make unions that any sane person can see are due to fail without people's screaming that they're being forced to "approve" of them, for example, strikes me as valid, though I don't know whether anyone's making it.

I don't think I qualify as a great mind...

I see your point, but to me, that puts it back on a case-by-case, individual basis. I agree that ground is more advantageous to the pro-SSM lobby, but the point I'm trying make is more that homosexual marriage by itself is but one small and rather unimportant battle in the culture war. It is only important because the conservatives have drawn a line here that says, "You shall not pass." And the liberals/moderates have that look on their face that says, "Oh, yes we will." My own leaning is toward the conservatives, just by the techniques I've seen the liberals/moderates use.
But all that aside, I find it ironic that the liberals/moderates use an example from the liberal camp as an attempt to undermine a conservative point.
It's not honest, it's not logical, and I will do my point to not let it stand.
Liberals wanted no-fault marriages.* Liberals undermined the sanctity of marriage to begin with, and now Liberals are pointing to the tatters of marriage and say it's not worth saving, so we might as well try SSM and see what happens.

*I do realize that individual cases can be related in such a manner that it will seem like millions of people would have been forced to commit suicide or murder if it weren't for no-fault divorce. I disagree, and think that there is no one under the age of 50 (or so) who even really understands what life and marriage were like before no-fault divorce.

I think I have a problem:
Whenever I see the Abbreviation of SSM, I think "Surface-to-Surface Missile"

What is WRONG WITH ME!?

Jeremy, the problem is you should be imagining *two* surface-to-surface missiles.

Or none.

Anyway...Nathan, you know I'm not a proponent of SSM (or public crudity, for that matter). I would like to say, though, that since we're a human civilization bound together by ideas, not a herd of baboons, having children is not the only way to have a stake in the future. The most important, yes, but not the only. That a lot of people on the liberal side of the culture war act as if they were the last people whose interests they need to care about is true, but a different issue.

Actually, Sean, I didn't know you weren't a proponent...I just knew you didn't agree with most of the reasons proponents gave. I wasn't disagreeing with you, but I still felt your statement was enough different from what I said that I feared I might not have been clear enough. I do tend to ramble and wander when I must, I know. :)
In any case, while I may respond to specific things people have said, if I don't mention that person by name or use "you", then I'm probably just reacting to what your words made me think. Your thoughts are still and always welcome any time...

Wait-I know I commented on your post about SSM the other day...where did it go?

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Well, I don't think it would be so cool if all the Great Problems™ were solved like that. It wouldn't be living so much as existing. Which is of course why even if those problems could be solved it would only be temporarily.

Al you Lefties repeat after me: There is no such thing as The End of History.

(Of course Nathan you realize when I say "you Lefties" I don't mean you.)

Leftists operate on emotions, not logic.
The best people in the middle operate on both logic and emotions, using both sides of the brain.
You don't find this happening on the left.
Dull boring historical facts do not resonate in the leftist mind. Tell them a story instead, about injustice and poverty, about oppression, about speaking truth to power. That will move them.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

The strategy is not to influence the United States, although they would be pleased with such a serendipitous result. No, it is a morality play being enacted on the world stage through the internet. The terrorists are sending a message to Iraqis and to the Muslim community worldwide that they still retain Allah's favor.

From the very beginning, al Qaida has declared war on the western world. The Islamic faith has no mechanism for self-correction or expunging heretics or even determining leaders. Anyone who follows the Five Pillars of Islam is a Muslim and exempt from punishment, because Allah will punish or reward. Anyone who studies the Koran can announce his own understanding, and if Allah has blessed him with wisdom, he will attract followers. Ideas and theologies are allowed to struggle and compete for supremacy, and Allah is supposed to bless the ones that are more correct, helping it to gain supremacy.

That's the main reason why we didn't hear much condemnation from the Islamic world over 9/11: their success proved the blessing of Allah. We were unable to immediately strike back, so it must have been the will of Allah to have made al Qaida strong enough to succeed so well against the Great Satan of the West.

But things have turned against them. The Taliban and al Qaida have been pushed out of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is in hiding and hasn't released a current videotape in years. Even with the help of western news media in trying to demoralize public opinion in the West, the insurgents are losing ground. As things get worse for them in Iraq, what proof do they have that Allah favors their actions? When the Coalition Forces can kill hundreds of insurgents each week with only the loss of a handful of US combatants killed from cowardly ambush, what can they point to as evidence their cause is just? Little or nothing.

So they capture individuals, and show their "complete power" by beheading them on videotape, or showing pictures. They are saying: "See, people of Islam? We still have the power to take anyone we want and brutally humiliate and kill them, and the Great Satan can do nothing to stop it. Surely, Allah is with us." They are escalating the message as well, taking Muslim Turks and a Pakistani and even an Arabic soldier. With these abductions, most likely followed by beheadings, they are trying to prove that Allah even approves of killing Arabs and Muslims who do not help kill westerners and minions of the Great Satan.

The beheadings will continue until we have killed or captured enough of the ring-leaders to demonstrate that Allah has frowned upon their actions.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

LMAO. That's so bad.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*scrunches nose*

Feel sorry for the girls out there who don't have any woman figure and they have their dad to explain stuff to them.

Oh what's the big deal? There's nothing a little soap and water won't fix.

And if that doesn't work, try the Scrubbing Bubbles®.

Uhhh, this is about cleaning the bathroom, right?

LOL. I don't think so.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Trend #1: Until the capture of Saddam al-Hussein, the insurgency was largely driven by former Ba'athists, loyal to Saddam. They were incorporating foreign fighters into their ranks, but targeting, planning, and execution were under the control of people who wanted to re-establish Saddam. They wanted us out, and as quickly as possible.

But then we caught Saddam. Operations that were already planned were exectued. We started to roll up their organization, and some people who felt their time was limited attempted to make some "last gasp" attacks, including trying to attack currency exchange convoys to get more funding. The insurgency was running on inertia. Eventually that motive force ran out.

But while we were trying to capture the last of the Former Regime Elite/Loyalists, the foreign fighters were re-organizing and making plans. This is when Zarqawi grew in power and influence. He spent the end of January and early February planning to instigate a civil war between Sunni and Shia sects, and much of the violence in late February and early March was, in fact, suicide bombings by Sunnis against Shias. Only intervention from the Grand Ayatollah Sistani kept the Shias in check. But Zarqawi and his foreign fighters/al Qaeda were up and running. They've shifted focus to the forces of stability among the Iraqis (security chiefs, police, politicians, educators), but they are still active. They collected in Fallujah, and it was the Marines attempt to clear them out that led to the bulk of US deaths in April and early May. We pulled back when it became clear that fighting was turning more people against us than we were eliminating.

Trend #2: It was in December and early January that the Interim Governing Council began asserting its power, particularly the Grand Ayatollah Sistani. In the Arab world, "Everyone Loves a Winner" is a basic truth, and so the more power Sistani demonstrated, the more power people gave him. Everyone was trying to hitch their wagon to his rising star (if I may mingle and mangle my metaphors). Muqtada al-Sadr wanted power among the Shias, and had hired many young, under-educated, unemployed men to be his followers and muscle. He attracted many of the disaffected. At some point, he felt he could gain more power by fighting the US and criticizing Sistani, and began causing troubles. It is entirely possible that he was encouraged to cause trouble by Zarqawi or his associates, as it would play into their hands.

In general, it became clear by late April that the evolved insurgency no longer wanted the United States out of Iraq, at least, not any time soon. The worst possible result for al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movement worldwide would be to allow the United States to leave on its own terms. Rather, they wanted more conflict, to draw us in closer, escalate the fighting, and demoralize the public at home. They want us out, yes, but only after 2-3 years that would help provide propaganda for recruiting and fundraising, and then let us leave only on their terms, defeated and demoralized.

We didn't play along. In fact, we have recently taken more of a low profile, leaving the Iraqis themselves as the main targets for the insurgency. Which is only right and proper, as the country does belong to the Iraqis, and they must learn to stand up and defend it.

Which brings us to the failure:
Until June, we utterly failed in developing a professional security force that was willing to endure hardship and risk for the safety, security, and betterment of the nation. We recognized that failure in the insurgency of late April/early May, and have changed direction and rectified that error. Part of the rectification is to take a lower profile so that the Iraqis must do more to defend themselves. In places like An Najaf, it was at the request of the Iraqis. There are dozens of smaller towns were it has been very successful. When is the last time you've heard about difficulties in Tikrit? Some of the recent attacks were in Baqubah, which we only handed over to the Iraqis just four days ago. Unfortunate timing...except that the police didn't cut and run, didn't walk off the job yet. Maybe they will. But each day they stand firm is a victory for Iraq.

Allawi is calling for elections as early as November. If it can be done, I think that would be a good thing. Much of the possibility for success lies in the ability of the Iraqis to successfully end the insurgency. It must come from within their own communities.

« Hide Comments

The Wrong Kind of Black Student? America's elite colleges have made Herculean efforts to enroll black students, but now some proponents of racial preferences are complaining that they're admitting the wrong blacks, the New York Times reports from Cambridge, Mass.:

While about 8 percent, or about 530, of Harvard's undergraduates were black, Lani Guinier, a Harvard law professor, and Henry Louis Gates Jr., the chairman of Harvard's African and African-American studies department, pointed out that the majority of them--perhaps as many as two-thirds--were West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples.

They said that only about a third of the students were from families in which all four grandparents were born in this country, descendants of slaves. Many argue that it was students like these, disadvantaged by the legacy of Jim Crow laws, segregation and decades of racism, poverty and inferior schools, who were intended as principal beneficiaries of affirmative action in university admissions.

What concerned the two professors, they said, was that in the high-stakes world of admissions to the most selective colleges--and with it, entry into the country's inner circles of power, wealth and influence--African-American students whose families have been in America for generations were being left behind.

If blacks who are immigrants from African and Caribbean countries--lands that aren't exactly "advantaged" themselves--are doing so much better than black Americans whose lineage is pure enough to satisfy Guinier and Gates, doesn't that give the lie to the claim that continuing racism is the reason for black Americans' underachievement?

« Hide Comments

That was so well said, Nathan. Thanks for the links, too.

Even if a child is adopted by a ssm couple, that child still grew in the uterus of a woman from an egg fertilzed by sperm from a man, whether in a fallopian tube or a test tube.

(Are you home yet?)

How in the world did I land it here instead of where it belongs? Hmmm, interesting.

I got it through your comment over on resurrectionsong. Thanks :)

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Hey-hope you make it home safe and sound :)

Hey Nathan, this is Jen from Para-Bellum.NET, don't think I haven't forgotten about your offer for Currahee. If you want to e-mail me, so we can start conversing about ideas it's mementopari@hotmail.com

Gracias.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Exactly this is the top topic over at Baldilocks's place, Nathan. Have a gander. The opinions are interestingly distributed.

« Hide Comments

feel better!

It's all about feelings to you lefties, isn't it? ;-)

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

the Iraqis merely have to take responsibility for their nation.

Like that will happen....

« Hide Comments

Michael Moore a spokeman for my party. I'm depressed....

It's okay, Marty. At least you don't have Bill O'Reilly or Tom DeLay.

Marty-

Just because Terry McAuliffe has something to say about it and Democrats made up the majority of the audience does NOT make him "our" spokesman. No more than Margaert Cho, anyway! :)

And from the horse's mouth (i.e. Moore):

"I have not publicly endorsed John Kerry. I am an independent. I am not a member of the Democratic Party."

Nor any less a spokesman than Margeret Cho, either. Which demonstrates my point.

So if Michael Moore says he's the purest example of unbiased objectivity, we should believe him because...?

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. And the Democrat Party has been sleeping with some of the mangiest mutts for more than a decade.

Jo, Marty, maybe you could just accuse him of being "put up to it" by Karl Rove.

I really don't think Moore's movie is going to help elect Kerry, or hurt Bush in any way, so this line could even be believed by the tinfoil-hat crowd.

You guys get free of Mikey's malodorous embrace, and us righties get to watch the moonbats eat their own. Everybody wins.

Whaddaya say?

"I really don't think Moore's movie is going to help elect Kerry, or hurt Bush in any way"

of course it isn't. I highly doubt a significant percentage of people who see the film will have their minds changed.

There's bonafide nutters on both sides of the political spectrum, I think we can both agree. That doesn't mean we necessarily align with them.

Go here for a complete library of the person I choose to be my official spokesman for the Democratic Party.

And actually, I don't have a problem with O'Reilly or Delay.

I think Delay is an excellent politician. I like that he knows how to use the power he has accumulated. I disagree with him on what he does with the power, but he is good at what he does.

And O'Reilly is an entertainer. I prefer him to Limbaugh or Coulter (although Ann is way easier on the eyes - in my opinion, anyway.)

Even Hannity is OK. While opinionated and firm in their beliefs, O'Reilly and Hannity at least try to be fair. Well, sometimes...

As a lifelong democrat, I am sad to see the influence of Michael Moore on the democratic party elite. He seems to be leading them by the short ones.

My party is losing its relevancy and its integrity at an exponential rate. Only inertia is keeping me in.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

My treatment for this week's bout of insomnia has been cucumber. I garnish it with ice, ginger ale, and some of that nice syrup Mr. Pimm puts up (this is known as "proper seasonal accompaniment" in my adopted home). Works like a charm.

I've been following your method with interest, but those counting things have never worked for me. I just end up going ...15...14...Why do people have to be such idiots at staff meetings? Is it that hard to follow the agenda?...oh yeah, tryin' to sleep...uhhhh...14?...13.... Glad it works for you, though.

I have had the same results as Shawn, incidentally. So, instead I switched to Handels Sonata #5, movement 3, over and over in my head visualizing the notes until I am so bored I zonk out.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I was going to hold off, but dang it, I'm gonna go ahead and blogroll that thing. "Priceless" indeed.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

You must obtain a college degree, and you will be best prepared in life if you continue to pursue higher degrees. You will have to sacrifice to do this. But right now we are most concerned with your intial Bachelor's Degree.

But unless you are skilled enough in sports to have a realistic chance at a professional career (and thus are risking eroding your skills through disuse if you don't go to college immediately), there is no reason you actually need to attend college right after graduating high school.

Perhaps the best method for preparing yourself for your adult life would be to enlist in the military. At one time, the minimum enlistment was two years, but now I think you have to do four years. While that may seem like a long time, it really isn't. It will allow you to learn skills and discipline that you can use throughout your entire life, to earn some great benefits for college, and allow you to buy a decent car, nice clothes, good computer, etc, before you enter college, so you won't live like a pauper for five years. In addition, your training will probably give you college credits, and while you are in the military, the military will pay for you to attend classes in your time off or take tests for college credit (AP, CLEP, and Dantes).

If you would prefer not to spend that many years in the military, you can also sign up for the reserves. You will spend approximately a year between basic training and advanced (skill/job) training, but the commitment is far lighter for the next few years. Many state National Guard units will also pay for much of your college, as well.

If you sign up for the Montgomery GI Bill when you enlist, you will pay $100 each month for the first year, but then when you attend college, the government will pay you approximately $600/month if you attend college part time and nearly $1000/month if you attend full time (which is 12 hours, minimum). Unfortunately, you can't get any of it in advance to pay for your school, it is best used for living expenses like rent and food.

Some states offer extra benefits if you enlist in that state and then attend a state school. In particular, the best are Texas and Illinois, which will allow you to attend any state school for free if you enlist there.

However, in many ways it is better to be an officer than enlisted. More responsibility is demanded of you, but you also are paid better...much better, and there are other benefits, as well. If you have decent grades in high school, you can apply for an ROTC scholarship. In addition to paying for your school, they give you a small stipend each month. When you graduate, you are guaranteed a good job that will give you "management"/supervisory experience that is invaluable in most career fields, and you'll get that experience much earlier than you could in the civilian world. It is demanding, but most people feel it is worth the sacrifices.

But it is true that not everyone wants to join the military. Even among those who want to, not everyone can join the military, for physical reasons. Not everyone has the mental strength to make it through basic training or deal with the loss of some rights that others take for granted. And do not fool yourself: you may be forced to fight, or to deploy away from your family to support the fighters. You may end up risking your life or being killed. If you cannot endure that possibility, do not enlist.

However, don't forget the Coast Guard. You won't get sent to war, you will certainly be assigned to somewhere near water, with a darn good chance to be placed at some of the most beautiful beaches in the nation...and you still get all the benefits of military service.

If the military isn't for you, you must plan ahead in high school, and ensure that you work hard in academic, sports, and artistic endeavors. If you can get a full scholarship (tuition, fees, room, board, and books) on the basis of any skill, by all means, go ahead.

However, if you did not perform well in high school, or simply were unable to obtain a full scholarship, there is still no reason to go heavily in debt, put your parents heavily in debt, or starve yourself to be able to afford college.

The most important part of college is the knowledge you gain. The name of the college is important...to an extent. However, any prospective employers only care about your last level of achievement. They don't care about what you did in High School if you are applying for jobs that require a college degree. Likewise, they don't care where you completed your freshman and sophomore classes. So go to a junior college. The cost is a fraction of what a major university charges, and the information is the same, thanks to accreditation standards. Heck, at most major universities, your first two years are spent in huge classes with Teaching Assistants standing in for the assigned professor; you'll get more personal attention at a junior college. Junior College also gives you a second chance to excel if your high school grades or ACT/SAT score weren't excellent...a 3.8 or 4.0 at your junior college is within the grasp of most people who apply themselves, and such a performance can also net you full-ride academic scholarships at a major university.

Finally, if paying for even the last 2-3 upper-class years of college are still problematic, you might consider trying to find a decent job with your Associate's Degree from junior college, and attending college on nights and weekends. You would probably be unable to obtain a specialized degree like music or physics or microbiology, but general degrees like business, english, history, teaching, are quite easy to obtain that way.

This won't solve everyone's problems. Not everyone will be able to attend college. Not everyone can afford college. But this is at least another way to look at making college as affordable as possible.

Parents: One idea I saw in Wealth Without Risk, by Charles J. Givens, that I really liked was:
If you can afford the down payment (and perhaps some part of the monthly payments), purchase a multi-room house near the college your child will attend. Even better if you can convince allwill have to deal with problems, but even such experiences will help prepare them more for life. In addition to the tax break of depreciation, interest payments for the house, and whatnot, you are allowed two tax-free visits per year to inspect your property; if it is some distance from your home, that could be a substantial savings if you already itemize your deductions. Since most college requires five years these days, even if only one child stays there, you should be able to sell it five years later at a profit, with the renters having given you the funds to make the payments for five years.

I hope that is clear enough to make you consider it. If not, Mr. Givens explains it better than I do, so see if you can find the book.

« Hide Comments

That sounds like a pretty effective bit of self-hypnosis, Nathan.

Well, I guess in the interest of honesty, I should admit I got the idea from Heinlein in my favorite book, Tunnel in the Sky.

« Hide Comments

Chapaqua, while quite swampy at times doesn't have any "bodies of water" near it that would be considered really dangerous. Unless you're thinking about attacks by rabid Canadian Geese...

« Hide Comments

I bet he calls out his own name while having sex.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Thank ye, thank ye kindly.

I think it is relevant to point out that I reached my economic understanding on my own, from paying attention as I existed in the economy.

My parents were Marxists, but it never occurred to them to actively instill it in me. Instead I read Dale Carnagie, Buckminster Fuller, and Robert Heinlein. Once I got out into the world, and saw where my income came from, and where car wash brushes and aftershave and hash pipes came from, and how tableclothes changed value as they changed hands, things began to fall into place.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*yes, nothing is perfect. Amendments help, but I think we could use another Constitution Convention at some point...but not while things are so polarized and evenly divided.

**funny, but no one seemed to have a problem with the Reverands Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton running for President...

***a general term, I know. I want to prevent Congresscritters, Cabinet Members, Department Heads and Deputies, Party Chairmen, and high-level staff members, as well as Presidents, from taking their views and agendas into jobs in the news media.

Registration

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Thanks for the link.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

This reminds me of another "foible" of the Gravitational Theory.

"How 'fast' is Gravity?"

There is a current theory that Gravity travels at the speed of light, meaning that an object will not exert a gravitational force on you, until you can see it. (Make sense?)

Personally, I think gravity is faster then light, but like *I'm* going to prove that anytime soon...

Thing is, Jeremy, in order for the answer to the question to matter to physicists, there would have to be a theoretical situation in which a gravity well could potentially be made to travel faster than light, so that an otherwise inexplicable lag time could be detected, or not as the case may be.

Matter, of course, isn't the same as information, which is organized energy, so physicists aren't likely to revise their whole notion of the universe based on this one finding.

But if this means one day we'll finally be able to tune in to Galactic Federation News and find out where to send our membership application, that sounds plenty cool to me.

Well, Kevin, they already had to revise their whole theory of the universe to even consider this experiment necessary.
Sure, information isn't matter, but according to old-style science, even information shouldn't be able to travel faster than light.
From what I understand, this doesn't make teleportation any more likely, because it is more observational than causal.

<tangent>

Have you by any chance read the books by Ian Douglas: Semper Mars, Luna Marine, and Europa Strike?

This "quantum teleportation" is a factor in one part of the alien technology discovered as the trilogy unfolds.

I'm hoping it turns out not to be a trilogy...

Oops. I keep forgetting to close tags.

</tangent>

Never heard of it, actually. I'll go check it out.

Ah, yes, quantum entanglement moves to the forefront! Can the ansible be all that far behind? If it can be made to work reliably, think of the implications for space exploration. No 'speed-of-light' time delay between Earth and robot probes, making real-time tele-operation and tele-presence a reality.

« Hide Comments

So,,, how do you feel our mulitple-amputee former elected official has been unpatriotic? Just curious.

And we've discussed my feelings on Lindauer already, so no sense in rehashing that.

That's just it: I don't think he is. I have not seen a single statement by any prominent or even semi-prominent Republican who said he is unpatriotic. They criticized his voting record, and response was "How dare you question his patriotism!?!?!"
Now, if you can provide an article or statement by a Republican that does call him unpatriotic, I'll apologize.
However, I've seen Kerry do the exact same thing:
Someone will say something like, "Sen. Kerry voted against the F-15, the B-1, and the M-1, weapons systems that were important in the Cold War mutual deterrence with the USSR and integral to our success in the Gulf War." and John Kerry will respond with "How dare they question my patriotism! I served in Viet Nam!" Yes, and protested against it and criticized his commanders and accused everyone of war crimes while still on active duty, then denied it later. That's not questioning his patriotism, that questioning his integrity. Big difference.

And Jo, you're not helping matters by going to "questioning his patriotism" as the default interpretation of any criticism whatsoever.

Just sayin', is all.

Not so fast, Kevin...Nathan used the word in his post first, hence my response. ;)

But you are so quick to jump, aren't ya? It's nice to see that despite the move to a new site, some things here stay the same. :)

Jo, he was talking about Lindauer, not Cleland.

Still so quick to squirm and redefine... ;-)

Heck, I didn't even mention a triple amputee elected official anywhere in this post, and you still asked "How" did I consider him unpatriotic? You had already assumed I did. You were already accusing me of that smear.

That's exactly the point I'm making with this post.

« Hide Comments

Fact: Ronald Reagan made the United States safer by ending the Cold War
Fact: Ronald Reagan ended inflation and pulled us out of a depression by cutting taxes and eliminating loopholes.
Fact: Clinton inherited an economy already improving because of George Bush I's policies.
Fact: Clinton also benefited from the internet boom that captured immense amounts of capital speculation, driving a bubble economy that actually burst right before the elction.
Fact: George W Bush inherited a recession
Fact: 9/11 made the recession worse
Fact: Clinton did not make fighting terrorism a priority.
Fact: Nearly 30 million people in Iraq have been freed from tyranny, and one of the top contributers and enablers of international terrorism has been eliminated as a problem. All at a comparitively minor cost, by people who believe in it.

All these things add up. Republican policies work for making the nation safer and more prosperous. More people are working under President Bush than ever before in our history. The boom is one of the best in modern history, but seems in no danger of creating a bubble. And yet, liberals still distort, misrepresent, and ignore evidence that President Bush told the truth in every assertion about Afghanistan, the War on Terror, Saddam Hussein/Iraq, and the economy. In fact, few (if any) of the Democrat/liberal predictions of disaster have come true.
-We didn't encounter a quagmire in Afghanistan like they predicted, we won pretty easily. It ain't over there yet, but it's going well.
-We didn't encounter a quagmire in Iraq. It's been tough for the last 10 months, yes, but things are already starting to improve. You won't see it in the news until it becomes unmistakeable, and we may have another 18 months before the success there is complete, and another 6-12 months before that stability is obvious and widespread...but the situation is improving rapidly in a million little ways.
-We have found WMD in Iraq, and we have found evidence of a turnkey WMD program.
-We have found incontrovertible evidence that Saddam was the greatest violator of human rights in recent history. Only Communist nations have a worse record...oh, yeah, they were supported by liberals, too.

Despite the obvious triumph of Republican policy, millions of Liberals will refuse to vote for Bush. That is their right. It is my right to castigate them for it.

For decades now, Liberals have looked at the unprecented wealth, freedom, and development of the United States, all created by Republican ideals (although sometimes enacted by Democrats like JFK) of free market and free choice, and said, "Thanks, we'll take it from here. It's time to remove the freedom so we can take the wealth and solve all social problems."
Lyndon Johnson said we could conquer poverty within a decade. Guess what? Jesus was smarter than Lyndon Johnson, because the poor are still with us, indeed. In fact, while the evidence is not definitive, welfare creates institutional poverty, removing the incentive for self-improvement or effort, underwriting single-parenthood and contributing to the decline of the family. Much of the liberal platform has been focused on separating an action from its consequence, in the name of "freedom". In their mouths, though, it is merely another hijacked word, and they use it to mean "license". True freedom means the freedom to be responsible for your decisions, and Liberals deny humans that basic right. The mistakes and blunders and evils of liberalism are plain to everyone but liberals, so there's no point in listing them all; conservatives already know and liberals would never admit a single one, anyway.

But Liberals have done some good things, too. They hastened the integration of minorities fully into society and largely ended discrimination. They have championed the weak. They have exposed and largely eliminated the damned-if-you-do/don't double bind of past policies on rape and sexual harassment. They have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that not everyone can be rich with only hard work, that there are disparities of ability.
Unfortunately, with each good had come some bad. While they have largely ended discrimination, it lives on only in liberal policies. They have championed the weak to the point that they try to keep people weak to retain political power. They have so demonized male sexuality in the face of women's sensitivities that unconfirmed innuendo or misunderstanding can result in a male carrying a felony conviction for the rest of his life. They've demonstrated that if one is willing to lie, they can be rich by defrauding the welfare system.
In general, they care about "populations" so much they have forgotten about people.

And so I say to Liberals: "Thanks. We'll take it from here." We don't need a political party totally devoted to a proven failed ideology anymore. We can find a way to protect the weak without eliminating the strong. We can find a way to protect the weak while preserving opportunity. We can protect the weak without forcing them to stay weak to keep voting for us. We can end the entitlement pandering that is so typical of Democrat platforms. We don't need your institutionalized poverty, we don't need your quotas for hiring and scholarships. We can guarantee equality of opportunity for everyone, but right now, Liberals are the biggest obstacle to that.

It probably won't be Republicans that do these things, either... but it will be an outgrowth of classic Republican policy.

I'm upset that the left has been hypocritical and petty over the last four years.

Four years?

Dang whippersnapper.

Kevin, I'm not saying they haven't been hypocritical for longer than that, I'm just saying I wasn't really upset about it until the 2000 presidential campaign.
Before then, I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, because the Republican Party wasn't much better for most of the 90s...

Ah. Well, FWIW, I had given up on them by 2000 so the "upset" part just went right by me. ;-)

Very nice.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*in the same snarky manner as Swift, if you must know.

Perhaps we should use a weighted voting system when it comes to appropriations. Take your gross tax value as the weight. If you pay a lot, your vote counts more.
The current tax system with it's hyper progressivity makes the governments best mechanism for generating more revenue the process of making the rich richer, since more of the rich's income is taxable. The poor don't pay, so making them richer produces little to no tax revenue.
What a country.

Ooh! Nice. I never really considered that aspect, but I like it!
Sort of. I don't like the idea of George Soros and Ted Turner's votes counting more than mine...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

(Note: this is based on training I've received, articles I've read, and even some personal experiences and experimentation, all over the last twenty years, so I'm not going to bother providing links. You'll have to take me at my word or do the research yourself to debunk it. Your choice.)

1) You must be absolutely committed. You must not lie to yourself. You must not cheat on the diet. You must commit to probably 18 months of diet and activity changes. Even after the weight is lost, you will most likely never be able to return to the eating and activity habits you have now. If you are overweight, you got here for a reason, and you must change your lifestyle to make a permanent change in your weight and body composition. You must eventually convince yourself that food is, above all, merely fuel for the body, and enjoyment/satisfaction is a side benefit, not a goal.

2) Choose a diet plan. The main choices are: Low-fat, Low-carb, or Low-Calorie. Low-fat and Low-Calorie have been pretty much proven to be counterproductive to weight loss, since merely reducing calories puts your body into starvation mode, and low-fat usually results in high-carb eating, as well as denying you taste and eating satisfaction.
Atkins-style low-carbohydrates diets work for many people, because it minimizes the easiest fuel for body to use, thus making your body use more energy to extract what it needs. Morever, low-carb/high-protein/high-fat diets allow people to eat much of what they want, making it easier to stay on the diet. However, some critics who maintain that high-fat/high-protein can also damage your body's systems. Thus, my recommendation is:
2a) Plan on a low-carbohydrate diet, but pair that with moderate-protein and -fat amounts. Emphasize fresh vegetables and smaller portions overall in your diet. Eat lots of "good" salads, meaning, use dark-leaf lettuces with plenty of toppings, like onions, tomatoes, carrots, peas, sunflower kernels, bacon bits, egg, mushrooms, and don't skimp on the dressing. Eat more lean beef and chicken breast. To the greatest extent possible, eliminate sugar and flour. Eat lots of fiber-rich foods like walnuts and popcorn. Avoid processed food whenever possible. Keep track of carbohydrate grams and never go above 30 grams per day.

3) Before you even start dieting, spend one week gathering information on your habits and attitudes toward food. Carry a notepad and writing instrument with you everywhere, and write down everything you eat. Everything. Even if it's just taking a sip of your spouse's beer or snatching a french fry from your friend. It all counts. Write down when you feel hungry, and see if you can tell what triggers the thought. Start noting the difference between "hunger" and "wanting to eat". Write down your food urges, particularly in relation to specific emotional or situational cues. For example, do you want to end the meal with a dessert? Start the day with a donut? Celebrate the end of a big project at work? Do you want to celebrate all sorts of things by eating out? Write down how often you eat out, where, and what you eat. Buy a pedometer and start tracking how many miles/steps you walk in one day (steps is better, I'll explain why soon). Consider buying a small postal scale to weigh portion sizes (not absolutely necessary, but possibly helpful). Note your favorite foods, and spend extra time at the grocery store looking at more healthy options. Most grocery stores have low-carb alternatives. (I found a whole-wheat bread that has only 5 grams of carbs per slice, and doesn't taste like paper paste! I now have 2 slices for breakfast.) Check the carbs on everything, and be wary of the unexpected obstacles: you may find low-carb pasta, but most spaghetti sauces have lots of sugar! Start planning menus, and stock your larder enough that you have 2-3 choices of what to make each meal to match your mood.

4) Decide on a weight-loss goal. Determine your current weight by weighing yourself at the same time each day during your observation week. There will be some variation, because your body's weight can vary as much as five pounds during the day, depending on when/how much you eat or eliminate wastes... (I'm convinced that ignorance of that variation has discouraged more dieters...) Get a calender and write your current weight. Write down a target weight at one-week intervals, subtracting two pounds for each week. Note: you may lose faster than that; if so, you can always adjust your targets. Continue until have recorded your final weight goal, i.e., if you want to lose 50 pounds, you should have written a weight goal for 25 weeks.

5) Acquire a wide selection of spices. Specifically, use cinnamon and/or unsweetened cocoa powder when you crave chocolate/sweets; use parmesan cheese, garlic powder, basil, and/or oregano when you crave something zesty; use chile powder, tabasco sauce, or black pepper when you want something spicy; experiment with cumin (cumano) and nutmeg, because I have no idea how to classify those. Try out spice blends, as well.

6) Start the diet. Continue recording everything you eat and your urges/yearnings. When you have an urge to cheat, make yourself wait four hours. If you still have the urge after four hours, take one bite and give the rest to someone else.

7) Since you determined your average daily step count with the pedometer, try to increase your step count by 100 each day. Make it a game to see all the ways you can increase your step count, i.e., parking farther away from the entrance when you go out, taking the stairs instead of the elevator, even if for only one floor. The point isn't to wear yourself out with exercising for only an hour and then collapse on the coach, but to increase your overall activity throughout the whole day. Take up a more active hobby, even if just working in the garden. Stand up while talking on the phone or watching TV. Better yet, stop watching TV. Take your kids outside to play catch, or play catch with the neighbors kids.

8) Starting anywhere between week 1-3, begin lifting weights. Muscle burns a great deal of energy, so increasing your muscle mass will increase long-term weight loss. Moreover, building muscle will make you feel stronger and being stronger will mean you use less energy for the same task, making you feel more energetic. Finally, anaerobic elevates your metabolism for longer periods than aerobic (sweaty, out-of-breath exercise) exercise...although that will come later. "Lifting weights" doesn't mean going to the gym to do bench-presses, rather, it can be as simple as standing 2-3 feet from a counter and doing "push-ups" at a 60-degree angle. Gradually increase the angle as you get stronger. Do leg-lifts, even if you can only do a few at the start. A set of dumbbells that allows you to add weight is also good, particularly if you can find a Joyce Vedral 20-minute Workout book (check your library or local bookstore...). Her system of weight-loss includes low-fat dieting, so I don't recommend her total program, but the overall plan to use light-weight dumbbells to increase strength over the entire body is nothing short of excellent. There are many choices, the specifics are up to you.

9) At some point, join a Yoga or Tai Chi class. Either one will increase your overall strength, flexibility, sense of well-being, and positively impact your health. The better you feel about yourself, the easier it will be to stick to your new health (diet/exercise) plan. And, of course, it will raise your activity level that much more...

10) At some point, you must begin aerobic exercise. I say "at some point", because obesity can make aerobic exercise extremely difficult and unpleasant. Obviously, extreme exercise will probably never be easy and pleasant, but the point is to set you up for success, not failure. Do not go out and buy an exercise machine. 80% of exercise machines (or something extreme like that) end up gathering dust within a few months. Standing in one place to exercise eliminates many of the necessary positive experiences necessary to encourage exercise. When you feel you are ready to start exercising, begin with power-walking at the mall, or walking around your neighborhood in nice weather. Pull a wagon with your young children, or with neighbor children if you don't have any of your own. Go bicycling at a slow to moderate pace. Swim laps. The point is not to raise a sweat at first, but to enjoy yourself while trying to establish a regular exercise program. Once you establish the habit, then you should switch to trying to raise a sweat. The other aspect to "at some point" is that if you are losing weight at a 2 pounds/week rate merely by altering your diet choices and trying to be more active, then there is no need to "torture" yourself with an exercise regimen until/unless you find yourself hitting a plateau...

11) If you do find yourself hitting a plateau, i.e., not maintaining a 2 pounds/week rate, the first thing to do is check to see if you are lying to yourself about cheating on the diet. The human mind is amazingly flexible in getting what the subconscious wants despite the active will of the conscious mind. Your subconscious will try to get you to quit. You will become discouraged. You will want to cheat. If you want to cheat, you may take a day off no more often than once a month. On that day, you can eat anything you want. Go to an all-you-can-eat buffet, eat ice cream and french fries. And when you are done, pull out your calender and change all your weight goals, moving them back by a full week. Yes, one day of unbridled eating can destroy a whole week of effort. Lesser cheating will have a lesser effect, of course, but any cheating will sabotage and undermine your efforts. If you think that the milkshake or french fries or baked potato won't hurt "just this once", then you have already lost. You need to consider those food choices gone forever. (they may not be, but that must be your attitude during weight-loss programs. If you concentrate on what you are missing, you will probably not succeed. More on that next)

12) When you reach your weight goal, you can relax one aspect. That is, you can eat more carbohydrates (50 grams/day), or you can stop aerobic exercise, or you can stop lifting weights, or you can stop elevating your general activity and start sitting down more. Watch yourself closely for six months, weighing yourself every day and preventing cheating. If, after six months, you still maintain your weight, you can eliminate another aspect, if you wish. If you start gaining any weight at any point, you should immediately go back on the full program for a full month to get yourself slightly below your target...that will provide some cushion for the next weight creep, but the cushion is unnecessary if you maintain weight without a hitch. If you make it through 12 full months without any single weight gain of more than 3 pounds or total weight gain of more than 5 pounds, you can start playing with the entire exercise/diet/weight-lifting program. This is the point at which you might be able to allow yourself an indulgence. This is the point where you can relax your self-observation to how well your chlothes fit or weighing yourself only 1-2 times a month. At this point, your whole approach to eating and activity should have changed, and your new habits should be entrenched. But, as always, if you relax too much and start gaining weight, you should immediately start the whole process over from the beginning, starting with self-observation and even redoing the 12-month maintenance observation after regaining your target weight.

If anyone can follow this plan faithfully (i.e., not go about it half-cocked to try and prove me wrong) and not lose weight, I'd like to hear about it.

Heck, you'll probably lose weight far more quickly than a mere two pounds per week. But expectations are a big part of the game, too. Exceeding them is always more reinforcing that merely meeting, much less falling short.

UPDATE:
The three most important components to weight loss are:
-Diet modification
-General activity increase (not just a 1-hour workout)
-Persistence

Nate,

What you've basically described is The South Beach Diet which was created by Arthur Agatston, M.D. and recently popularized by a number of "celebrity" endorsers, including your old buddy, Bill Clinton. It's a controlled carb diet that focuses on eating the "right" carbs, as well as the best proteins and fats.

In general, I agree with you though -- low carb dieting, in combination with a reasonable level of physical activity and an overall change of attitiude, works. I've been on my diet since early january of '04, and I'm now down a bit more than 50 pounds since the last time you saw me...all without feeling like I've given up too many of the things I most enjoy. Best of all, once your blood sugar levels have stablized on a low-carb diet (usually 2-3 weeks for most people), you rarely suffer the intense hunger pangs. I now wait longer between meals, and fill up much faster during them. I've dropped two pants sizes, and can wear clothes that haven't fit since college. And I still occasionally "cheat" on the diet; I'm just much more aware of it these days.

As a suggestion for a good bread substitute, Mission makes a low-carb whole wheat tortilla (4 net carbs per tortilla) that tastes exactly like the "real thing" to both Kim and I. Frequently these days, I'll make wraps or taco-style sandwiches instead of traditional ones, and I never really miss the bread. Mission also make a large "burrito sized" version of this tortilla with only 9 grams of carbs; you can really load that one up with goodies.

I remember that phone conversation...but I do think that the "South Beach" part is pretty much only steps 2 and 2a...please correct me if I'm wrong.

One thing I forgot to add. There are Three vital components to weight loss:
-Diet modification
-Activity increase
-Persistence

Too many people forget the last one.
The fact that I haven't lost any additional weight since that phone conversation is because I've dropped the 3rd component more or less deliberately (this deployment makes choosing my own menu difficult)...
...at least I'm not gaining, however.

Your diet is more specific on an exercise regimen and self-monitoring, but TSBD also touches on all of those things...particularly in depth for your steps 4-6, 10 and 11.

Losing more weight isn't always the most important thing, and with all my travel I can certainly understand the challenges of sticking to any diet while being unable to plan your own menu; just maintaining can be a war in itself, and if you're succeeding there, bully for you!

It's also vital to remember that regardless of the nature of your diet, in the end, calories in must equal calories out. Low-carb isn't a license to steal. That's where the whole "attitude change about food" really comes into it.

« Hide Comments

"...a Swatched tot never spoils."

Watch this reader recoil.

*groan*

« Hide Comments

I'm not really geeked up about the fact that they're gonna cost app. $30 more than what is currently used, and yet, are made in Mexico.

You're so cute when you're being protectionist. [grin]

I'm betting that in the end, the contract will go to an American firm, and the cost is merely the result of making a better product that will help save lives.

But your concerns are valid, and a letter-writing campaign to your congresscritters wouldn't be a bad idea.

I think it looks a little sloppy. Of course, that's probably the last thing a soldier cares about when he's soaked in mud or buried in sand.

After thinking about it a little more, you're trying to have it both ways, Jo:
You say it is too expensive, and are upset the uniform was made by an outfit (pun intended) in Mexico to lower costs.
And if they would end up cancelling the uniform, you'd probably complain that they weren't willing to spend money on a uniform that will actually help save lives.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

(calls dad)

(y'all are still driving the farm trucks, right? No Beemers? He validates, "we don't buy German cars, what are ya, nuts?")

(looks at checkbook. $67 of last week's paycheck remains, $200 of "minumum payments" on doctor bills due today)

If the left is how you describe, maybe I need to defect to their specific enclave. 'cuz right now, I think I am feeling a decidedly less paletteable version of poverty.

Aside from snark:
Go live in the poorer sections of China, French Guyana, Myanmar, Mexico. Then we can talk poverty.
Remember what the Jews went through in WWII, go tour the mass graves and children's prisons of Iraq, listen to first-hand stories of Mao's China. Then we can talk tyranny.

It just ain't happening in the US. No amount of distortion to win votes can make it true.

I've never said I feel tyranny happens in the US. That said, I would like to think most liberals AND conservatives are globally aware enough to realize what tyranny is. As for poverty, I think there is true poverty in the US, though not widespread. You don't have to go very far south, IMO, to encounter it...Oaxaca comes to mind. Not sure why we have such chummy relations with Mexico when the government turns a blind eye to the destitution, poverty, and deplorable environment.

Yeah, Nathan, I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this, either. Conservatives may have the good sense to give the Indigo Girls a wide berth, but are they more likely to have first-hand experience with life among the poor in French Guyana? I think you could make the point that leftists are more likely than others to affect *solidarity* with the poor and downtrodden, and that that tendency is especially galling in people with trust funds. In my experience, though, leftists are not any more likely to come from rich families.

Do I have to be going anywhere with it?

It seemed Jo was saying she is a liberal and never experienced that sort of wealth. She seemed to be splitting hairs on specifics. So aside from my snark and hers, I'm proposing a new direction for America: using our wealth and freedom and clout to help bring about economic and political freedom across the globe. Just handing out money never works, but we'll have to spend large sums to help create circumstances that allow people to enjoy freedom and create wealth, just like we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be a few years before we can help the next region, but I think we should be considering it now.
But the first argument against that is that we should take care of Americans first. My belief is that Americans already have all we need, and the government entitlements championed by the left are unnecessary and counterproductive. The relative "poverty" in the US still represents more wealth than 100s of millions will ever experience. And no one in the US is far from wealth, with reasonable choice and reasonable effort. That's not true of many places, where there is virtually no chance to improve your lot in life.

But Rule #1 is: you don't have to agree. You don't even have to think I have an interesting point.

I'm the last person opposed to spreading the wealth amongst needy nations, but I am most definitely (and to the chagrin of friends in BOTH parties sometimes) an "America First-er".

One area I see a lot of poverty is within the subset of folks afflicted with untreated mental illness, who do not receive any help from their families. Some studies show that the number of homeless afflicted with mental illness is as high as 30%. Some of these people do not even know about housing/foodstamp options. What they really need is to be treated for their conditions so they might return to normal society.

I hear a lot about building Afghani and Iraqi schools, but as I have lamented to you in the past, Nathan, I volunteer at a school that is actually rejecting new students, the classrooms are so cramped. The nearest school next to it is many miles away and out of reach for most parents. SOME children should not be afforded an opportunity for education, ALL should. Especially if we're gonna get in the business of building schools in other countries.

Also, I invite you down any time to see how the migrant workers live here. What is our responsibility to them? frankly, I don't even know the answer. But 14 year olds and younger are out tending fields in May, well before school lets out. And legally, they can. What about school for these kids? What are the rights of the parent? Does the welfare of the child supercede the desires of the parent? If so, we've got problems on the homefront to deal with first.

"Do I have to be going anywhere with it?"

Well, not really. Since this is your property, you can talk about why vanilla ice cream tastes better with the little seeds in it if you like; but the beginning of your post said, "The mindset of the left is easier to understand if...." Maybe I'm overinterpreting, but that sounds to me like the intro to something you think important, and I just didn't get what you were driving at. (I certainly don't want to nettle you further, but given that you mentioned BMW and espresso instead of just the family car and coffee, it doesn't seem like a leap for Jo to take what you were saying as a caricature of all liberals as spoiled--I took it that way, too.)

Jo,
The left should have been the ones pushing for the liberation of Iraq. That many cite Halliburton (an American company that employs Americans with high-paying jobs overseas, i.e., INsourcing) as a reason to leave a dictator in place, and then with the same breath criticize the Bush administration for not stopping OUTsourcing is just one example of Liberal hypocrisy. There are many others.

Sean,
Ah, yes. I am going somewhere with this. Sort of. A) I'm on the attack against the morally bankrupt hypocrisy of the Left. It's an ongoing thing. B) I am building up to some suggestions on changing the course of the nation, away from the "Winner Takes All" mentality of conservatives/Republicans, but also away from the power-hungry pandering and influence peddling entitlements of the liberals/Democrats. But rather than write a 300-page thesis like Bill Whittle, I'm going to share my vision one post at a time, only a few hundred words each post. Snark will be a part of it, and along the line, I will probably alienate and anger Liberals, libertarians, and Conservatives.

The left isn't a big fan of vanity wars, Nathan.

;)

Actually, snark aside: the left wing I identify with doesn't think military action is the solution to the world's ills. "Liberate" is a wonderful sounding word, but it still causes WAR.

Anyway, before we got off onto that tangent...I would like you to answer the question I have posed previously.

I would like your honest answer on what our obligation to illegal immigrants is.

When there is no agricultural work in the winter, I have seen these people camped out in tents, rummaging through garbage for food (given, this is the worst case of it I have seen and doesn't happen with all of them).

Now, if we are going to talk "global poverty", what is our obligation to people who live here illegally?

The left isn't a big fan of vanity wars

Mm-hmm. Can you construct a sentence using the terms "President Clinton", "Bosnia", and "legacy"? I knew you could.

I didn't aware the illegal immigrant issue was a question for me.

Our responsibility is clear: enforce the law. Quit encouraging illegal immigration with a wink and a smile. Michelle Malkin has a sizable body of work on the issue, and I pretty much agree with her 99%, and can't remember what the remaining 1% of disagreement might be, just that I haven't read every single word she may have written on the subject...
We have an immigration policy. It's there for a reason. Most people have to play by the rules, so we shouldn't let some people slide in for free. Especially since being in an illegal status keeps them from being able to truly improve and/or enrich themselves, rather, it keeps them more or less enslaved. And I don't care if the price of tomatoes or whatever doubles, either.

But my question is this: you say there's no true poverty in the US. I disagree, citing illegal immigrants. But do we as a country have an obligation to them, or the same obligation had they still lived across the border?

I ask not to be argumentative at all...I think this is an area we need to start discussing first when we talk about poverty.

You are getting distracted with shadows.

There will always be a problem you can say "if we just throw more money at it, it will be better." Uh-uh. Johnson's Great Society demonstrated the fallacy of that.

I may not have made it clear what I mean by "true" poverty.
The school programs and scholarships and libraries and GED programs and Community Colleges we have all across this great nation make it possible for any impoverished family to raise themselves up by their bootstraps within 1 generation. That most families don't doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there, but that they are being paid to not even try. Our welfare system offers little to no incentive to return to work. Welfare reform helped quite a bit, but states like New York are already working around the restrictions. In fact, we are paying people to not get married and have more out-of-wedlock births. Again, welfare reform has helped, but it will probably another 15 years before we start seeing the benefits of that reform.
Illegal immigrans are quite possibly the exception to that rule. Being illegal, they cannot take a low-paying job to build a resume and work up to a good job, like anyone else can. They are stuck on the fringes. Being stuck on the fringes, their children, even though citizens, are denied some of the advantages of the children of citizens and legal resident aliens. It can be overcome, but is much harder.
To that extent I agree.
However, the solution remains the same: stop making it easy for them to remain as illegals, which we do for the sake of cheap labor. I don't care if it's Republicans or Democrats who are using that excuse, I think it is wrong. It would make things more difficult for one generation, yes, but as I've said before (many times), I take the long view, and try to avoid the quick easy fixes. I want policies that provide natural incentives to obey the law and do the right thing, not ones that reward those who break the law.
From what I have read, this is exactly what Michelle Malkin says...I learned some of it from her, some of it I merely found that we were in agreement before I read her stuff.

I can't take Malkin' opinions on immigration seriously, due to the fact she gets her panties in a wad to the point that she writes a column over the poor kid at McDonalds who had trouble understanding her order and obviously was a case of ESL.

Lord, I can't believe she gets paid to do that.

At any rate: here's some poverty right here in our country, what to do, what to do. They're already here, they're not gonna go back, their children are citizens. it's a quagmire of its own.

I absolutely disagree. I think you are missing the point, and the Democrat party has demonstrated its inability to deal rationally with the problem in the first place. Your party will wring its hands forever over the problem, when action needs to be taken now to prevent this from occurring in the future. Then we can deal with the ones who are already here: you stop the flood before you start mopping up the floor. The Democrat solution is to extend voting rights to non-citizens in a not-so-subtle attempt to increase their power in a nation that is increasingly skeptical of Democrat "solutions" (i.e. raise taxes to give more entitlements).
In this, I don't agree with President Bush who co-opted the originally Democrat idea of amnesty, because it only encourages more illegals to sneak in for the hopes of another amnesty. That betrays all the people who did follow the rules to get here.

Heck, I think we need to find more incentives to encourage legal resident aliens to pursue their citizenship, because I'm a little tired of people who get all the benefits of living here without committing to this nation by giving up their previous citizenship. With half the citizens not voting, voting rights doesn't seem to be incentive enough...

Well, let's not get into "your party" here, because you know my feelings on immigration, and not only do I dislike the D's answer, but I dislike Bush's answer as well.

And I agree with urging people to strive for citizenship, of course. This may be one of few issues we come close to agreeing on.

Well, if you don't like what either party is proposing in regards to immigration, we are in agreement on that, too.

There has to be a better way, re: immigration. This is the greatest country in the world, being a citizen here is very special. It should be a goal for illegal immigrants, to say the least.

Unfortunately, people who follow the proper channels to move here from other countries face much red tape and adversity, yet there are so many back-door residents who sneak across the border...

I could go on and on.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*"Watched pot is never Doyle's."

« Hide Comments

Well, Nathan, I am curious, do you dump the guy for cheating on you while you are dating or after you are married? I would be willing to forgive and work through one time, but don't think my heart could take repetitive occurences.

And, if I were wealthy, I would pretend not to be so that I could pleasantly surprise the one truly in love with me (feighn modest income is the ebst way to gather a person who truly loves you and not your money laden wallet).

Well, if the guideline that the punishment for infidelity is that the relationship is over, you can always decide to be more lenient if the circumstance warrants it.

Hmm...maybe I should another caveat to that:
1b) Make sure that kicking him out will be a punishment and not a relief! [grin]

Two other points I'd like to add to the above in response to Rae.

First, the point is to teach men from the very start, so it becomes a part of life in the same way that "you don't hit girls" is. The only way these guidelines would really make any difference in society/life is if everyone would follow them. Otherwise, you are just trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.

Second, even if you decide it's a good guideline for your relationship, I do think how you discover the infidelity is a huge part of it. If you discover the infidelity, there will tears, apologies, vows, right? Don't forget, if you hadn't caught him, he wouldn't have stopped, at least not at that point. But if he comes to you and says, "I've been unfaithful, I will take any punishment you choose, it will never happen again, and I recognize that I must avoid even the appearance of impropriety from here on out because I've at least temporarily lost your trust," that's quite a bit different, isn't it?

I got one for both sides:
Don't start something you can't finish.
No, this isn't spam for sexual dysfunction, but if you are not going to do the right thing, and stay with this person the rest of your life, then why are you starting?

Of course, I'm a jaded, terminally-single geek in the desert...

« Hide Comments

Libertarians say that the government that governs least, governs best. I absolutely disagree, because there certainly is a point at which government no longer governs enough...and since that point will be subjective, libertarianism will always flirt with anarchy. I cannot support this.

What is government, then?

A new definition occurred to me tonight. In the absence of government, the strong exploit the weak. Government helps extend strength to the weak, helps to protect the weak. Government should speak for those who have no voice.

Government is a gathering of power. It gathers this power from the strength of individuals. Unfortunately, if the power gathers too compactly in a single individual or small group, then the government has betrayed its purpose, because the strong will once again exploit the weak. There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship, because power does corrupt.

Liberals see Big Business as being too strong, as exploiting the weak. They have a point. Monopolies and unfair business practices do exploit our desire for material comfort and wealth, often to our detriment. Liberals also seem to fear a strong America, and again, for good reason: we have exploited smaller nations, and conquered peoples for selfish reasons.

Obviously, despite a generally benevolent system of government, the strong still exploit the weak. Some people still have no one to speak for them. Our nation is large and diverse, and the needs of an individual sometimes get lost in the hubbub of the nearly 300 million voices.

Again, to be fair, the conservative side looks at this and shrugs. Most successful people do so because of strength, and they expect that anyone with strength of will and strength of character and strength of will can duplicate their success. The right/conservative population is not exclusive, as the left would insist; in fact, conservatives will accept anyone, of any race, religion, color, creed, religion. Conservatives are far more inclusive than liberals...but we do exclude those who do not exercise their strength on their own behalf. Like a mother bird nudging the chicks from the nest, we demand that you fly, or be disowned. It is heartless, to a point, but it is also far less heartless than preventing the chick from trying to fly to spare it possible harm.

And so, the liberal answer to preventing the strong from exploiting the weak seems to be making everyone weak. Tax the rich back into the middle class. Establish systematic descrimination on the basis of racism to prevent anyone from being rewarded merely for excellence, and the very real result is you prevent excellence from being reached. Disarm the populace, so that no one can stand up to the government. Make the government itself the tool for making everyone weak. Make the nation weak among all the nations, so that we cannot act on our own and accidentally exploit a weaker nation. Furthermore, work to make all other nations weak, so that we all must huddle together for mutual defense against those few that refuse to be weakened. Drag everyone down. Lower standards. Erase morality. Condemn any religion that urges self-development. Water down any religion that cannot be condemned by discarding clear teachings of morality (pro-choice, pro-SSM Catholics are truly schizophrenic). Discourage self-reliance and personal responsibility, because they help strengthen character and resolve.

I'm sure most of it is subconscious, actually. The words used to support liberal platforms sound good: no child should ever go hungry. No one should ever die because they couldn't afford the drugs. The problem is that the broad and institutional attempts to rectify individual problems invariably result in fraud, corruption, sloth, greed, and further exploitation. It doesn't protect the weak, it just reclassifies them.

I guess I am wandering right now. I can see the limitations of the conservative view, I detest the inherent problems of liberalism and socialism, and shake my head in disbelief that anyone can seriously espouse libertarianism.

My solution would be to restructure the government. We need a few more checks and balances to prevent the judicial activism we've seen over the last few years. But most of all we need to look again at our whole system of government in view of some of the problems we have. We need a governmental system whose main objective is to prevent the strong exploiting the weak. Surely that can be done. Surely there is another Thomas Paine among us who can convince everyone to look the same direction. Surely there are more George Washingtons, Thomas Jeffersons, John and Samual Adams, Madisons, Monroes...

We need to find them and urge them to work on a new Constitution. We need to revitalize our government, and renew our commitment to protecting the weak. And I don't just mean the weak within the United States. Our unprecedented wealth, strength, technology, drive, and freedom must be applied to protecting the weak across the entire globe. Not all at once, of course; and the highest priority should be Americans, perhaps. But we must do it. We are not truly free if someone is under the thumb of tyranny. We are not truly wealthy if someone is living in institutional poverty (note the most important word of that phrase: institutional).

For now, though, the best thing we can do is remain strong. Own weapons. Improve yourself. Hold yourself to high moral standards. Teach your children to do the same, and also to not judge those who do not. Be an example.

Be strong.

Well said, Nate...particularly the last four or five paragraphs.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Some good points, Nathan; and a strong, impassioned take on the current situation. You had me nodding along with you until:

"Yes, more justified than even WWII."

That one got a tongue cluck, followed by a sardonic "Puh-leeze!" I don't question the validity of the war; I don't question any of your other statements regarding it. But I think maybe the beginnings of evidentiary validation for your other strongly-held beliefs have you a bit giddy.

Then again, I believe you're too intelligent to have made such a statement without having considered your stance carefully and without recognizing that there would be quite a few "puh-leeze" -ers out there, even amongst conservatives. In fact, you might even be throwing out hooks for just such a reaction...

So good then -- you've successfully "begged the question," and I'm the first fish to bite. I look forward to reading your response in a future post.

Be safe over there...

Dang, you saw through my evil plot.

Yeah, that was a deliberately inflammatory statement, cuz I wanted to start a discussion. Your reasonableness and sanity makes it hard to have a good argument, yanno? So I'll come clean.

The comparisons are interesting, but probably won't prove anything one way or the other as far as justification.

Really, it's just a different world now. We had a toothless "League of Nations" and a generation that had just seen one of the ugliest, bloodiest, most horrible wars in all of history (WWI). So their reluctance to fight WWII was understandable, if not admirable. By the time Great Britain got involved, it was quite obvious that Hitler was rapacious and set on owning all of Europe, and so there was certainly excellent justification for entering the war to fight him.

And yet, and yet...
...it took a "secret" telegram from Germany to Mexico (promising them the US if they fought on Germany's side) to help get Americans angry enough to fight. From what I understand, there is still some debate as to whether Great Britain faked that telegram or not to get us riled up. It also took a sneak attack by Japan to get us to fight them. From what I understand, there is still some debate as to whether FDR deliberately let it happen (although from what I also understand, if he did, the attack was far worse than his advisors had anticipated), and even some debate as to whether it was even intended to be a sneak attack, that some incredible coincidences occurred that prevented the official declaration of war.

However, there are other parallels between Saddam and Hitler: the concentration camps for Jews vs the children's jails and mass graves for those who opposed Saddam and the entire village of Kurds murdered with chemical weapons. Both were national socialists. We went after Hitler before he was an imminent threat to us because we didn't want to wait until it was imminent...

Of course, Saddam never had the grandiose plans of world domination that Bush I claimed when he compared Saddam to Hitler before the first Gulf War. Saddam wasn't able to conquer even Iran, and his conquest of Kuwait wasn't all that impressive, either.

However, in WWII, Germany was attacking the rest of Europe, in part due to excessive reparations and restrictions placed on them after WWII. There were no indications at the time of our entrance into the war that he was pursuing nuclear weapons. At the time we entered the war, Hitler had not begun mass executions of Jews, and although some eye-witness accounts and rumors provided hints of the atrocity, much doubt and debate remained; we didn't actually find proof until after we conquered Germany (according to Wikipedia).

With Iraq, we knew he was torturing and killing some of his citizens. We knew he provided monetary encouragement to suicide bombers in Israel. We knew he had a chem/bio weapon program and had intentions of obtaining nuclear weapons, we just didn't know the current status of those programs (including whether or not they were in abeyance) and he refused to provide evidence. We knew that he was increasing his ties to a loose collection of international terrorist groups whose main goal was the destruction of western culture and the United States in particular. Please note: we had hints of connections with al Qaeda, but we had strong indications of connections with other terrorist groups who had contact and interchange with al Qaeda, and we had evidence the goals/plans/techniques of al Qaeda were being adopted by Islamic terrorists worldwide. All this can be found through Google.

Thus, it is at least arguable we had more justification to go to war against Saddam Hussein than against Hitler. Do not forget the perspective of history impacts debate: We have not yet discovered the extent of Saddam's atrocities and plans and accomplishments, and we have an actively anti-war movement impeding and doubting at every turn. Whereas WWII is safely 60 years ago, we know nearly everything that can be known, and at the time, the news media actively lobbied Americans to support the war. That's a far cry from the negative reporting and post-Vietnam anti-war bias we get from our news media these days.

It's not a closely-held belief of mine. I wouldn't pretend it is a slam dunk. But it is worth considering how perceptions have been affected by the nature of the news structure now as opposed to in the 1940s...

But it is worth considering how perceptions have been affected by the nature of the news structure now as opposed to in the 1940s...

This part I absolutely agree with. And it doesn't end with the news structure. Society has been affected by mass media in general, which has almost universally advanced a "me, me, me - now, now, now" mentality that has assisted in a breakdown of every societal structure (family unit, religion, education) that would have promoted the sort of moral pride that caused tens of thousands of Americans...among them my grandfather and two great uncles...to join the army during WWII. It was a simpler time then, but "complicated" is certainly not synonymous with better.

They did it because they never questioned it was the right thing to do. Obviously, there are still many people with these same moral convictions, but they seem to grow fewer and fewer as each year goes by. And society at large, while continuing to outwardly praise many of those who follow such a course, shows a decreasing willingness to follow it themselves.

Sorry if I foiled an evil plot. I promise I wasn't playing Batman to your Riddler.

[grin]

The only reason WWII might *seem* more justifiable is because idiots like Neville Chamberlain waited and waited and waited until much damage was done. Here are some reasons why I think this war is just as justifiable.

1. It is more justifiable to sit and do nothing when your enemy is strong than when it was weak. Germany was a hell of a lot stronger than the terrorists, which means that it was a hell of a lot more frightening to intervene. For this reason, the appeaser's arguments at least had a bit of force. None of those arguments make much sense when you have the overwhelming strength that we do in the present case. We can crush them and we should. The only real obstacle is our own psychological weakness.
2. In WWII we didn't have WWII as a plain example of what happens when you appease and appease and appease. In this case, we have the benefit of looking back and seeing what happened in the run up to WWII. This lesson provides justification for acting sooner rather than later. There is less justification in the present case for waiting and trying to negotiate with our enemies. There is also less justification for negotiating because are enemies are dispersed among many states with no clear head of state to negotiate with. With Hitler, there was at least some chance that negotiations might mean something. The same cannot be said for Bin Laden or the other terror masterminds. No possibility of negotiation = more justification for direct action.
3. In the case of both Iraq and Germany, we joined the war without having been attacked by either Iraq or Germany. Therefore, on this point there is no difference.
4. Our strategic interest in the middle east is greater because of oil than was, say, our interest in Czechoslovakia or Abyssinia etc. We simply cannot allow the terrorists and their sympathizers to control all the world's oil. Our economy would collapse.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Liberals (with an extensive subset shared by Democrats) want to bring about universal weakness.

I'm not sure why, to tell the truth, but the evidence is there.

Pick an issue, any issue. Imagine both sides to the issue. Imagine one side advocates or results in strength and self-reliance, and the other side advocates or results in weakness and victimization. Invariably, the second side will belong to the Democrat/Liberal subset.

Taxes? Raise taxes on the wealthy to redistribute wealth so no one is rich.
Guns? Outlaw guns so no one can choose to defend themselves from criminals who won't obey gun laws.
Abortion? Women aren't capable of making responsible decisions about reproduction and must be left a way out, but men can be held financially responsible for a child they don't want for 19 years...
Free Speech? Enact speech codes on campuses so fragile college minds don't encounter what liberals consider improper hate. (Saying "all Republicans should be shot", or "Bush=Hitler", or references to "Evil Jooooos!" are never hate-speech and should be encouraged, however)
Religion? Any public display of faith in God that offends a non-Christian should be eliminated and outlawed.
Welfare? No one should have to work a minimum-wage job to support their family if they don't want to.
Sex? Teaching "abstinence" as a method of preventing pregnancy and STDs is too rigidly moralistic.
Education? Teach Ebonix! Eliminate grades! Promote self-esteem! Zero-tolerance for toy guns and OTC medicines! Promote for social reasons! Achievement testing is racist! Quotas for college entrance must be preserved!
Sexual Crime? The woman is always right, and would never lie about rape, sexual harassment, or violence just to get custody of the children or out of mean-spirited vindictiveness!

In all cases, liberals/Democrats seem to feel that high standards, personal responsibility, personal choice, achievement, and rewards for hard work and ability all need to be eliminated to bring about their version of equality.

One point of objection, though: our forefathers insisted all men were created equal. They said nothing of equal achievement. Most Democrat proposals punish success and attempt to hinder leaders and hold back achievers to the benefit of those who don't measure up to the higher standards. Most Democrat proposals attempt to use Government as the solution to failure, mistakes, and bad judgment.

It's time for that to end.

Without a guaranteed safety net from the government, there will be greater motivation to succeed, and the freedom to do so. If more people work harder, there will be more failures, I don't doubt, but there will also be many more successes, and even the failures haven't truly failed unless they give up. With a greater emphasis on opportunity and freedom and responsibility, I maintain there would be fewer people in need of assistance...charity would be sufficient. And with reduced taxes, people would be more willing to give charity => that's been demonstrated to be true.

The Great Society was a failure. Socialism is Dead. It's time to let go and stick with what works, and the liberal way ain't it.

Damn republicans.....

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

US News and World Report gives its annual rating of the top colleges...but isn't there some controversy as to what criteria are involved to result in those rankings? If you have a top-name professor who publishes a great deal, will you really get much benefit from sitting in a class of 100 students being taught by a TA? Honestly, isn't much of the prestige of a school based on subjective criteria?

I think the only way you could truly develop an accurate ranking of the value of a specific college is if you tracked the success of its graduates. So, now we have to define success, and account for disparities in enrollment/graduation numbers...

Too complicated.

Besides, do you really care about what college was like for everyone else? It seems to me the most important thing about college is what you get out of it:

An education.

Too many people go to college just to get a degree. They attend classes, worry about their grades, flirt with people they find attractive, drink and party, work part-time jobs (maybe), attend sporting events, "raise their awareness" (whatever that means...), etc. But do they get an education? If they don't, whose fault is that?

Sometimes I'm surprised we have colleges at all. The professors talk and assign reading, the students attend class, but as a society, we have absolved the students of any responsibility in their own learning. If kids don't learn, it must be bad teachers, or not enough money, or outdated textbooks...

Bull. It's the student.

Granted, teachers can do much to create an environment that helps or hinders students. A great teacher can overcome apathy and inspire students to learn. But can we demand that every teacher be a great teacher?

Granted, parents can attempt to instill their children with a zest for learning, creativity, and imagination. One simple act of reading to a child daily has been shown to contribute a great deal toward the emergence of a person who thinks, considers, reads, weighs, evaluates.

However, we are discussing colleges. When I lay the responsibility at the feet of the student, I'm not moralizing from any lofty height of enlightened success. I've seen both sides of the coin. I've been a lousy student, but somehow lived to tell the tale and mend my ways.

I breezed through high school without a problem. I can't remember ever bringing homework home, because I always finished it during the school day, or before/after/during extra-curricular activity practices. I never studied for tests, literally not once, and still ended up with only 1 B for my entire HS career. I kicked butt on the ACT and entered college with the same lackadaisical attitude. I had achieved much, but valued none of it. I had lots of knowledge, but little understanding. I absorbed facts, but I didn't learn.

Not really valuing my college opportunity, I eventually dropped out.

Later, I learned Chinese. At various intervals I was given opportunities for refresher training. I also re-entered college to get my degree in Chinese. But something inside me had changed. Maybe it was simply that after studying Chinese intensely for 15 months, I was shocked by how much I had forgotten over the course of three months without studying, and I didn't want to lose my Chinese again. Maybe it was just an attitude of responsibility I had picked up in basic training. I'm not sure, because few other people seemed to have the same drive to learn that I did.

In China with a student group, the other 9 people spent every night in bars, hanging out with a Canadian rock band, and dealing with hangovers and lack of sleep each morning in class. I saw the 6-week class as an opportunity not to be squandered, and spent nearly every waking hour in the company of at least one Chinese speaker. Despite having the best ability at the start of the class, I learned far more during the trip than anyone else.

In my other classes, nearly every teacher would pull me aside once and apologize for teaching beneath my level because of my classmates. I would truthfully tell them I hadn't even noticed, and not to worry, because there is always something to learn. Perhaps the rest of the class was studying new vocabulary...I would practice pronunciation, fluidity, and grammar. What is taught is not always what is learned...in my case, I felt I could sit in on an elementary class and learn something.

That attitude started bleeding over into other classes. In a history class, I was asking probing questions before the final test. One of the other students approached me at the break and said, "Why are you still asking questions? You have a 99% in the class, you could fail the final test and still get an 'A'!" My only response, my only possible response, was that I wasn't in the class to get an 'A'. I'm not sure he understood.

At this point, I'm beginning to believe that it doesn't matter which school you attend, the important aspect to education is reading/hearing differing viewpoints, considering all the arguments, making a decision for yourself which possible theory is true, and then defending your judgment to someone whose knowledge of the subject should be broader than yours.

One top-notch professor told me that a PhD is nothing more than a license to learn in public. Why wait for the degree? Learn all you can, and treat each college class as an opportunity to encounter thought processes and arguments you haven't met before. You can learn just as much from a teacher who knows less than you as from one who knows more. You can learn just as much from a teacher less intelligent as one more intelligent than yourself.

Perhaps I place the burden of every circumstance on the shoulders of the individual too often. Nevertheless, the single most important aspect in your education is you. Especially in college, and increasingly as you move higher in the education system, learning begins and ends with you.

« Hide Comments

Webster's says:

\Pa"tri*ot*ism\, n. [Cf. F. patriotisme.] Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one's country; the virtues and actions of a patriot; the passion which inspires one to serve one's country. --Berkley.

To me, that seems inadequate. Love of country doesn't seem to be enough. We talk of Patriots in the context of war, usually...and patriotism doesn't really seem to be an issue unless we are war.

Here's Princeton's Wordnet definition:

n : love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it

That seems a little closer to the mark, to me, mainly because of the word sacrifice. It's all well and good to claim to want the best for the country, but if what you say is best for the country is what is good for you but to the detriment of others, is it patriotism?

Still, I think the idea of patriotism only makes sense when discussed in the context of war. Can you be patriotic or unpatriotic about taxes? About immigration? About unemployment? My gut reaction is 'no', that those concepts are absolutely unconnected patriotism. To me, patriotism is defense of the country in the face of an enemy who wishes to do harm to our nation. Patriotism is setting aside partisanship to ensure the country is safe.

Under that understanding, can one say John Kerry is being unpatriotic? Perhaps. He certainly leaves himself open to the charge that nobody has made, though, because politics necessitates that he find some way to differentiate himself from President Bush. Personally, I think he's going about it the wrong way...he should insist we are not at war, and so trying to make every decision in the light of a wartime status is ridiculous. He would probably lose that way, but at least the question of patriotism wouldn't be an issue.

Under that same understanding, Ruth Bader Ginsberg isn't being unpatriotic when she wants to ignore the US Constitution and judge laws on the basis of European legal tradition, because it isn't in the context of war. Under that same understanding, A.N.S.W.E.R. is absolutely being unpatriotic because they recognize the war but are trying to make the United States stop defending itself, and as an added byproduct are giving psychological and emotional aid to the enemy. The news coverage by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, and MSNBC are also absolutely unpatriotic, because they absolutely do not defend the United States in their reporting of war. It is entirely possible, simple and easy to present all the facts in an unbiased manner while still demonstrating they are United States citizens defending the United States, but they prefer not to. It doesn't rise to the level of treason, but it certainly not patriotism at all.

But another interesting aspect to the whole question of patriotism is whether it is a state of being or an action. Democrats seem to feel that it is a cheap shot to accuse Sen. Max Cleland of being unpatriotic (although I still assert no such charge was made) because he still bears the wounds of his sacrifice for the country. They seem to think that a past sacrifice is proof against any future lack of patriotism. I absolutely disagree. Sen. Cleland did make the sacrifice, but if he sold secrets to France tomorrow, his wounds and sacrifice would be absolutely meaningless. Kerry may have won a Silver Star and a Purple Heart, but if let foreign nations determine the course of our foreign policy, he would absolutely be selling out the country. Timothy McVeigh served our country during Desert Storm, but few rational citizens of the United States would consider his bombing the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City to be the actions of a patriot.

No one gets a free pass. Each new conflict requires renewed pledges to defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Dub and his boys criticized US Senator Max Cleland of being non-patriotic even though Cleland served in Vietnam and lost limbs.

Dub and his boys hammered US Senator Mary Landrieu as not patriotic.

Dub and his boys have hammered US Senator John Kerry as not patriotic even though he served in Vietnam while Dub and his boys did not.

Hell, Dub's boy Hastert even hammered John McCain as unpatriotic. And Hastert is Dub's stalking boy in the House.

So you can say that Dub has tried to stay above the fray and be a uniter rather than a divider, but that doesn't make it true. Action speaks louder than words. On this, I think Dub and his boys have spoken loud and clear!

I have no idea who Mary Landrieu is. The rest is pure fiction.
President Bush never said any of the things you accuse him of. "His boys" is a really vague nomenclature, as well, but that is the only basis for your attacks, since you don't have a single name to reference for any of those smears.
No one of any stature anywhere in the party ever called McCain, Kerry or Cleland unpatriotic. Their voting records were criticized, yes, but that does not begin to approach an accusation of being "unpatriotic". I can call you ill-informed, willfully distortive, and a partisan shill repeating Democrat lies and smears (and in this case, I do!), but that doesn't mean I am calling you unpatriotic.

Vague slander without any reference only diminishes you, Martin.

If you can provide quotes, I'll retract. I have never heard President Bush, Dick Cheney, or any elected Republican official or pundit call *any* Democrat unpatriotic. And I'm sure it's not just me, because had they actually done anything like you insist, the New York Times would have put it on their front page for more than a week.

Try again.

Whatever, Nathan, whatever...

I guess you and I live in two very different, parallel worlds with differing realities.

I guess the question is which of us is in the "Bizarro World?"

Heh. Marty, just based on geography alone, I have to think it's you. :-)

But I live in Massachusetts, so who am I to talk?

Marty,
Now that's a valid point one can sink one's teeth into:
What do you consider a trustworthy source?

I wouldn't expect you to lend any credence if I quoted Rush Limbaugh's collection of statistics...heck, I don't trust him myself.

And yet, Paul Krugman, Molly Ivens, Maureen O'Dowd, Michael Moore, Al Franken, et al, have demonstrated an equal willingness to play fast and loose with numbers to attempt to persuade...

If President Bush has ever used the word "unpatriotic" in direct reference to any one of the people you mentioned, it should be easy to find a quote in some newspaper somewhere. I've looked and can't find one. You'd think the New York Times, at the very least, would have something like that easily accessible, if not trumpeted on their headlines.

So now we have "his boys". Again, if any significant member of the administration had made any such accusation, it would have been all over the news in the same way Trent Lott's comments were. Even if the media didn't make a big deal about it (as they sometimes don't), if it had been said, someone in the blogosphere would have noted it, cited it, and linked it, and someone of opposite ideology would have responded to it, and there's a good chance we would have encountered it. So, again, got a link to a direct quote? No?

In the same way, there are other significant figures who are perhaps not in the administration who are still important enough to be considered important Conservatives, like Senator Frist or Tom DeLay or even conservative writers like Michelle Malkin or William Safire. But the less connection they have with the administration, the less valid are any connections you try to draw to the administration.

And then you have "attack dogs". There are allegations of a "push poll" conducted in South Carolina to smear McCain. To tell the truth, I've seen zero evidence it ever even happened. If it did, there are people who might have wanted badly enough to see President Bush get the nomination to go so far as doing that "push poll" on their own. You would have to do a great deal of investigation to lay the blame for that on President Bush. And if it happened, the trail is there to be followed. There's always a trail. You could go investigate it, or you can hang around making unproved, baseless allegations. Your choice.

So what's your point? Mine is that President Bush has actually made the attempt to take the high road, and has not stooped to making the low attacks you accuse him of. Unfortunately, people who oppose him (like you), blame President Bush by assocation. Anything any conservative individual does or says will be interpreted by you as being "one of Bush's boys". I reject that sort of guilt-by-association as being small-minded and adolescent. If President Bush or significant members of his administration have done any such thing, prove it. If they did it, the evidence will be there. If you can't prove it, it probably didn't happen, and you need to stop and think a moment of the agenda of the people you are listening to. What do they have to gain if they convince you of a lie that happens to make President Bush bad/worse?

Deb! Is that you? You're probably right - I most likely am in the "Bizarro World." But I can return to the real world if only Nathan will say the word "KLTPZYXM."

Nathan, I haven't seen evidence that Dub EVER tried to take the high road. He talked the talk, but never walked the walk.

And maybe you're right - it is a matter of perception. In general, the right has cast opponents in an "unpatriotic" light and then disingenuously tried to claim that because the word patriotism wasn't used, they were just questioning "voting records" and not patriotism. I say "A rose by any other name is still a rose" and "Denial is not a river in Egypt."

Fair enough. Harder to resolve, but probably an accurate assessment.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*It is not my intention to make that argument at this time. I do not support the complete banning of abortion, even by constitutional amendment. I would like to see it severely restricted, however. And that's all I'm going to say right now, although I may eventually post my full views later, depending on how/if this thread develops.

Actually, Ted Rall's done exactly what you're asking for. He published a piece a few years ago entitled "An Anti-BS Abortion Manifesto" that began, "I believe that women ought to possess the legal right to murder their unborn babies." The gist of it was pretty much the same as what you're hinting at: abortion is a nasty, evil practice, but shouldn't be prohibited by law.

There are all sorts of things you can call Ted Rall, but timid and afraid of controversial language isn't one of them.

Well, tell him to stop by my site [grin].

« Hide Comments

Somebody told me, that you were so stupid
But I didn't believe them
But now I believe them.

Precious
Absolutely Previous.

Its almost as good as:
Lets get started on all those awesome things I suggested

*Advert* If you loved these titles, check out the whole album at: Strong Bad Sings: And Other Type Hits

Okay, I admit it, I own this. But its a hoot!

I'm going to buy all the figurines as soon as I get back from the desert.

So does the CD have full-length versions of all the songs? If so, I might have to pick that up, too.

The Brother's Chaps sampled a few on their site, and I grabbed them before they disappeared:

I posted them here

The CD was great, it wasn't what I was expecting, but it didn't matter. It was very well done (these guys sure know what they are doing)
I reviewed it here

I was disappointed it didn't have "Lets make believe that we're in love" But I have a feeling they are going to put out another album (as Strong Bad E-mails are featuring more and more Limozeen cameos)

« Hide Comments

abkipvrsri alsqkkqa.

« Hide Comments

I know that we are surprised by those numbers (eyes rolling). I sure hope the media doesn't feign shock at their low rung.

Organised labour, Television News and Newspapers are not liberal. They are just part of the same "Firewall" to misdirect people who are really searching for mutual respect and peace.

« Hide Comments

I wish I still had the Seething archives, I wrote about him a couple times. (readers of brainfertilizer: just ignore my next few comments because they are really just directed towards Nathan.) The ONE silver lining I saw in the war against Iraq was the possbility of finding out what happened. Little bits and pieces seeped out, and by this time two years I had a very strong feeling that he lived beyond his crash. I was relieved that the government chose to re-designate him as POW. I still hope we find out...

and then another part of me worried..."what if we DO find him?" His wife is remarried with a family. What a painful thing to come home to.

I do really, really hope answers are found.

If Scott is found alive, the situation with his family strikes me almost as a Castaway -type situation.
Even from a common law viewpoint, while he didn't abandon her of his own free will, his absence with the assumption of death for so many years would seem to have dissolved the marriage.
But no matter how you look at it, it would truly be a poignant and troubling situation to work through...although it would be worth that trouble to find him alive.

On a side note, it is interesting how many widows end up marrying the man who helps out the family. I guess there is some controversy in fire departments in New York (and maybe elsewhere) that men will leave their wives and families to marry a widow they are assigned to help and watch over.

« Hide Comments

What's wrong with your current frequency?

Blogging is both tiring and energizing. I might need a break, but maybe blogging more would be better.
I can't decide, so I put it up for a vote.

I've only taken a blogging break after the death of my Grandmother, and that was about a week. Mostly that was because I was the gopher for the funeral arrangements and whatnot, as I was the youngest able body in town at the time.

Since I blog what is on my mind, I don't often find need for a break, if I have nothing worth posting for a few days (which is rare these days) I could see myself being absent for awhile.

My vote, stick with it.
(Caveat: Unless of course, you need to break away.)

My frequency really does depend on two things: 1)if I "feel" like blogging, and 2)my schedule. Do you feel obligated for some reason, Nathan?

Not an obligation...

...it's complicated. When I get upset over something in the news, I want to post, to rant. Sometimes I think it helps me release anger...but sometimes I think it just makes me angrier.

My recent kerfuffle over weight management also leaves a bad taste in my mouth...particularly since I originally thought I had brought up my objection reasonably in the first place (guess not, hey?).

And yet, I'm into blogging enough that I don't want to lose readership (i.e., hits) by taking a break. I lost lots during my last break, although part of that was it was 4 months long and involved moving to a new location...

When I get to that point, where ranting makes me angrier, I tend to post nothing but fluff for a couple of days. It's hard, but I personally find I'm happier posting *something,* even if it isn't going to change the world. FWIW.

Your blog exists for you. Readership is definitely important, but in the end you write what you write because it matters to you. If you feel a need for a break, take one -- but don't continue or quit based on what others say.

Okay. I'll probably keep blogging then....if I can think of something to blog about...

I've been blogging kind-of heavy lately too.
I was just commenting to another friend that I need to lighten up. I'll probably post my latest Searchy Fun results tomorrow, and see where it goes from there.

Plus I'm seeing Shrek 2 on Friday, and that will probably deserve a Movie Review.

Nathan, I understand. I think May was a heavy month for lots of bloggers. I realized that May 2004 I wrote more posts than any other month in the last year! I notice that my hits go down a bit if I don't everyday, but I just don't have something to say everyday. While I really like having a high number on my site meter, I truly prefer to hear from my faithful and few followers (my "blog" commrades) on the posts that do make it to the web. It can be difficult when trollers or dissenters come around just to stir the pot, but I agree with Dalin, this is your blog. Write what you want, we'll just happily read.

O.K. I just read all of that. You know, Nathan, I am really sorry that Dean was so personal about all of it. I can't see anywhere in your post where you were disrespectful or even personally attacking Dean; just disagreeing. I am sure that has to be such a hard thing to deal with when someone that you have linked and respected comes back so visciously. I am truly surprised by his lack of diplomacy. And that he made it a specific post on his blog! With all the readers that he gets...good grief. I am shocked and sorry. Blogging hugs to you! I agree that what you said is true, else why the increase in obesity in the last 20 years? Smaller gene pool of genetic obesity? I don't think so. How about less physical exercise by children and the general public? How about increase in leisure activities (umm, wait, does blogging count?) We, unfortunately, have become lazy as a nation. Heck my own 20# weight gain-I now weigh a whopping (for me) 147 (although I think I disguise it well on my 5'8 1/2 frame) is due to increased caloric intake and decreased caloric output! The only way for me to lose it is to start small, say eliminate 200 calories a day from my intake, add another day of walking 3 miles, add some sit-ups and increase the reps with the weights, and not only do those twenty pounds come off slowly (and in a more healthy manner-gradual is far better on the cardiovascular system), but I have shaped it quite nicely, too. I think that you even gave room for those who are truly unable to do anything about their obesity. I am still in shock at Dean's methods....

I think there were some hot buttons involved that I didn't realize I was pushing.

And if his point was simply that Obesity is not merely a simple mathematical calculation of caloric input vs. output, I absolutely agree! The body's systems are very complex, and the body itself resists change.

But the caloric input and output cannot be ignored, which is what I think he was trying to say. And he seemed to be angry that I gave an opinion without reading the background text. Understandable, except that I had read very similar info in the past, so I am no more or less qualified to hold an opinion than I was before...which makes me feel like the only allowable position is to agree with Dean, which I cannot do: his conclusions are not supported by the data. He might be right, but not by the data he linked. And even the data he linked is controversial, with other studies directly contradicting.
Blah. That's why I feel so down. I feel like a puppy who has just been kicked.

I appreciate the support, all of you, but especially you, Rae. If I had a White Knights (-esses?) designation, you'd have it.

Ahhhh (*spot of pink me cheeks*) thanks, Nathan. I'll just try to continue being a Lady worth defending.

« Hide Comments

One of the major interpretations of quantum physics, the propensity interpretation, suggests that quantum reality consists of two kinds of reality, actual and potential. The actual is what we get when we see or measure a quantum entity; the potential is the state in which the entity exists before it is measured. The Schrodinger wave function describes an infinite spread of things we might see if we measure the entity at any given time, or in any particular context. Though they are "only" possibilities, these states have an effect on each other and on the real world. They can evolve and interfere with each other; their interactions can give rise to actualities; they can initiate real processes.

Until an act of measurement causes collapse of the wave function and converts all these possibilities into a single actuality, like Schrodinger's cat becoming alive or dead, the possibilities extend through time and space. Experiments on nonlocality show that potentialities can travel faster than the speed of light, giving rise to instantaneous correlations. Special Relativity demonstrates that actualities cannot do so, but potentialities, being a different kind of reality, can.

I used to believe in prayer as I was taught as a child: ask for what you want, and God will bring it about. He can cause you to get a bicycle; He has the power to raise someone from the dead. Ask for it in prayer with enough faith, and God will make it happen for you. Well, some prayers weren't answered for me. I got in a car accident that was my fault; people were injured, and my car was wrecked. I was uninsured: I paid $12,000 in various fines and damages. I prayed mightily that God could make the accident not happen. But I still had the debt.
Years later, I considered. Do I believe God has the power to change anything? Yes. So why doesn't He "make things didn't happen"...? After puzzling it out for a while, I decided that maybe He did...maybe in that accident, someone died, and in anguish I prayed that I would pay anything if the death hadn't happened. Or maybe I was dying, and my last breath contained a prayer that I live...who knows? Or an even better question, how would I even know my prayer was answered if that was how it happenend? At that point, I decided that the effect of prayer was largely in people's hearts. That God probably wouldn't make your child not die, but would help your heart heal from the pain. That God wouldn't make your spouse not leave you, but would send you a better spouse, or help you find happiness in being single.

The difficult part with prayer and answers is that we only have one viewpoint, and we only have one life, and no matter how bad an event is, we have no idea how much worse it could actually have been. Or if our sorrow later becomes joy, we have no idea if there wasn't actually a better way to reach that same joy. And so I've seen life as a learning experience, and tried to adopt an attitude of patience and acceptence and peace for all occurrences in my life. (side note: I've had varying levels of success with that...)

But consider Prayer in light of the above paragraphs. What if, to God, all potentialities are as clear to Him as actualities? Since Quantum Theory says that the observer affects the process by the very act of observing, can't that also mean that the very act of praying can affect the potentialities, collapsing the wave function onto one of the more desired actualities? Athiests will also affect the actuality with their doubt, then, too, wouldn't they? And whither viewpoint in this situation? The Quantum Theory viewpoint seems to imply that any given result could simultaneously be the result of God's Grace as well as the playing out of clockwork Newtonian forces. Thus, Andy might be both correct and wrong at the same time. (sorry, Andy, for dragging you into this...you just have more examples of Newtonian, Deterministic thinking on your site than anywhere else I can think of).

Mind you, I'm in the extremely early stages of trying to apply Quantum Thought to theology. I'm only on page 57 of the book...

Right now I'm working on a theory of God Himself as the framework within which we operate. It's a staple of Christian thought and theology, so it's nothing new, but I'm working to comprehend it for myself. I guess I feel like it's something that's often said without really being understood...although maybe I'm the only one who didn't get it. From the viewpoint of Quantum Theory, Andy's mistake in the above linked example is that he separated God from the process entirely. To Andy, the fact that wind, solar energy, and geophysics will combine to move the hurricane out to sea is proof God isn't a part of it and Pat Robertson's prayer is a waste of time. To a Quantum Theorist, the wind, solar energy, and geophysics are evidence of a force/framework greater than Newtonian mechanics. To a Quantum Theorist, there may very well be a connection between the prayers of thousands and the motion of the hurricane, it's just that the connection is difficult to demonstrate under Newtonian principles (which, if you remember, have been pretty much demonstrated in Quantum Theory to be a comfortable but useful illusion within a larger framework). While Quantum Theory doesn't demand a "God" to be the framework, it does raise the question of consciousness, will, awareness, intent, etc...if the interactions of neurons firing cannot directly describe our awareness, then can the interactions of physics within the universe also give rise to a currently-unfathomed Universal Consciousness? If it could, that consciousness would be God. As I said before, perhaps not the "Christian" God...but the actuality of a conscious force above the "laws" of Newtonian Physics wouldn't have to nullify Christ, either, but the Christ we know could be confirmed within a larger framework of what God actually is.

At this early stage, Quantum Theory is already beginning to answer some problems I had with the nature of becoming Holy and gaining our Eternal, Perfected bodies.

Think of it: our Will and Consciousness arises from the mechanistic firing of our neurons, but can grow beyond the constraints of flesh. But the only way to do so is to align yourself with forces beyond the laws of physics, to tap into the deeper, broader, energy that forms the basis of the universe. It begins with trust and continues through the exercising of faith (which is the attempt to manipulate potientialities into actualities through will). Jesus told us to be holy as He is Holy; to be one, as He and the Father are One. These are nonsense words in a mechanistic, deterministic, Newtonian view, obviously. But Newtonian "Laws" of physics cannot explain love or will or intent, either. Is "love" an energy field?

I have much to consider in relation to this. If I'm at the beginning of wisdom, then to be perfected in God's Love is to discipline the mind and train the heart to create/join a field of "Love" that attempts to bring about actualities that meet the preferences of others, giving them the example to do the same thing. In my mind, this doesn't diminish God. It can only "diminish" God if you think His Person being literally Greater than the universe is somehow a diminishment of the God you think you know. The thing I'm keeping in mind as I consider is that God can be both greater and yet more personal than I've ever imagined before. Heady stuff, I think. And just the very crude beginning sketches of a rich tapestry.

I'll share more as I start to hammer stuff down, k?

Just one thought, based on my most recent reading of Briane Greene's work in the field - speaking theoretically, the wave function collapses upon observation of the particle, but he then goes on to explain that "observation" really means more like "interaction." Hence, an observer is not really necessary, just the existence of other particles that, through their interaction, lock in our reality, as it were.

In other words, just because no one is looking at the moon doesn't mean it ceases to exist in a particular state.

Not sure how that relates to your post, but I wanted to mention it. :)

If nothing else, it's a good point that one should not forget.
It makes sense, and it actually seems to settle the whole "tree in the forest" thing.

...although, the follow-on question could now be, "Even if the falling tree still makes a sound even if no one is there to hear it, can the turbulence it creates in passing still cause a hurricane on the other side of the Pacific?"

In any case, I never took the concept of Observer to be Creator in the principles of Quantum Theory. I didn't intend to imply that reality is whatever we want it to be, or is a function of viewpoint. Without delving too deep into the philosophy of existence, the world and the universe are real. Newtonian physics is the best approximation of how things work in the large swath of existence we inhabit and work in. Anyone who uses Quantum Theory to absolutely deny Newtonian Physics and evolution and cause/effect principles is mistaken. And that's not what I'm trying to insist.
Rather, I take what I understand of Quantum Theory to mean that the observer does affect things more than Newtonian physics makes allowances for. There are things that have never been explained through a mechanistic/deterministic view, such as mind and attention, and it is becoming increasingly clear they never would have been. Quantum Theory gives the tools and vocabulary to explore those (and other) concepts more fully.
It's possible that further study of Quantum Theory may end up giving rise to other scientifc theories that indicate there is no God. But for right now, Quantum Theory is providing me an intriguing boost of evidence to the efficacy of my faith.

Verrrry Interesting indeed. I myself being trained
in the physical sciences, and very intrigued by
the subtle nuances of quantum, have found that
the Bible as I understand, and what Jesus was
expressing certainly appears to me to be based
in quantum theory. I've also been studying
"A course in miracles", which also brings out
the "quantum" connection in the Word of GOD.

I do believe that as humans communicate such
ideas, and we come into a full and richer understanding of GOD's message, and Quantum
theory, we'll reach that "Unity of Faith" that
the apostle Paul speaks about in Ephesians.

So may you be blessed with wisdom and truth in
your search.

Guy

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

You have made the classic binary-thinker mistake. "If you eat less and exercise more you will lose weight, therefore, eating less and exercising more must cure obesity."

This is bullshit for a half-dozen reasons, but it all comes down to "either/or" thinking.

But no one, including me, has ever suggested that if you eat less and exercise more you will not lose weight. Of course you will. The question is how much you can lose that way if you are obese, and how long you can maintain it.

The military is hardly the best source to look at for your data. First, the military will not accept people who are obese as enlistees. Second, the military fires (or at least will not promote and encourages the retirement of) people who tip over into obesity and can't get their weight back down. So much for whatever "proof" the miltiary can deliver about what is "obviously" true.

But then, why are we even having this conversation? You admit you don't know what the research shows. You admit that you don't even care what the research shows. You merely know what you know, and you aren't interested in letting facts get in your way. So, really, that being the case, what's for us to discuss?

I guess we could start with why you are so willing to use such strong argumentative techniques with someone who merely disagrees with you.
We could then move on to why you thought such an aggressive and combative final paragraph was necessary or even helpful.
I guess I pressed a button or two of yours, and for that, I apologize. Would you like to label them more clearly next time so I don't invite such impugning of my intellect next time?

When you get obese, you gain more fat cells. Fat cells divide when they absorb too much(and thus become too big to sustain themselves at their current size). These new fat cells stay in your body, and continue to absorb all the stuff fat cells absorb. Because these cells don't go away, they get what the other fat cells that were previously there used to miss. Since your cells store more, it's harder to lose the weight. At least this is my understanding of it.

As I said in the comments of my own blog, you are busy dismissing studies you have never even looked at. This shows a clear lack of interest in facts.

And am I angry? Or are you just defensive? The fact is that obese people have a condition that will be fatal in virtually all cases, and 99 out of 100 of them fail to achieve and keep normalweight status. That's a fact. Your belief--and it is merely a belief--that they could lose it if they really wanted to is quite frankly an insulting assumption, and one that contributes to the misery of tens of millions of people.

Okay, I guess I'm wrong and defensive. I'll read follow all the links to the 3000 pages you linked and return with a report, contrite if needs be.

Okay, just read through all of it...I just skimmed through the posts at the end, since those seemed to be just testimonials/letters and responses, apparently not backed up by any different studies.

...guess what?

There is little in that big mass of stuff (and nothing definitive) that contradicts what I said, which is (restated):

A change of attitude, diet, and exercise is the best cure for obesity.

In fact, there was even a direct contradiction between the studies. One said that people are not obese due to what their parents fed them, and another clearly states that carb-based formulas for infants does cause obesity!

The studies show that exercise alone won't do it. I never said exercise alone could. The studies show that low-calory and low-fat diets won't do it. I never said that, either. The studies show that low-fat or low-calory diets combined with exercise won't do it. I never said that, either. These are all the same (or similar) studies I've seen before. I'm no ignorant rube, despite Dean's insistence. Interestingly, several of the studies show that many people do have success with simply a low-carb (Atkins) diet. I wasn't even asserting something as simple as that. I also never once said that obesity was due to overeating, and just eating less could cure it.

No, I said that anyone can lose weight, that it would take sacrifice and effort to maintain weight loss, and that the biggest obstacle to permanent weight loss is in the person's head.

Because, as was said at least twice, other research shows that bodies have a "set-point" for weight, and after the weight-loss program (surgery, drugs, diet, or exercise) is complete, the body goes back to its set point. I learned about 18 years ago that you can re-adjust your set-point after about a year of maintenance. And the studies Dean cited show that behavioral modification techniques are excellent for maintenance of weight. So: set a goal to lose 30 pounds on a low-carb and increased exercise regimen. Once that goal is reached, you shift to maintenance, but otherwise relax. If you gain even one pound on any day, you go back to diet/exercise until its lost (usually within a week). So you have a year of being careful but not extreme. Once your set-point is adjusted (and you wait 2 years to make sure), you go through the whole process again. You can lose 150 pounds in 10 years that way, and it's not constant pain...it's short periods of quick weight loss interspaced with years of comparatively easy maintenance.

Something new I learned: some to most (the number wasn't really clear) people have their set points set too high even before the age of 2, both from mother's diet and carb-based formulas. These people might have an excuse...except that nothing in the other studies said they can't lose weight on an Atkins + exercise program with maintenance intervals, it just shows that they have a more difficult task than someone who became obese later in life.

Something else I needed to be reminded of: because of the creation of fat cells, surgical removal of fat cells may be a good way to get past the plateau, and may be necessary to be to attain a truly lean BMI. I had learned about this long ago, but didn't really consider it much because the the problem is usally discouragement within the first 30 pounds, before the number of fat cells really makes a difference.

Drugs work, too. That's an easy way out, but not the only way. Dean is being slightly dishonest by implying this is the only reasonable hope.

Look, I never said it was easy. But it is simple. I have problems with my weight. I am constantly at the limit of what is permissable with the military (although I've recently had significant success with Atkins). My limit goes up due to age, and my weight goes up with it. I have felt the same frustration. I have yoyo-d over a span of 10 pounds. I know it is hard. But I know the problem starts with me and the stuff going on in my head. Maybe that's not true for everyone, but there is nothing in the studies that indicates it isn't the exact same situation for the bulk of that 99% that cannot lose weight permanently. In fact, the study really doesn't make it clear why the people regain the weight, it merely makes the clear point (one I never once argued with) that impermanent weight loss is worse than never losing weight at all, and that dieting alone is the worst way to lose weight.

Behavioral scientists have done study after study that show that people forget a significant portion of the food they eat each day....some people up to 25% of their calories is forgotten when telling their doctor/weight loss aide what they ate. The inaccuracy drops down to less than 5% when they carry a pencil and paper with them...but they still cheat, because they've had people with videocameras follow people around to prove to them they aren't recording everything in the notebook. I wish I had the study available, but googling can't seem to find it and it was in my Behavior Modification Textbook from 15 years ago. I think the title was "Behavior Modification", if that helps.

Maybe I said it too flippantly. Maybe I didn't caveat it enough. But there is nothing in any of the studies Dean linked to that said that 99% of the people cannot lose weight. It said that 99% of the people do not maintain weight loss, and that is an entirely different thing altogether. If they didn't lose weight at all, Dean would be right: drugs are the only hope.

By the way, I also never said obese individuals have less discipline. But here is another factual conclusion gleaned from the information in the studies:
If a person had the proper diet, exercise level, and attitude towards food in the first place (meaning from inside the womb, apparently), they wouldn't be obese in the first place. Exercising alone has been proven to not be enough. I agree, and never said that. Diet alone is usually not enough (although 2-3 of the studies indicated the Atkins diet might be), but I never said that either.
And yet, eating a low carb diet and exercising 1000 calories a day will not result in permanent weight loss if they use food as a comfort, or if they snack without thinking, or if they fear losing weight (don't laugh: humans fear change).
Thus, there needs to be a support system in place to change the whole attitude toward food.

There wasn't a single study that indicated this won't work.

Dean, I will give you the log-in codes to my blog if you provide me with 2 valid studies that show that even a simple majority of obese people cannot permanently lose weight using an Atkins diet combined with a moderate increase in exercise and behavioral modification training/counseling and 18 months of follow-up assistance in maintenance. I'd be surprised if it's even been tried with 2000 subjects in a test/control group structure. If you don't want the log-in to my blog, I'll buy you something off of your wish list for approximately $50 and give a full public apology.

Actually, as I ubderstand it, a big part of Atkins once you have lost weight is maintaining it by life-style change. To just lose weight, Grandma's copy of the 1920's Gra_pefruit [kicked out by a bloody nanny filter] Diet works!

Were I to seriously undertake a program, it would be a form of Atkins - because I can see myself staying on a modified form for life. Others might find a standard diet easier.

But there are other things. I don't know about the 99% figure the two of you are tossing around, but I was in hospital a few years back for two weeks: same food/portions/exercise as everyone else on the ward. I gained twelve pounds!

Anyhoo, another bit of recent research:
*Study: Molecule 'Vacuums Up' Fat from Mice*
Seems fat acts like cancer, and may be controlled the way some cancers are.

And here are some facts that I don't consider irrelevant:

APPENDIXA 231 is a well-known fact that physical activity is a good predictor of weight mainte- nance (Foreyt, 1999~. A review of successful weight maintainers reveals that they engaged in more strenuous activities such as running, weight lifting and aerobics than regainers, and participated in more activities that made them sweat (McGuire et al., 1999a). Specifically, 52 percent of maintainers reported engag- ing in three or more episodes that made them sweat in a typical 7-day week compared with 32-36 percent of the regainers and controls (McGuire et al., 1999a). Although, it is important to note it has been demonstrated that both gainers and maintainers reported decreases in total calories expended thorough physical activity. However, maintainers reported a decrease of only 500 calories per week where gainers reported a decrease of almost 1,000 calories per week at 1-year follow-up (McGuire et al., l999b). Self-Mon~toring Self-monitoring is the cornerstone of behavioral treatment (Foreyt, 1999~. One of the common findings observed in individuals who are successful at long- term weight loss is that maintainers report extensive use of behavioral strategies for reduction in dietary fat intake, self weighing, and physical activity (McGuire et al., 1 999a). Taking a closer look at self weighing as a form of self-monitoring, it has been shown that 55 percent of maintainers reported weighing themselves at least once each week, where only 35 percent of the regainers reported weigh- ing themselves frequently (McGuire et al., 1 999a). Other forms of self- monitoring, such as keeping a food or exercise record, functions to assist the patient in assessing overall intake of various foods in relation to the amount of exercise performed. Despite the fact that caloric intake may be underestimated, the records sensitize patients to the eating and exercise portion of their lifestyle (Blackburn and Kanders, 1994~. Problem Solving Generally, it has been shown that those individuals who confront life's stressors with a positive problem-solving attitude are more likely to have greater success in any endeavor (Foreyt, 1999~. All aspects of effective obesity treat- ment involve improved problem solving and confrontational skills. A survey of weight maintainers showed that 95 percent of them utilized problem solving or confrontational technique. In comparison, only 10 percent of those who relapsed used problem solving skills and instead, tended to use escape-avoidance ways of coping with stress, such as eating, smoking, or taking tranquilizers (Blackburn and Kanders, 1994~. These findings support the theory that once an individual makes a behavioral change, relapse occurs in the face of insufficient coping skills (Blackburn and Kanders, 1994~.

There's all sorts of good stuff in that document. Enjoy!

Hmmmm. I can see both sides of the story, as I live this nightmare daily and did it for a 24 year stint in uniform.

And, in the end, chose a regular retirement rather than a medical retirement - all revolving around my weight.

I can tell you, if you have an endocrine system problem (hypothyroidism in my case) it's a real pain in the butt trying to maintain a sufficient level of physical activity that meets PT standards but does not trip the body over into an adrenal response, where the body burns protein, vice fat, to meet the demand.

There you are, working your ass off, and getting weaker. Synthroid helps, but I'm a poster child for the fact that for some people, the bovine derived hormone worked one hell of a lot better than the synthetic, which is not true for everyone.

From my perspective as a high school and college jock, combat arms soldier, and fat guy, you're both right, and it's one hell of a lot more complex than anyone realizes.

I've always struggled with my weight, even as a very talented juniors tennis player I still had a round face and broad shoulders. Sure enough the problem was medical. I did go on medication nearly a decade ago, and still carry on with it...

On the advice of one my physicians, I also moved to a 1,200 calorie diet. I consider this diet what has probably saved my life and kept me from becoming monsterously large. But even on 1,200 cals, I am still a "chunky" girl. I was encouraged to drop my caloric intake as far as 200 calories more, but just couldn't find it in me to go lower.

Exercise is difficult for me due to a physical disability, but getting in a little walking or pool time helps burn cals.

There is something we need to talk about, and it's the people who intenionally gain weight to qualify for Gastric Bypass surgery. I can't tell you how many posts I have read on health-related bulletin boards about food binges, donning heavy clothes for dr. appts., and other insanity in order to GAIN weight, because some folks feel gastric bypass is the only way they will succeed in losing weight, and the surgery won't be performed (generally) on people under 250 lbs... It's so sad.

Being a healthy weight is surely a challenge...often, there is an emotional connection to overeating, too. It's not an "I eat when I am sad" or "I eat when I am happy" thing, but maybe an inability to control the impulse to eat in the first place, regardless of one's mood.

For myself, I will stick with the low-cal diet and avoid invasive procedures...Lord knows we can't be sure what's worse for you in the long run.

The best thing anyone trying to lose weight can do is enlist the emotional support of those around them. There are nonprofit weight loss groups, plus friends and family can help too.

According to what I've read, the most dangerous "eating for comfort" is not eating when sad or happy (although those aren't good, either), but eating when bored. The ol' appetite vs. hunger thing. One intriguing article discussed having three spice mixes: "sweet" (powdered cocoa), "hot" (cayenne pepper), and "italian" (grated romano cheese and powdered onion/garlic) to sprinkle on bland diet food to increase the flavor quotient to help satisfy the appetite rather than hunger, but without adding significant carbs or calories. I haven't tried it yet, but I do know that most of my wagon-fallings are when I just *need* something flavorful, so it just might work.

I find the discussion about obesity and it's cure sad. there are so many prejudices out there that are hard to uproot. I have done the dieting and exercise thing for over 25 years and what did I get for all my suffering and hard work? Obese.

somewhere it was decided that weight loss and such should be alot of effort and work. is that because of the work ethic in this country that if there is no effort there is no payoff?

pills are the easy way out or whatever. where does anyone get the idea that being thin should be hard?? also setpoint is not arbitrary all it is is the amount the body determines is needed to survive dieting (famines). it is not complicated.

the setpoint can be brought down by eating there is no other way.

don't eat enough the body has to make up for it somewhere. fat and muscles are where it gets the make up fuel. the more often and the more amount it has to tap into the more fat it needs in storage, and if the famines are severe (which most dieting efforts are) then the metabolism has to be brought down until the famine is over and when the famine is over (because you can't stand the hunger pain anymore) then fat must be replaced to match the setpoint.

setpoint doesn't go up and stay there unless you are having periods of times you famine, some people it only takes a mild famine to set them up for fatness. famines are defined in two ways.

alot of caloires but poor nutrtion which for some is the triggor to save up and store for winter message or

very high quality just not enough caloiric wise.

second by undereating (such as ignoring hunger because of being in a position not to be able to eat such as at a meeting or in the middle of working)you put yourself on the famine feast cycle which keeps you fat.

if you lose weight the first part you lose is muscles, just read that a few minutes ago in the search of starvations studies. you lose 2/3 of your weight in muscles and exercise doesn't preserve them.

second since fat is bulkier you will look heavier than you actually look. 3 pounds by the way = one size, 10 pounds for most is a size so 7 pounds of that is muscles since muscles are denser and cause alot of weight to be lost with little in the size department.

also 1200 caloires is a famine diet, no doubt about it, you are losing muscles not alot of fat that is why you feel chunky.

here is a personal example. when I was lighter in weight I was very chunky okay I was fat!!! I was very large and looked heavier than I was.

once I started the naturally thin approach which is based on biology not outside appearances, I realized i was still on the famine feast cycle which was keeping me fat all those years even tho weight stayed the same for 12 years. (even tho I thought I was eating enough obviously I wasn't)

once I increased my eating and found the hunger cues I was missing I gained over 40 pounds. well that is necessary as part of teh recovery. I stablized and stopped gaining even tho I was eating all the time, I plataued for 14 or so months, (also required) and then poof I noticed my clothes getting larger, I was actually shrinking, I did not know how much I lost becaue you are not allowed to weigh yourself, that is a no no as the numbers will drive you crazy.

but at the doctors office (3 different ones in fact) the loss was 20 pounds. I lost 3 sizes. I don't have food thoughts all the time anymore, unless I am hungry, hunger starts in the brain not tummy, I have increased energy, it takes little exercise to build up my muscles and strength compared to the days I was jogging 12 miles a week plus walking and weights.

I have more muscles now than I did then. and I am less active now then I was then.

the cure for obesity is not eating less but rather eating more and eating better. it is not about bad foods good foods (I still ate doritos with my cottage cheese during my plataue because I was hungry for it I still drank my pop when I was hungry for it, and I made sure to eat alot of real foods too)hunger starts with food thoughts, binging starts out by not eating enough over time.

I did not count caloires and still dont' I do not know how many calories I ate during the gain plataue and loss, (tho I did notice an aversion to my old favorites such as chocolate gradually took hold)

I did not stop eating because I thought I should but rather kept eating until I couldn't eat another bite. so now I don't look as bulky as I did when lighter, even tho I am still heavier.

the weight I lost was truly fat, never has a doctor who examined me ever said you have the hardest tightest stomach muscles I have ever felt, you truly are a walker my gyn doctor said this to me. when I was on weight watcher and jogging and weight lifting I never had such muscles in my stomach or legs like I do now.

it turns out that if you exercise while dieting (1200 caloires is a diet, 1500 is so is 2000 if your body needs more than this) you do not release human growth hormones and thyroid stimulating hormones in response to exercise only people who are eating enough do, that explains why I am getting muscular on little effort (compared to past attempts)

it explains why all those years when lighter my back hurt all the time, the pain was excurciating, but now heavier but more muscular my back hardly bothers me anymore and (even tho I was lighter I was an avid exerciser, i walked and hiked trails all teh time. but my back still bothered me all the time.

I see some of my friends who lost weight (one in particular has kept it off for over 12 years) and I see flab, they walk and exercise with weights yet they are flab, I can see that when they wear shorts or bathing suits, of course I don't say anything because I don't want to hurt their feelings and I have said they are not eating enough and burning up their muscles but they don't believe me.

so the cure to obeisty is a change of attitude people need to step outside the box as it were and realize the old ideas are not working, and you cannot blame 98 percent of dieters with lack of willpower, no one can use sheer willpower against their strong survival instincts and no one can be in pain forever, hunger and cravings are painful, if they were not there would be little incentive to eat.

pain and survival are not good friends. look what happens when you have a headache that doesn't go away for several days how long can you use willpower to endure it? or are you going to take medications or go to the doctor if that doesn't help?

why do we treat hunger pain any differently?

if it didn't hurt you wouldn't take the necessary steps to stop it, put your hand on a hot stove and what happens? what if it didn't hurt? you would probably leave it there burning it up, not unless you consciously say get my hand off the stove.

what would happen if diets did not fail? we would probably die of starvation before we realized whe were not eating enough. pain is for our protection.

RR

Well, I cannot tell you your experiences are false. I can suggest that perhaps you are interpreting your experiences incorrectly, because the conclusions I reach from my experiences are the exact opposite of yours.
I've dropped 17 pounds in 6 months using my new understanding.

The point we agree, perhaps, is that the body resists losing weight. That merely means you have to find ways around those obstacles your body puts up so it doesn't use muscle for energy, but uses fat instead.

But the key is persistence. And yes, hard work (although my experience indicates a higher baseline of activity is more important than a vigorous workout), because there is very little in the world worth achieving without some effort. If it were easy, everyone would do it, no? My concern about drugs is that drugs always have side effects...remember Phen-Fen? You lost weight, then died of a heartattack before you could enjoy it.

Finally, hunger "pains" aren't pain at all. They are called hunger "pangs", but English has degraded that term enough that people have forgotten the original term. It may feel like pain, but that is entirely the interpretation of your mind. It doesn't have to be seen as pain, the way the pain from damaged nerve endings are. If you were right, you could point to a nerve ending that was damaged...but you can't, because it is an entirely different sensation than damage.

And even the hunger pangs can be minimized or eliminated by approaching your diet properly, particularly by eliminating refined carbohydrates and sugars, and minimizing naturally low-fiber carbohydrates and sugars. Also, eating cinnamon helps that, too, interestingly.

Your plight is said, and I have sympathy and empathy for you, but 25 years of trying may simply be because you have put in 25 years of effort in the wrong techniques...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

What a sad argument! How will jobless poor people, unhealthy and old people gain anything from tax cuts. They will have worked for the benefit of America but get nothing in return.

War only feeds the war industry and their investors who will use their so earned richess to rebuild what they previously destroyed to gain even more. Those who suffer from war will only suffer again, no matter what the reason for the next war will be.

The oil business and the Bush administration are so tightly glued to each other that they will rather destroy the world than fall apart.

You speak of safety! What safety are there for american soldiers killed in Iraq? Oil prices going up will cause the economy to grind to a halt and all that because of lies!

I'd love to respond to this, but you really aren't making enough sense for me to feel it is worth my time to do so...

« Hide Comments

I suppose you are referring to matters such as:
under which administration did Enron start playing fast and furious with their books ?
under which administration did WorldCom start cooking the books ?

Yes, and many other things, as well...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

You might want to also add a strong prohibition on your name or image being used against Bush or for any political purpose you have not expressly authorized.

Violators will be struck by lightning until the crust is a flaky golden brown.

« Hide Comments

On the site you linked, there is a link for cartoons which features 5 cartoonists. Without peeking, how many of those 5 cartoonists do you suppose have anti-Bush cartoons for this week?

I did peek, but only at the names. Toles is a Rall wannabe, and two others I think are knee-jerk lefties as well.

« Hide Comments

Actually, it's the thought of "President Kerry" that makes me want to ralph. "President Nader" makes me want to spew.

"President Hillary" makes me want to blow chunks.

« Hide Comments

I would just like to point out, that all the major population centers (Top 6 cities) (Minus Chicago and Houston) agree with me:

Its Soda.
Stop calling it by other foolish names.

Yeah, but most of the major population centers also overwhelmingly vote Democrat and the three biggest (Chicago, New York, and LA) like and support Michael Moore. Do we really want to rely on their judgment for anything?

Heh. Both my parents came from "pop" country and my brother and I grew up in "soda" country -- yet we started out calling them "Cokes."

Even funnier: there we were in "soda" country and two retail chains came along in the late '70s selling nothing but soft drinks: The Pop Shoppe and The Pop Inn.

I generally don't use any kind of popular generic term for them anymore, but seeing as how I'm now in "Coke" country, I think I'll start calling them -- "pop."

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

You may be right, though I'd rather argue the principle if I have to argue at all. Marriage is all about the fact humanity is made up of two sexes, and the formal mating arrangement, for sound social reasons, needs to be limited to one of each sex.

Eliminate that factor, and there really is no logical reason not to recognize marriages involving more than two partners. The main argument against this "slippery slope" observation is almost always, "Society can say no to polygamy if it wants to," yet the logic for preventing the recognition of polygamy by saying no to same-sex marriage is much, much stronger.

Further thoughts: it's been argued that same-sex marriage should be accepted because marriage is about love. In particular the argument is focusing on intimate love -- which is by definition not a social matter.

Marriage is a social institution because there are social issues that it is designed to regulate. Intimate love is associated with the relationships sanctioned by marriage in most (by no means all) cases, but that is not why marriage has become a social institution.

Reducing marriage to being about intimate love is in effect a denial that it is legitimately a social institution, an attempt, whether by accident or design, to eliminate marriage as a social institution altogether. To make it purely an intimate matter and to set the social consequences of the relationships in question adrift without established social remedies.

The breakdown of families is a consequence of the weakening of marriage over the last few decades. It is unreasonable to argue that further weakening marriage will not result in more negative consequences.

Actually, I'd think that cohabitating heterosexuals would be more likely to push for civil unions, with the assumption that civil unions would be available to opposite-sex couples as well as same-sex couples.

That's certainly what's happened in Canada - common law marriage was greatly enhanced (in both priviliges and legal responsibilities) and extended to same-sex couples. After that, the number of opposite-sex common law marriages skyrocketed.

It seems to me that the only way to encourage and promote marriage would be to open it up to same-sex couples, but at the same time eliminate all domestic partner/civil union sorts of arrangements. Let it be known that the only tolerated unions for both same- and opposite-sex couples are legal marriages til death do you part, period.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

This comes from an article about President Clinton's new book.

Some people will cynically say that he is only trying to scuttle Kerry's candidacy so his wife will have a chance to run in 2008. I'm not so sure. First, she might have a better chance in 2012, actually, since it would coincide more neatly with her Senate terms. Anyway, I'm not sure he likes her enough to help her out that way. People have said he likes power (and I generally agree), but I think he's starting to realize how fun it is to be a former President, and I don't think he would have the same freedom as a First Husband.

The second possible cynical theory is that Legacy is more important to him than Power, and that seems right in line with my assessment of his character. For this theory to be correct, you have to assume that he thinks history will be on President Bush's side, and he wants to hitch his wagon to a rising star to help rehabilitate his image. Since one clear talent of President Clinton is to sense the shifting of political winds, that only strengthens this theory to me.

But perhaps all that is too cynical. Dunno...in my experience, cynicism is the most appropriate reaction to most things Clintonian....

The final possibility is simply that President Clinton is offering his honest opinion, and if that helps to support President Bush (as it does), it's simply that he is beyond politics now as an ex-President. If so, that earns a little more respect from me...which helps rehabilitate his image among Republicans/conservatives, which helps his legacy...see Theory No. 2, eh?

First, she might have a better chance in 2012, actually, since it would coincide more neatly with her Senate terms.

No. officeholders whose terms overlap those of the office they want, much prefer to run for that higher office in the middle of the term they're currently serving. That way if they lose they're not suddenly unemployed.

It does appear, I'll admit, that running for President is a widespread exception, since many states seem to allow Senators to seek re-election even while they're on the presidential ticket -- Bentsen in 1988, Lieberman in 2000 -- but I'd also point out that neither Bentsen nor Lieberman actually went on to become vice-president. I think the fact the running mates both times were seeking Senate re-election sent a signal to voters in other states that they didn't believe their respective presidential tickets were winners.

Ain't no way Hillary would do that while running for President herself. But she also doesn't want to lose in November and be out of a job entirely. 2008 it is.

« Hide Comments

"...a Leonard simply cannot change his pots."

« Hide Comments

You're blinding me with Science!

« Hide Comments

...it is providing me with the vocabulary to explain and express some thoughts I've had about the world and about science.

Yeah, I've taken some flack for my criticisms of science and evolution. It's not that I've ever denied the truths of science and evolution, it's just that I've found them to be inadequate to explain the world I see around me. "God" helps explain much that science and evolution don't. I've been called a loon/kook and worse, but I admit I didn't express my objections all that well, so perhaps I deserved it.

See, science has been wrong 99.9999% of the time, if not worse. The chance that science has everything right even now approaches zero. Why? Because the more we learn, the more we have to learn. Along with the lousy success rate and the near-certainty that science is wrong in everything it is telling us now, science also explains more about the world around us in a way we can fathom than any other paradigm.

...but which science? Aye, there's the rub. This book describes Newtonian physics, and describes it as Mechanistic and Deterministic. Just as the prevalent attitudes toward science, evolution, society, politics, etc, are. The problem is, Newtonian physics has pretty much been proven wrong, as has evolution. That is, they are both wonderful tools for describing most of what we see in the world...but science breaks down when you look at the very small or the very big, or when mass quantities of energy get involved, and evolution breaks down when you look at the macro level (the world probably isn't old enough to have produced the diversity of life we see, although nowhere near as young as the 6000 years that Bible-literalist Creationists insist). Newtonian physics (Science!, as I like to call it) adherents point to the unsupportability of some Creationist theories and take that as proof that Evolution is correct.

But you see, that's Science! again. Either/or. Fish or fowl. New Science is fuzzy logic, chaos theory, quantum mechanics, and especially Schrodinger's Cat, which is an analogy meant to help explain "both/and" states of quantum theory. It's quite possible that evolution was a part of the process, but that it wasn't the smooth, gradual differentiation that evolutionists insist on. The Butterfly Effect says that a very minor change at one point of a system can lead to catastrophic changes somewhere else...has evolution been considered much through that lens...?

From the book:

What is a mind? What can minds do? Are minds the products of brains? How does the brain give rise to the mind? Do animals have minds? Do computers? Are computers good models for brains? Is biology important in studying the brain? What is awareness? Consciousness? Must a mind, to be a mind, be conscious? Can biology or physics or thoeries of computation explain consciousness?

From me, before I even started reading the book:

Measure "anger" for me. How replicable is "happiness"? Prove to me that your bump on the head hurt as much as mine. Science! is absolutely and 100% incapable of measuring any of these intangibles, but people still insist that prayer is meaningless and there is no God because they can't be measured by Science!

The book also points out that the development of Newtonian physics leeched the soul out of the world, that in its clockwork description of the universe, there was no room for God. The New Science of New Thinking returns that space to "God". There's no need to ascribe to a specific one, but New Thinking scientists pointed out that "...we are always within a framework, and that therefore no God's-eye view of order is possible." As I said earlier in this piece, Newtonian Science breaks down when you deal with the very, very small and very, very big or extreme amounts of energy. Another way of saying that is that the Laws of Physics work very differently for a force the size/power of God, to the point that anything at that level of power/size pretty much is God and thus, is pretty much beyond our ability to measure or fathom. It is somewhat circular logic, yes. But it works better than foolishly clinging to Newtonian Physics as an explanation for the universe when it is, at best, merely a useful approximation of only one portion of the universe.

Anyway, the book is worth reading, if only to have your thinking challenged and expanded.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

1) Liberals think the government is the best answer to most social problems
2) Libertarians think that the best government is the one that governs least -- the problem being that no two libertarians ever agree on the minimum level of government...
3) Greens think the government needs to stop big business from ruining the ecology...but are close to the liberals in that they see a problem and want the government to fix it
4) I'm not really sure how to sum up the conservatives in one sentence...they generally want to retain our nation the way it was...when? Well, no one I've seen wants to go back to the 50s, or the 60s, or the 70s, or even the 80s...although maybe the 80s. Also, conservatives seem to think that most problems can be solved with Free Markets: the Free Market of Business, the Free Market of Ideas, the Free Market of School Choice.

I don't like any of these, but I do find myself closest to the conservatives in many ways.

So a person's definition of a "good" government depends on what they think a government's purpose is in the first place.

I've said before that a government should do for us what we cannot do for ourselves, or cannot do individually: national defense, interstate commerce, resolving disputes between states, or even (sometimes) between individuals if they feel they cannot get fair treatment from a lower level of government.

I'd like to revise that, if I may.

I looked at it from this angle? Why do we need government at all? Why do governments form?

Simply this: without government, the strong do things to the weak for the benefit of themselves and to the detriment of the weak.

If that's too technical, what I mean is that the even if you did everything right, you could still feel the negative consequences of someone else's selfish or shortsided behavior.

Governments in general have improved over time. Improvements in technology meant accumulations of wealth, and economic power has always resulted in political power. Over time, more and more people have been insulated from the consequences of someone else's selfish or shortsided behavior.

In many ways, this has culminated in the US Constitution. The beauty of the US Constitution is, as I stated earlier, that it was designed to prevent the accumulation of power into any one branch, much less any one person. Even when "strong" Presidents or "strong" Courts seized too much power to themselves, the system retained its elasticity and gradually separated the power again. In effect, it has allowed more people to have input into governmental decisions, and the more people that have input, the more likely they will notice and correct any mistakes, misapprehensions, miscalculations, etc. (This is one reason I don't buy the Bumper Sticker-level philosophy of a Tyranny of the Majority)

Lately, however, we (as a nation) have stopped trying to protect our citizens from the consequences of someone else's bad decisions and instead have begun trying to protect our citizens from the consequences arising from their own bad decisions, their own selfish or shortsided behavior.

In this, we've gone too far. We must allow people the right to experience the consequences of their decisions, or we will inflict our citizens with permanent immaturity. There must be negative consequences to some behaviors. There must be positive consequences to other behaviors. It is well within the duty of the government to recognize some behaviors as being positive to the well-being of the populace, and to help encourage those behaviors. And we do: tax breaks for having children, for buying homes, saving for your retirement. It is also well within the duty of the government to recognize some behaviors as being negative to the well-being of the populace as a whole, or the welfare of the nation, and discourage those behaviors. And we do: tickets for speeding, sentences for murder, kidnapping, etc.

To the extent that we do not allow natural consequences to occur and thus shape behavior, we encourage negative behavior to increase. As long as abortion remains as inexpensive and easy as it is right now, it will never be rare. As long as welfare is as comfortable as it is right now, some people will never make the effort to be productive again (and while welfare may not allow you to drive a Porsche, it is sufficient to allow air conditioning, cable TV, internet access, cell phones: all are distinct luxuries for someone living on the sufferance of the taxable population).

I think there are few things that should be encouraged, and other things that should be discouraged. Like the liberals, I think the Free Market is probably insufficient to correct some social problems, or at least too slow. On the other hand, passing laws to criminalize certain behavior does nothing to change the attitude of the individual. I think if the government made an attempt to deliberately use market forces to discourage racism, the vestiges of discrimination would be gone within 10 years. I think the government could do the same thing with the war on drugs, and win it within 10 years. The drawback would be that there would be no governmental help for those who prefer to remain addicted, and thousands would probably die.

The other problem is that some moral judgments would have to be made. At some point, it might become clear to a majority of the populace that something is bad. Look at smoking vs drinking. Alcohol and The Prohibition represent the liberal method: outlaw it. Didn't work. Smoking and tobacco represent my way: shaming and education and natural consequences. The problem with smoking bans is simply that smokers do not recognize how much their behavior impacted non-smokers. ...but you know what? Our nation is better off with less than 25% of the nation smoking than with nearly 50%. We'd be better off, still, with less than 10%.

If my view of government is ever adopted (which it won't be, I know...this is just an amusing little diversion for me today), the same conflict will happen again. It would be better for our nation if only 10% of 14-year-olds were sexually active, but the kids who are determined to have sex would feel oppressed by the measures put in place to discourage it. It would be better for our nation if there were only 1000 abortions a year rather than 1,000,000, but people will feel oppressed if anything is actually done to discourage it.

We've forgotten that Government is Us. We decide what government we will have, we decide what our government can do, we decide what our government will say on our behalf.

We've allowed our government to become a bureaucracy that is insulated from us. We've allowed our government to seduce us with the siren-song of Protecting Us From Ourselves.

And we reap what we sow: we are becoming a permanently adolescent nation.

I've had a different perspective on the various political parties:
Democrats are for strict economic control, and social freedoms (Welfare, help the needy, but at the same time, give me the right to choose)
Republicans are for strict social control, and economic freedoms (Ban Drugs, Ban Porn, Ban Abortion, but at the same time, Free Enterprise, Free Markets, Low Taxes/Tarrifs)
Libertarians are for social freedoms and economic freedoms. However, the problem *I* have with this party, is they attract anarchists. While I agree with their philosophy, I disagree with their policies.
Greens are Tree Huggers but have just turned into a disgruntled Democrat prooving ground.
Reforms are a group of disgruntled Republicans who want common sense, less bureaucracy, and better business tactics in the Fed.
Independants have no real platform, as it changes with whomever is paying the most. They like to believe they are centrists, but in reality most people running as an Independant are not liked by (or dislike) the party they want to belong to (Pat Buchannan, Ralph Nader, James Jeffords, etc.)

Most of this was ripped off of a Libertarian website, but I think it accurately portrays the Republicans and Democrats in terms of party philosophy.

That's a nice summation, as well.

Except that your description of Republicans seems the least accurate to me. IMHO, you combined together aspects of Religious Right and Reaganites. Heck, I consider myself a part of the religious right, and I don't agree with the outright banning of porn, and the South Park Republicans probably wouldn't agree with any of the bannings.

In any case, every time I try to describe my goals, some libertarian jumps up and says, "That's what libertarians think! You should be a libertarian!" But I absolutely disagree with many of their premises, so, yeah, I sometimes take pains to distance myself from their views, because it's pretty much been proven it doesn't work.
Exhibit A: Libertarian politicians seem to betray the libertarian values as soon as they are elected
Exhibit B: The US Constitution was written because the Articles of Confederation (a libertarian approach to government) failed at its very first test in the Whiskey Rebellion.

« Hide Comments

People are no longer being trained to be fit for freedom. The "mental infrastructure" of freedom is no longer being installed in the schools.
The rapid proliferation of faux "rights" will quickly overload the court/constitutional system, which was set up for a different type of government altogether, with a society populated by more responsible and self reliant people.

« Hide Comments