Charter Member of the Sub-Media

January 31, 2005

Hmm...or is that, "Ugh."? « GWOM »

If you feel you are lacking enough soft porn in your life, look no farther! Canadian publications online are here for you!*

Um, apparently "enhancements" are a requirement...

So I ask you: is this sort of thing really necessary?

Read More "Hmm...or is that, "Ugh."?" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:10 PM | Comments (0)
Two Important Articles (UPDATED) « Social Issues »

A fairly balanced look at the uniquely female component of domestic violence.

One man's experience with domestic violence.

The following reaction is most likely wrong, as Jo pointed out in the comments. I'm leaving it here because I like to own up to my mistakes:
The most interesting part of this was that the newspaper felt it had to find corroborating sources for his account...they don't usually feel necessary to go that far if they were writing about a female victim of domestic violence, but I guess you take what you can get, eh?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:41 PM | Comments (2)
» Yippee-Ki-Yay! links with: Wellllll...
Better to Keep Your Mouth Shut and Let People Think You are a Fool...(UPDATED) « GWOT »

...then to open your mouth and confirm it.

But with Kerry, I guess that should be: "...and confirm it again":

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who lost the November presidential election against Republican President George W. Bush, described the Iraqi elections as "significant" and "important" but said they should not be "overhyped."

He went on to say:

And it's going to take a massive diplomatic effort and a much more significant outreach to the international community than this administration has been willing to engage in.

"Absent that, we will not be successful in Iraq," he said.

So. Iraq cannot be considered a success unless we our friends with France again? Iraq cannot be considered a success unless we agree with UN that there is no genocide in Sudan?

In the spirit of the commander of Bastogne, I have a one-word answer:

UPDATE: Or, instead of writing this post, I could have just gone to read this one at Q and O.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:31 AM | Comments (1)
In Retrospect, Not A Surprise « GWOM »

An unintended consequence of Legalized Prostitution.

I really hope they follow up on the story.

Money Quote:

"The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."

I'm sure dozens of people will say "this couldn't happen in the US." It could. You can't have it both ways. This is an unsought but inevitable part of the Planned Parenthood society atheist liberals would like to see. Because if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:17 AM | Comments (0)
» Anywhere But Here links with: Unintended Consequences

January 28, 2005

Screw You Guys, I'm Outta Here! « Blogging »

Taking a short vacation (4 days). I'm sure I'll post something, because this is an addiction, yanno.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:47 AM | Comments (2)

January 27, 2005


Read More "Yes." »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:48 PM | Comments (0)
Those Are Not The Hell Your Whales « Link O' Admiration »

These are not the droids you are looking for, either.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:24 PM | Comments (1)
"I'm The Law In These Here Parts" « Link O' Admiration »

A long, but truly thought-provoking essay is up at Dean's World*

See, I don't really find it racist or sexist. I guess some would. I see it as behavioralist, but that's one of my filters.

And I also think Mr. Sad emphasizes "democracy" too much. He himself first points to the Rule of Law as being the most important thing that makes the Texas desert far safer to individuals than the Iraqi desert, then does a bait and switch to replace it with "democracy" without explaining that shift to any real extent.

He's right, however, that "democracy" can be one such path by which people lose the Rule of Law, and can be one path by which people exercise their liberty.

But I do wonder if "bringing Democracy voting to the Middle East" isn't yet another form of Cargo Cult thinking...?


Read More ""I'm The Law In These Here Parts"" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 02:50 PM | Comments (0)

January 26, 2005

Worth Reading « Media Distortions »

The AIDS Heresy and the New Bishops.


Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:17 PM | Comments (1)
This is a Surprise? « Politics As Usual »

I've been an Intelligent Environmentalist COnservative for more than a decade.

That means I'm not into stupid things like carrying aluminum cans to the recycling center in a Lincoln Towncar or anything.

It comes from being a fiscal conservative, i.e. skinflint: why waste money on gas powering a gas-guzzler when a Honda Civic can get the same number of people the same distance for half the price?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:05 AM | Comments (9)
I'm Not Sure I Get This « Stuff Important to Me »

Someone linked my site here. But at first glance (and I didn't have time for more at home, and the site is blocked at work), I could really tell if it was positive, negative, or neutral.


Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:03 AM | Comments (3)
Why I'm Not a Bigger Blogger « Blogging »

I don't blog with a "Topic A-ist" priority.*

Read More "Why I'm Not a Bigger Blogger" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:59 AM | Comments (0)
Democrat Plans to Fight Terror « GWOT »

McQ does some nice analysis.


Matt Yglesias has issued a bit of a challenge to "rightwing critics of the Democrats" to familiarize themselves with the liberal position on how they intend to fight terrorism before they begin to smear what they don't know.

My take:

There is a huge difference between "policy as stated" and "policy as implemented". And nice-sounding sentences can be implemented a variety of ways, depending on the the intention behind them.

The main points of the Democrat plan are:

Read More "Democrat Plans to Fight Terror" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:26 AM | Comments (0)

January 25, 2005

I Like Analogies « Link O' Admiration »

In fact, I'm dang good at coming up with 'em.

But this one is masterful:

It isn't that I believed them to be cold heartless monsters set out to destroy babies in the womb, I knew that they believed deeply that they were helping women at a terrible time in their life. They still believe that. But, they are wrong. When a wolf has her leg caught in the jaws of a steel trap, it will gnaw it's leg off because it sees no other option. I think this is how most women in crisis pregnancies feel. Isn't it more compassionate to gently help remove the steel trap and help the leg to heal so that the wolf does not spend her life knowing that there is something missing that was there before?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:27 PM | Comments (0)
» i am always right links with: Quote Of The Day
Say Hello To My Little Rule « The Brain Fertilizer Way »

I have made a point of totally discounting anyone who uses the phrase "Speaking Truth to Power" as a near-complete socio-political idiot.

Let's see how that's working for me, shall we?

Great Moments in Higher Education* Here's an interesting angle on the Larry Summers kerfuffle. The Santa Cruz (Calif.) Sentinel notes that one of the Harvard president's harshest foes is Denice Dee Denton, the new chancellor of the University of California at Santa Cruz:
Denton is making headlines . . . for challenging controversial statements made by Harvard University President Larry Summers, who suggested that innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers.

Summers made the comments . . . at an economic conference attended by Denton. Denton questioned Summers sharply during the conference, saying she needed to "speak truth to power." She told the Harvard president that she believed his assertions had been contradicted by research materials presented at the conference.

The Sentinel reports that the alliterative administrator has taken a very personal interest in the advancement of female scientists:

The University of California created a $192,000-a-year job for the partner of the new UC Santa Cruz chancellor, a move that is being criticized by employee unions. . . .

UC officials defended hiring Gretchen Kalonji, the longtime partner of incoming Santa Cruz Chancellor Denice Dee Denton. They described Kalonji as a highly qualified professor who will be an asset in her new job as director of international strategy development.

Kalonji, a professor of materials science at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in international education, also is getting a tenured professorship, perhaps at UCSC.

In case the meaning isn't clear, that's "partner" as in a Boston marriage. A Sentinel editorial takes the unions' side, saying UC owes "a public accounting of why this job is so important," and noting: "So far as we can figure out, UCSC has never had a 'director of international development,' and a reasonable person would ask why that's so important now."

Yep, it was 100% in this case, too. Advantage: Brain Fertilizer!

Read More "Say Hello To My Little Rule" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 02:28 PM | Comments (4)
Black History Month « Humor » « Media Distortions »

I apologize for being a little late on this.

See, I've seen all sorts of media outlets and govt organizations making this declaration for next month.

Well, let me tell you: Spokane is pretty "white-bread", and yet I've still seen quite a few of 'em around. So I'm glad to say that this near-universal declaration that blacks are "history" next month is fortunately inaccurate.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 02:21 PM | Comments (2)
Abortion News « Media Distortions »

The bias in this article is pretty clear, huh:

But until there is a vacancy on the court, the president appears content to continue chipping away at the legality of abortion — through proposals such as the 2003 ban on partial-birth abortion and the fetal-pain and state-line proposals — rather than launching an all-out assault.

(emphasis mine)

Other than that, I pretty much support the bills President Bush is supporting.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 01:35 PM | Comments (0)
Public Service Announcement « Link O' Admiration »

The latest edition of Asia By Blog is now up for your reading pleasure. Please set your watches accordingly.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:13 AM | Comments (1)

January 24, 2005

A General Apology to my Blogroll « Blogging »

People, there are just too many dang good bloggers doing their stuff these days. I can't seem to keep up with everyone. If I don't stop by your blog every day, please don't be offended or think I don't like your stuff. There just aren't enough hours in the day to read all the good stuff worth reading and blog my own opinions.

And you know I can't live without my soapbox...

...and then I go and add another one! What's wrong with me???

I especially like this one, particular the #1 caption.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:00 PM | Comments (9)
I'm Being Published, Now « Stuff Important to Me »

Sort of. But not for cash, or any other remuneration, alas!

I left comments on IMDB regarding a few Chinese movies. I feel a little like Navin Johnson looking at his name in the phonebook and saying "I'm somebody now!", but what the heck:

I pan Butterfly Sword. Mediocre film that could easily have been much better.

I pan East is Red. Horrible movie.

I guardedly recommend Iceman Cometh. If you like this sort of thing, you'll really like this one. I do like this sort of thing (fist/leg-oriented martial arts, restrained use of wires, positive addition of both humor and serious elements plot elements).

I also strongly recommend So Close. A good James Bond-ish techno action flick with three quite-attractive women. Order it from as soon as you can work it into your cue (no idea if it is available through Netflix)

I did overly limit myself by trying not to include spoilers. For instance, there is an elevator scene in So Close when Karen Mok nabs some bad guys that needs to be seen to be believed. The final scene of that fight is destined to be an oft-imitated or referenced classic, in my opinion.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:52 PM | Comments (3)
Nothing I Can Add « Link O' Admiration »
Got it? If it's a violation of privacy, then the unborn child is "medical records." If the woman has other wishes or personal beliefs, then it's a person. But in any case, neither Planned Parenthood nor Dr. Hern has ever considered giving women an opportunity to mourn—not just see a social worker, but really mourn—for their dead child. Because that, of course, would imply that the thing that was scraped out of their womb was really a child—when we all know it's really just a child-shaped political football that can be humanized or dehumanized at a woman's whim.

Go read.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 02:33 PM | Comments (5)
Democracy = Liberty? Not Necessarily (Updated) « Politics As Usual »

Thesis paragraph:
Liberty means choices. One choice is who to vote for...but hardly the most important. The one absolutely necessary component of liberty is a consistent legal framework that allows people to make decisions with a high degree of confidence about future repercussions.

People must be able to know that if they do Action A, Consequence B will or will not result in nearly every case.

People in the US choose to break the speed limit all the time because they make a value judgment based the fact that 99.9% of the time there is no penalty, and even when there is, it isn't that bad.

People in the US choose to express their political opinions because the worst penalty that can ever be assessed for merely expressing an opinion is having someone disagree with them, perhaps vehemently. Sure, someone beating them up is a possibility, but that also breaks rules regarding assault that the speaker can then use to exact retribution.

The point is, there is a system. It usually works, and is often consistent in how it is applied the results thereof.

This all comes from the Rule of Law. We have a Constitution. Great. So does China. We have elections. Great. So does Cuba.

What sets the US apart from those countries (and even other free nations) is that our Constitution establishes the Rule of Law, and we tend to vote in patterns that keep people in office who support the Rule of Law. One of the biggest problems with the Kennedy political machine is that they avoid the consequences normally resulting from certain actions...largely by charisma, but also by status. The scandals of the Kennedy clan undermined the Rule of Law in ways that the Nixon scandals never could, because Nixon paid a price. I tried to reach Mary Jo Kopechne to see what she thought about this idea...

So here's the thing. Alot of people are pinning their hopes on the Iraqi elections. I am, too, to an extent...

The people pinning their hopes on the election seem to think that a successful exercise of democracy will establish liberty there. It can't. My hopes are only that the election gives enough credibility to the existence of the new, sovereign Iraq that it removes the insurgents' will to continue fighting.

Because it still depends on the nature of the govt elected, and what they do with the power. If they establish Sharia or even a Sharia-like legal system, the nation is doomed. Rule by Imam (what the religious leader decides is justice) may work for small communities, but cannot work to give liberty to a modern nation. It is Rule by Man, and thus subject to whims, bad days, inconsistencies, etc.

In fact, turning it around to the United States, the worst assault on liberty and freedom is not fascist, Right-wing neo-Nazis led by John Ashcroft and George W. Bush. Rather, activist judges (the vast majority of which are liberal) erode liberty by using their own conscience as a more important guide than the written law for rulings. Supreme Court Justice Bader-Ginsburg wanting to interpret the US Constitution according to European legal customs undermines the Rule of Law. Considering the US Constitution to be a "living" document in which different meanings can be intepreted in different social times weakens the consistency of Law.

At the very least, to have liberty, people must be able to make decisions with a high degree of confidence that the consequences of taking that action will not change according to the whim of a handful of people sitting in judicial chambers attempting to impose social philosphy (be it liberal or conservative). 2+2 must always equal 4, and not accept a different answer if you are a minority, or need to redress past wrongs due to centuries of male oppression of women, or because society has suddenly decided that it might be okay to make it equal to 5.

The assault on liberty does not come from people attempting to re-establish standards that people can depend on (even if they disagree). No, the assault on liberty comes directly and largely from the liberal socio-political thought process.

Heck, that's not a new thought. I hope I've made you consider it in a new light, however.

Read More "Democracy = Liberty? Not Necessarily (Updated)" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:08 PM | Comments (3)
Crunchy Best of the Web Goodness « Link O' Admiration »

From last Monday:

"The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, sparked an uproar at an academic conference Friday when he said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers," reports the Boston Globe:

Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, walked out on Summers' talk, saying later that if she hadn't left, ''I would've either blacked out or thrown up." . . . It was during his comments on ability that Hopkins, sitting only 10 feet from Summers, closed her computer, put on her coat, and walked out. ''It is so upsetting that all these brilliant young women [at Harvard] are being led by a man who views them this way," she said later in an interview.

You've just gotta love this Nancy Hopkins, who managed with her little outburst to reinforce stereotypes of feminists as humorless harpies and of women as ruled by their emotions.

This brings up a point I've been considering blogging. I read the first part of a book by a liberal who thinks that his job as a father is to "help his daughters find their voices". You hear all sorts of statistics about how girls lose interest in math and science and need to be encouraged to continue, how girls answer more in class until grade 6 or 7 and suddenly clam up, etc, etc, etc. There's more, but you know to what sort of feminist thinking I am referring.

When I hear stuff like that, I always think back to Shakespeare's admontion of "To thine ownself be true."

What if it is a necessary part of maturation for girls to not talk as much? Introspection is a necessary part of adulthood, so is silence a bad thing? Why should women remain heavily involved in math and science? Just to earn money? Who decided that earning money is the only metric by which a person's worth is judged?

I could vamp on this theme for paragraphs and pages and hours. For instance, sex used to be an obligation for the woman to the man, and in return he wasn't supposed to stray. Now if a man doesn't adopt and internalize a woman's view of sex, discarding his needs to meet only her own, she has no obligation to meet his needs and he's a heel if he doesn't remain faithful to a wife who refuses to have sex with him. Now, obviously 'sex being an obligation from a wife to her husband' isn't good, but is what we have now any better? Why should teenage girls be pressured into having sex by Planned Parenthood? Why should women have to have mid-life crises where they finally discard what the feminist movement has told them they need to be to be a success in favor of what they really want to do/be?

The sexual revolution is pretty much done. Children and men are clear losers in the battle. Women may have won a pyrrhic victory, but even that is in doubt.

That's incomplete and insufficiently insightful, but the topic depresses me too much to spend more time writing something better.

Roe v. Whale "Right Whales having Mini-Baby Boom"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 14

...well, the are right whales, after all.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:03 AM | Comments (0)
Crunchy Impromptus Goodness « Link O' Admiration »

From 21 January:

- [The Inaugural] speech, my friends, should be chiseled on a wall. It is magnificent, because magnificently true and right. If ever anything deserved the adjective Lincolnesque, this is it.

- Of course the Left would disrupt the speech. That's what it does; it has certainly done it all of my life, on college campuses and beyond. For them, freedom of speech means the freedom to shut you up. They, naturally, are never shut up.

- "Over my life, I have attended three churches: a liberal church in a liberal denomination, a moderate church in a liberal denomination, and a conservative church in a conservative denomination. Need I answer any of the following questions? Which church gives the most to missions? Which has the most volunteers for missions and community services? As a bonus — which is the most ethnically diverse?"

- "Jay, I'm tired of the suffix '-gate' to go with every scandal. I propose another one: '-quiddick.' Don't you think it's about time?"

From 19 January:

- I quote Coretta Scott King: "If Martin's philosophy had been lived out in Iraq, we wouldn't have bin Laden." I would think about that more, but I'm dizzy.

From 18 January:

- I have heard this baloney pretty much all my life: "You conservatives don't care about people, you're not interested in the world, you just want to sit by the pool smoking cigars." This charge is so inane, I can barely get my fingers to type in response. But . . .

When I was in college, "liberals" basically cared about three groups of people: South Africans (above all), Filipinos, and Chileans. But they didn't really care about them, as I saw it; they just used those people to attack the United States. Once apartheid fell, Marcos left, and Pinochet stepped aside, who cared about those countries' citizens?

You could not get anyone — anyone — interested in the peoples behind the Iron Curtain. If you tried to do so, you were a right-wing fanatic, or "poisoning the atmosphere of détente." That was the big catchphrase of the day; I heard it constantly. Solzhenitsyn — another conservative who doesn't care about people and is not interested in the world — was vilified as a fascist, a reactionary, a warmonger.

You couldn't get liberals interested in Nicaraguans, certainly not in the Miskito Indians, who were essentially an embarrassment to them. You could not get them interested in Grenadians — not in ordinary ones, only in "leftist thugs," as Reagan aptly described them. You could not get them interested in any black Africans who were oppressed by black strongmen. A rank impossibility.

And shall we get started on Vietnam? I don't think so. Why is it that, when I was younger, I heard about the boat people, the reeducation camps, and so on only from the lips of "right-wingers"? Has anything changed? And burned into the mind of every conservative is the New York Times's headline, when the Khmer Rouge took over in Cambodia: "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better Life." Nice going, guys.

What about today? I am repeatedly praised — by Cubans and Cuban Americans — for my attention to Cuba, yet I do practically nothing. The reason I am praised is that I do a little more than nothing. The same with the Chinese, who are more than a billion people, aren't they? I once received an award from an exile group — a human-rights group. In my remarks to them, I said I was embarrassed to be receiving the award, because I had done so little — an article or two about Falun Gong, some acknowledgments of Laogai (the Chinese gulag), a few squibs about someone I know, Jian-li Yang, who languishes in some Chinese dungeon.

But many liberals think that to note persecution in China is, somehow, to give aid and comfort to Joe McCarthy. Really.

I think I've still got some considering to do about China, towards which I have such mixed feelings: love the people, hate the govt, and despite many friends, relatives, and contacts there haven't seen any oppression of the govt happen on anyone who wasn't breaking laws in nearly three decades. Unjust laws? Sure. But well-known laws nonetheless. But still, there's gotta be a better way for me to respond to those who call Communist China a pack of evil, oppressive commies.

They aren't, really, in many senses, but the people don't exactly enjoy freedom, either. More like a truce with the Secret Police as long as they don't cause too much trouble.

But should we nuke the country to free the people? Should we blame the people who are keeping the truce with the govt when someone deliberately chooses to breach that truce and is punished? Much progress has been made under the truce, especially toward the Rule of Law. Let it be established first, then start the counter-revolution, or you end up with difficulties in implementing liberty-based democracy. (more on that, specifically in regards to Iraq, soon)

...but back to Impromptus, same day, continuing on with the discussion of liberal vs conservative compassion:

It's hard to get liberals interested in the Sudanese, massacred as they are — because they are not massacred by the "right" murderers — and you really can't get them interested in Arabs. They care about Palestinians to the extent that they can cast Israel as a monster, and the United States as the monster's Frankenstein (Great Satan/Little Satan). What the PA does to Palestinians is of no interest to virtually any liberal. You couldn't get liberals to care about Kuwaitis, except to mock them as rich and languorous. They left the impression that they thought Kuwaitis deserved invasion, rape, and subjugation. (Do you remember Alexander Cockburn, from December 1979? "If any people deserves rape, it's the Afghans.")

About the Afghans: There are liberals who would rather homosexuals be stoned to death than that they be freed by George W. Bush and the U.S. military. The latter is the greater insult.

As I said, I should perhaps have left this topic alone. The theme of "Conservatives don't care, they're insulated, they're incurious," blah, blah, blah, has been sounded all of my life, and it will be sounded until I die, I have no doubt. A person can't react to every offense.

But, you know? One of the reasons I migrated right is that I sensed that the Left didn't care about people, while "conservatives" — who were often genuine liberals — did. [...]

I don't wish to be naïve, or as categorical as Peter Beinart: Some of the conservatives' caring, no doubt, is opportunistic, as some of the liberals' is. But most of the best, most humane, and (frankly) most worldly people I know are political conservatives. I look back and think, Who were the ones who connected me to the lives of people around the globe? Solzhenitsyn, Pryce-Jones, Conquest, all the writers in Commentary, all the writers in National Review. In fact, Pryce-Jones, who is regularly denounced as anti-Arab, is now and then contacted by Arabs themselves, who, communicating furtively, say, "Why do you care about us, that you should write about us so honestly?"

Perhaps conservatives aren't credited with caring because they blather about it less; they are less self-congratulatory about it. Beinart, in his column, writes that President Bush "tries to see as little as possible of the countries he visits. (When Bill Clinton went to Africa, in 1998, he visited six countries in 11 days; when Bush went in 2003, he visited five countries in five days.)" So we're counting countries and days.

Maybe the lesson is that conservatives aren't so good at biting their lips and tearing up and otherwise emoting. Maybe conservatives are better at deeds than at words and emotions. But consider the millions whom Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have liberated. (I speak broadly — too broadly — but not inaccurately.) Isn't that a little better than biting your lip and tearing up? A little?

- By now, you surely know how Ted Kennedy referred to the new senator from Illinois, Barack Obama: "Osama bin . . . Osama . . . Obama." All I can say is, Thank goodness it was a prominent liberal who said this — an iconic, untouchable liberal. Can you imagine — can . . . you . . . imagine — if a right-winger had done this? The media outcry would have lasted a week, ringing with "How can you be so insensitive?" and "So, all the darker people look alike to you, huh?" and "So typical of the Right: Illinois elected a [partially] black senator, and you immediately equate him with Osama bin Laden."

And a letter from Armando Valldares that all Che Guevera fans should memorize:

Communist icons inevitably are found out. We need to look no further than the deaths of some 5,000 Polish officers, murdered by Communist firing squads in the Katyn Forest. The Kremlin laid the blame for this act on the Nazis, and succeeded in convincing nearly the entire world.

When those of us who knew better voiced the truth, no one listened. We, and the 5,000 murdered, would have to wait until the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the Kremlin finally admitted blame for the atrocity.

It is the same with Che Guevara. I knew Che Guevara. He was an assassin, unscrupulous to the core. Many died at his hands, and many more died on his orders. His legend is pure fiction, masterfully crafted by his fellow Communists and the nostalgic Left. Add to their numbers every misguided liberal, a gullible multitude resembling the deluded masses who believed the cowardly lies of the Communists about the Katyn massacre.

[I interject to say that, when I was in college and graduate school, to finger the Soviets for Katyn was to start a furor.]

Che adulators and fans miss the logical conclusion. Had the object of their adoration and his ideology triumphed, their victory would have unleashed the Communist system worldwide, resulting in the bitterest fruits: total loss of personal freedom, execution by firing squad for dissent, concentration camps, an end to religious expression, and to a free press. Stalin's Russia replicated across a global stage.

That is the legacy Che Guevara intended for us — including for those who adulate him.

The cult of defending dictators and their henchmen is a repeating, albeit illogical, phenomenon. Stalin and Hitler, Pinochet, Castro, and Hussein ruthlessly purged millions of their compatriots and enslaved millions more. They heaped misery and horror on their own people, and yet their defenders vie with impunity against the truth. So it is with Che — a tired old tale.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:03 AM | Comments (0)

January 23, 2005

Is It Just Me... « Rhetorical Questions »

...or is Jared starting to get a little heavy again? Is he sticking to his Subway diet, or is he sneaking in some chips and non-diet drinks...?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:17 PM | Comments (1)
Thoughts While Watching AMC During AFC Championship Commercials « Stuff Important to Me »

It occurs to me that Major League is pretty much both the first and the last movie that I liked Wesley Snipes in.

My biggest problem with Wesley Snipes is that he has an arrogance that shines through in every character he plays. I don't like that, and I think it destroys any credibility he has as an actor. This is an aspect he shares with Nicholas Cage, whose personality shines through in every character he plays. Typecasting of an emotionless, wooden alcoholic should not have given Mr. Cage an Oscar. The fact that he got one was yet another reason I stopped caring at all about Hollywood opinions and preferences.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:14 PM | Comments (2)
Death, and Evil « Spiritual/Theology »

I used to be scared to death of horror movies (I didn't really intend that play on words, but I'll go with it).

The first horror movie I could watch without nightmares was the first Nightmare on Elm Street. I was a senior in High School and 17, if I remember correctly...

So I watched a few others, like one of the Friday the 13th sequels, and the first one, and Aliens*. Then the next Elm Street movie. I was reading a number of Stephen King movies during that time, as well.

...and it started to occur to me: what's the big deal about getting killed? What makes a horror movie so bad?

Think of it: a moment of terror, maybe a little pain, and then it's over. The one girl who survives in the movies is supposedly the lucky one. But she's the one who has to live with the aftermath, the fear, the post-traumatic stress disorder, the holes in her life that her friends used to fill.

The third Nightmare on Elm Street attempted to answer that question a little bit, in that at one point Freddy pulled up his sweater to show the faces of his victims screaming in agony on his stomach. But all that did was raise more questions for me. Questions echoed in the Stephen King novels:

True evil is the act of fully embracing selfishness. The thing I thought that made Stephen King so chilling in his earlier writings was that the novel would always start out so normal. And then he would set up a clear turning point (sometimes he even told you it was the turning point) in which the whole mess could have been avoided. One word of kindness, one better choice, one act of selflessness, and all the pain and suffering could be avoided.

That's what makes "evil" truly evil, isn't it? The willing and knowing choice to harm others for your own needs or desires. The tsunami in South-East Asia killed hundreds of thousands of people, maybe 500,000 after all the after-effects of disease and starvation are factored in. But evil? Nope. As opposed to the clear evil of a serial killer who kills five homeless people...

And that leads right back into horror flicks, particularly vampire movies. The evil and horror of a vampire is its seduction. Not its ability to force you to become evil. An American Werewolf in London wisely spent little time dealing with the threat of the werewolf attack, and most of its time dealing with the aftermath: when he's a mindless killing machine, he's not evil...but is it evil for him to not kill himself to prevent more mindless killing rages? Having the victims come to try to convince him to commit suicide was a nice touch, it emphasized that once they were dead, their problems were over...they just wanted to prevent him from providing such a solution to problems to anyone else.

And that's one of the blessings of being a Christian. Christianity provides context to death. It puts it in a perspective. I'd say a "proper" perspective, but I admit that's my bias. At the very least, it is a context.

Compare that to an atheist. What context does he have for death? Nothing at all. Death is a wall, and none have returned to tell what happens. If it is destruction, then whither life? If it is some unknown other existence, what connection does it have with this life? What can we do in this life to affect the next? The atheist does not know, and cannot know, and does not want to know.

The Christian is handed a paradox: what happens to us in this life is unimportant, but retaining our faith in this life is paramount. The happiest moments of this life cannot compare to the next life, but we are told that to end this life early would mean giving up joy in the next. It is our effort to endure the pain of this life that refines our spirit for bliss in the next.

And with that context, what fear have we of death at all? O Death, Where Is Thy Sting?

Horror movies by those who lack Faith for those who lack Faith are boring and dull for me. Or perhaps even worse: they have stopped being a thrill-inducing fear and fully embraced the exploration of creative ways to kill people. Yay.

The only thing that can scare me now is overpowering temptation to embrace evil. And yet, if it were "overpowering", it wouldn't be "temptation" any more, would it?

The Devil is in the details, they say. I say: the Devil is in the choice.

Read More "Death, and Evil" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:18 PM | Comments (4)

January 22, 2005

Well, Whaddya Think? « Stuff Important to Me »

So I've been back for about 3 hours, and I couldn't wait to get all the "coming home" errands and crap done so I could crack open a specialty dark beer. I've had nothing like that for over a week, and I'm apparently in bad shape.

I don't think I'm an alcoholic, exactly, because I don't like drinking more than 2 (the inebriation of more than 2 in a short time span reduces your ability to taste, and so is not worth it to me), and I could care less about the other, stronger liquors in the house (including Jim Beam).

So what do you call this addiction of mine?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:35 PM | Comments (7)
I'm Back! « Blogging »

It wasn't exactly a restful vacation...had to deal with the in-laws...

...I've got some good stuff to post, though, so expect some good stuff this coming week. I'll continue posting through the weekend, as well.

I'll leave you with this "Do It Yourself"/"Finish the sentence" humor exercise:

Driving home, I saw a spoiler on a Ford Escort. On a Ford Escort! Who do they think they're fooling? A spoiler on an Escort is like...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:09 PM | Comments (3)

January 18, 2005

Watches and Faith « Stuff Important to Me »

I was reading nighttime devotions with my kids, and the subject was based on the Bible verses John 8:31,32: Jesus said, "If you continue in My will know the truth."

The story was of a man who thought he had plenty of time to make the train, only to find out his watch has stopped. The "deep"* theological insight was that if your watch is wrong, you miss your train, but if your belief system is wrong you miss heaven.

One of the paragraphs was:

The Bible also tells us what is right and wrong. It tells us how we can please God...If we don't keep on believing what the Bible says, our Christian faith stops. Then, like a watch that has stopped, our religion begins to tell us wrong things.

I think there is a deeper insight that can be drawn from this.

You have a watch, and you spend an enjoyable time with your new date. You glance down and think, "It cannot have been a full two hours!" Do you assume you know more than your watch and throw it away? Or adjust it back to the time you think it should be?
That's what some people do when they decide they cannot agree with the clear words of the Bible. They assume their understanding of God and Christianity is adequate enough to make judgments on the Bible. And then they start drifting from God's Word, and then drifting away from God's Grace, and then they wonder where God went.

Or, you have a clock, and the alarm is set...but when it sounds in the morning, you are more concerned with your sleep than with getting up on time, and you turn it off. The alarm has sounded, but you refuse to heed it. Do you then blame the alarm clock? Well, from watching people, it certainly seems as if most people would rather blame God for the results of their willful digression from the path laid out for us by God in the Bible than accept their own conscious or unconscious decisions and actions are to blame.

I think this Bible verse is true. Although I often try to remind people that the Bible is not God, but merely one of the best ways to begin learning about God, I am convinced that the Bible is an important touchstone for your Faith. Return to it often, that heretical notions don't creep into your mind and heart. As Paul said, test every spirit against the scripture. If someone says something that does not agree with the Bible, it is an attempt to lead you astray, bit by imperceptible bit. Do not be deceived.

May God bless you all.

Read More "Watches and Faith" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:17 PM | Comments (2)

January 16, 2005

On Vacation « Blogging »

Hi! I'm on vacation for one week. If I don't post, that's why! See you when I get back!

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:52 PM | Comments (2)

January 14, 2005

Harmonic Convergence « Link O' Admiration »

Zomby linked me regarding me linking him, so I thought I'd go ahead and return the favor.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:58 AM | Comments (2)
Mortgages « The Brain Fertilizer Way »

Is there really no simple explanation of mortgages and housebuying on the web?

The reason why I ask is that three years ago I decided to buy a house. I was receiving a monthly housing allowance of $800, and I didn't see how I could pay nearly $30,000 on a house loan and not make money, even if the house's sale price remained flat. If I rented, that money would just go to a landlord and I'd have nothing to show for it, but if I purchased, that $30,000 would go into my pocket.

Wouldn't it?

I'd heard that if you buy a house, you need to live in it a minimum of three years to even break even, and five years to build up any real equity.

So I took the plunge. And I got lucky.

Here's what I've learned:

Read More "Mortgages" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:48 AM | Comments (3)

January 13, 2005

In Some Comments « Link O' Admiration »
A- Any entitlement like this ends up costing more than initially planned and becomes a burden to the entire economy. That isn't good for American society as a whole. B- If the issue can be addressed in a way where a person actually gets to keep the money that he or she earned and recieves less in the way of old age welfare, but still maintains a reasonable standard of living in retirement, isn't that a preferable solution? C- It's my money, so the point of it is whether I find that this specific use of my tax dollars is effective or not. I find it lacking.

I'm not a completely anti-tax partisan and I'm not a person who refuses to pay my taxes on principal, but I am a person who says that the electorate has a say in whether the use of that money is truly for the betterment of society and just how far the government gets to go in deciding what is best for society. The government could mandate that we all exercise, maintain a certain fat ratio, never drink, never smoke, and never eat anything other than government mandated, safe foods. That would certainly be for everyone and it would certainly be for a healthier, better society; I don't think the government gets to decide that, though.

I get the idea of Social Security, I just neither like it nor like this particular method of administering the program. If it absolutely has to exist, it should exist in a better form.

As a side note, I don't think you get one of the most important side benefits of private accounts: heritability. That is, when I die, that money gets to stay within my family as an inheritance. That would be better for society--and it isn't about me. Since my parents are already retired (although not collecting SS yet), any money that would be heritable and paid into a private account is long since spent.

What you really don't get is that I'm not suggesting this because I'm selfish. I'm saying I'm willing to continue doing what is necessary to fund current liabilities for the option of just keeping a portion of my own money. Since I'm well-advanced in my working years, this isn't asking for much and, in final analysis, is probably me being willing to give up quite a bit so that Social Security is "fixed" as well as it can be and so that our economy doesn't have to absorb a massive tax increase to fund my retirement when I get to that point.

What's best for the economy isn't high taxes. What's best for individuals isn't throwing money into a welfare tax that is poorly designed and implemented. What's best for individuals and families and societies as a whole is a thriving economy and heritable wealth that will most certainly change lives.

From this discussion.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:14 PM | Comments (0)
» resurrectionsong links with: Long-Winded Me
Parenting (Re: Recent Anecdote) « Parenting/Leadership 101 » « Stuff Important to Me »

Many thanks to all of you who have offered support and prayers and well-wishes.

One of the reasons I vent here is because you can only tell a friend so many times what is irritating you. The more something is bothering me, the more I need to say it; I wasn't looking for attention or affirmation, but it was appreciated, nonetheless.

Sometimes I need to get stuff out, yanno? I want to do everything I can to preserve my children's love for their mother, so that when she is ready to be a Mom again (if ever), there are as many bridges intact as possible. Another way to put that: I never want my kids to hear me say anything negative about her ever. And I'm making the divorce as easy on her as I can. I want to be able to tell them that I did everything I could to help her find happiness and be successful.

I hope I'm a good Daddy. It's too soon to tell.

It's easy to deal with a 3-year-old's problems...most of them can be solved with a hug.

A year ago I wasn't all that good of a daddy. While I was more involved than many, perhaps, I still had the attitude of, "I work hard and I deserve to relax!"

6 months ago I still lost my temper too much, was still too much the (ex-) Army Sgt stereotype, ordering my kids to clean their room in the front leaning rest position (okay, that's an exaggeration).

If there's anything I'm doing right, it's that I've learned that all the theory in the world goes out the window if doesn't work in reality. And kids (at least my kids, perhaps) are straightforward enough that you can tell pretty quickly when something is working or not. I have enough leadership training that I can apply some of that to thinking of new ways to get the kids to eat vegetables, or potty training, or treating their toys and each other with respect.
Another thing I think I've learned that I haven't seen many people talk about is that you truly do make things better for yourself if you put your kids' needs totally in front of your own. Meaning, one of the most important things kids need is your Full Attention*. First, it lets them know they are worth your full attention. Second, half the time they don't actually need help, they just want someone to engage them. If you only do it halfway, they will just bug you more, so if you are putting it off because you are busy or need to relax, then they'll keep disturbing you until you go crazy (see: Me as "parent", 6 months ago). Fully engage your kids, giving them what they need to feel satisfied before you worry about your own needs. That way you will be able to relax or concentrate more fully.

Read More "Parenting (Re: Recent Anecdote)" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 01:20 PM | Comments (5)
Troops Will Begin Iraq Drawdown This Year « GWOT »

Of course, it will be a while before they are all out.

I don't doubt this statement was timed to help bolster support and turn-out for the election coming up in Iraq.

In fact, the final levels of troops in Iraq by the end of the year might still be higher than they were this last January, since we've added enough that removing several thousand would still mean an overall increase...

However, any decrease is a good thing, and it represents a strong expectation that Iraqi police and security forces will have the capability to take over more and more security functions. I still think that despite the ambiguity of the statement, that the bulk of US troops will be out by Jan 2006, leaving advisors, trainers, a few Quick Reaction Forces, and maybe a unit or two of heavy armor and aircraft capable of Close Air Support.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:52 AM | Comments (2)
Asia Round Up « Link O' Admiration »

Good stuff, as always, over at Simon's World.

If you want to learn things about Asia, go read his link roundup.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:09 AM | Comments (1)

January 12, 2005

What She Said « Link O' Admiration »

Right Wing Sparkle writes an open letter to Southpark Republicans.

Here's a taste (althought maybe I'm giving away the dramatic conclusion):

So this is what I have to say to my Southpark Republican friends. Let me give you a little perspective if faith is not a part of your life. Imagine that someone you love more than anything in this world; your child, is constantly being depicted in a gross or perverted manner in print, TV, and movies. Imagine a show that depicts your child, calling him by the name you have given him, being sexually raped or molested with no hint that there is anything wrong with that. I would think you would be enraged. You would scream from the roof top.

That is the way religious conservatives feel about this culture. We feel that what we love is being put on display for ridicule and that we are having to raise our children in a culture than not only disrespects the faith we are trying to pass on to our children, but denigrates it in every way that it can from music, to TV, to movies. Every moral value that we convey to our children from pro-life issues to sexual issues to religious issues are considered "judgmental" or "prudish." We honestly feel our children are breathing in the venom our society puts out there and we feel helpless.

I feel exactly the same way she does.
To her letter, I would add:

And let me point out that she loves Jeff G.'s brand of humor*, as do I. I'm sure she feels, as I do, that God built us with the ability to see humor, and enjoy it, and create it. Sex can be ridiculous. Human interpretations and imperfect understandings of God can be highlighted with wit and insight**. I've never been the least offended by how South Park constantly shows Jesus as having a talk show on the local TV channel. It's funny, and it says more about talk shows than it does about Jesus.

I think the difference between the South Park Republicans and conservatives like me and Ms Sparkle is that RWS and I want to keep adult humor among adults. We recognize that the default setting should be "Child-safe", that children see alot and internalize much of it, to far more unfortunate influence than South Park Republicans realize.

And every protest of religious conservatives over public displays of crudity, obscenity, profanity is met with condescending statements of "Lighten up!" and "Stop trying to impose a Theocracy!" By doing so, South Park Republicans are demanding that we change to fit their standards. We religious conservatives aren't asking anyone to change...we're just asking you to keep it in the back room until the kids are in bed. Once we get 'em asleep, we'll probably join you for much of it, and not be bothered by what goes on that we don't personally approve of. No one wants to change why can't you seem to handle voting Republican without trying to change us?

Read More "What She Said" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:12 PM | Comments (1)
Unexpected (To Me) Consequences of Armstrong Williams Foolishness « Link O' Admiration »

But even though I'm going through some things that seem tough to me, it's nothing compared to the outpouring of "love" from Anti-Republicans* that Michelle Malkin undergoes on a constant basis.**

...But she doesn't let it deter her. I'm in awe.

Keep it up, Michelle. In my opinion, I never considered that Mr. Williams breach of ethics could affect you. I've never even considered you a writer and pundit first, because from the first I only considered you solely on the basis of your writing and opinions. Your nationality or gender never entered into it. My prayers will be with you.

Read More "Unexpected (To Me) Consequences of Armstrong Williams Foolishness" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:49 AM | Comments (2)
I'll Take "Things That Break Your Heart" for $500, Alex « Kidblogging »

Last night my son wanted to play a game that we had recently purchased for him. Playing games during the week is sometimes work hours, the weather, construction at the main gate, all combine to mean that we usually have less than three hours after arriving home before bedtime. And he eats slowly... I explained to him that we would play after we finished eating (as a spur to encourage him to eat in a more timely fashion...I swear that boy can stretch one bowl of rice to nearly 90 minutes on a bad day!).

While eating, he asked why we couldn't play before dinner. I told him that when we get home, he's usually hungry to eat, and I have to make dinner. If we play a game, then that means I make dinner even later, and then he might end up eating all the way to bedtime, and wouldn't have any time to play with toys.

He responded, "I wonder why Mommy doesn't play a game with me." Which is a good question. I've tried to get her to, but, well, long-time readers of the blog know what's going on: I've mentioned on the blog before her reluctance to engage with the children over the last few months (I'm convinced: years rather than months...but can only guess based on the changes in mood/behavior of the kids before and after I got them into daycare, where they apparently get more attention than from their mom when they were at home all day). She was sitting nearby, on the internet but not eating with us (as usual), but didn't answer (as usual), so, as usual, I covered for her as best I could (admittedly not well) by saying, "She's busy."

He continued (without rancor or signs of negative judgment, mind you), "That's right. You are busy with work, making dinner, taking care of us, and sometimes busy with your things, and Mommy is busy with...(at this point he is visibly trying to think of something)...her things."

All I could say to that was, "Yep, Mommy has things she's gotta do."

To tell the truth, I don't know if she even heard the conversation. She's pretty intent on her conversations when online... We meet with the lawyer again Friday morning. 90 days after that I will be single and in Hawaii with the kids.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:00 AM | Comments (7)
» Yippee-Ki-Yay! links with: Heartbreaker
This Is Getting Stupid « Politics As Usual »

King County, Washington (Seattle area) can't explain where 1,800 votes can from.

Since hand recounts in King County (where the default assumptions include the notion that a vote for "Christine Rossi" was assumed to 'obviously' be a vote for Christine Gregoire!) have resulted in 'discovering' enough votes for Gregoire to give her a mere 129-vote lead, I agree this is clear grounds for a revote. Heck, King County credulously accepted and counted several hundred ballots that were discovered in the back of a warehouse days after the election! Yes, folks, those ballots (which I understand have some suspicious signatures with many being of the same handwriting) were completely out of anyone's control for several days. I don't think I have to tell you that anything can be done with blank ballots in a matter of hours....then left to be 'discovered' later. That doesn't mean these votes are frauds, but it does indicate we can have no confidence in what Democrats are apparently attempting to tout as an "insurmountable lead". I think even the case of "Gregoire's still behind? Okay, let's ask for another recount in only strongly-Democrat counties....she's ahead? Okay, Democracy demands we stop now!!!!" makes the whole Democrat machine in Washington complicit in suppressing voters opportunity to express their will.

If I weren't moving away within mere weeks (12-13), I'd have to do something more concrete...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:12 AM | Comments (0)
I Advocate « Social Issues »

I believe in a right to life. I believe in the dignity and sancitity of human life.

And that's why I advocate Spammers right to die with dignity. Although a case can be made that if something isn't actually human and obviously lacks feelings or any sensitivity whatsoever, it can't actually feel agony, I still believe that common human decency demands that we err on the side of caution. Even if they deserve no better, if we use slow and painful methods of killing Spammers, we risk become no better than they are.

No, I must strongly and forcefully insist that we use the most humane methods for ending the lives of terminal Spammers...

Read More "I Advocate" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:59 AM | Comments (0)

January 11, 2005

CBS Completes Investigation Into Rathergate « Media Distortions »

And Dan Rather has a message for the United States regarding his role in the whole matter:

Read More "CBS Completes Investigation Into Rathergate" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:23 PM | Comments (0)
Expect To See This All Over The Web « GWOM »
It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society.

Notice anything funny?

Yeah, the ellipses (in the original) kinda leave out an important part, don't they? The freedom of religious expression. It's bad enough that they leave out that part, but even worse that they insist on a totally inaccurate conclusion from that omission: that Freedom of Speech is the first freedom listed, and so must be the most important.

Which group has this paragraph on their official website? I thought you'd never ask:

Read More "Expect To See This All Over The Web" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 02:27 PM | Comments (2)
» The World Wide Rant - v3.0 links with: Pardon Me, But...
» Unscrewing The Inscrutable links with: Kicking Our Own Ass
Click Through « Link O' Admiration »

Ya'll go participate in this most excellent comment fundraiser, okay?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:54 AM | Comments (1)
HIV Developments « Link O' Admiration »

Before, I might have pretty much ignored this news that scientists may have isolated the gene that prevents HIV infection in monkeys. I probably would have yawned and said, "Let me know after it works."

But in light of this discussion in which I took (an extremely small) part, the whole issue becomes fascinating: What if, after all this time and money spent isolating this gene, HIV infection is blocked and people still die of AIDS?

What do we do then?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:47 AM | Comments (1)

January 10, 2005

Rossi Requests a Revote « Politics As Usual »

Just as alliterative and euphonius as Horton Hears a Hoo.

Anyway, I heard it here first.

To be perfectly frank, I actually voted for Gregoire because in their little blurb in the voting guide, he sounded more Democrat than her, and I didn't want a RINO.

But her actions to win the governorship are unconscionable. I feel confident that my votes didn't matter because they would have kept doing recounts until she had a lead no matter what. That's when "count every vote" means that votes no longer matter, know what I mean?

So here's one person who relishes the chance to correct what, in retrospect, was clearly a mistake. Big time.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:03 PM | Comments (0)

I got 17, and I'm only 36!

Hat Tip to the Llama's.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:08 PM | Comments (10)
» Jeremy-Gilby-dot-com links with: History Exam
Oh, Crap! « GWOT »

Say it isn't so!

PM Allawi mulling delaying the elections in Iraq.

Bad idea, for all the reasons Robert says.

Here's what I say: hold the dang thing. See what happens. If there's too much violence, or too many people scared of violence, you can hold a revote in certain locations. If necessary. But there were reports of spectacular attacks planned in Afghanistan on election day, and nothing happened.

The same thing could happen in Iraq. Just tell the Sunnis that this is for real, and if they want to have any say at all in the new government, they'd better work to suppress the violence and get their happy butts out to the polling station.

See how many you get. Weight some vote projections according to exit polling samples if you have to. Declare voting problems and hold a complete revote if you think it will help. But get this first vote done on time.


Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:42 PM | Comments (1)
Go Read Before He Deletes Again « Link O' Admiration »

Report from Jesusland.

I think it is pretty much the most appropriate take on the the Kid Rock Kerfuffle. Since it's that good, he'll probably delete it within minutes.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:13 AM | Comments (0)

January 07, 2005

Someone Stop Him, Please!!! « Humor »

Check out the unfortunate title here:

Annan tours devastated areas; death toll rises to 147,000

What, suicide? Or is he just good with euthenasia?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:11 PM | Comments (3)
The Republican Crisis (UPDATED) « Politics As Usual »

I've seen a number of articles asserting that Democrats are facing a crisis that may result in the collapse of their party.

I'm beginning to wonder if Republicans are, too.

Here's the issue: should Kid Rock be allowed to play at a concert hosted by President Bush's daughters?

One of the reasons the roll of Republican voters swelled in the last election is because the Democrat Party kind of went nuts. Many of the ones who couldn't take it voted Republican. With no where else to go, they want a party to match their views, and they are trying to change the Republican Party to suit them.

Even before this new influx of Republican voters, there was a movement known loosely as "South Park Republicans" who aligned themselves with the Republicans mainly on the ideals of fiscal conservatism, fighting the War on Terror, and opposing some of the whackier Democrat platforms.

These two factors tend to be more "moderate", it seems. Many are for homosexual marriage, are pro-choice, curse a mean streak, openly enjoy pornography, have no discernable desire to have children or even demonstrate much concern for the health of society. They may vote Republican, but they are much closer to Libertarians in individualism, I think.

And that's okay.

But the GOP is still, first and foremost, a Conservative institution, not moderate. The crisis we are facing now is, should we change.

From Christine Todd Whitman to Arlen Specter to the Log Cabin Republicans to the college "conservatives" who are merely revolting against the entrenched liberal establishment among the faculty without holding any commitment for typical conservative values, we are being told, "It's my party, too!" "Lighten up," we are told. "Lower your standards to be more inclusive!"

Well, how far do we lower our standards? I will not be held hostage on the basis of trying to retain votes. Some things are worth taking a principled stand for, and fighting a losing battle against the erosion of decency standards so that my children don't have to worry about profanity and vulgarity in, say, elementary school is worth it to me.

You don't like to be in a political party that doesn't appreciate someone who gets rich off the use of profanity and obscenity? Fine. Go vote Democrat. You don't care if nudity is shown in prime time so parents should "turn it off if we don't want to see it"? I don't need to ally myself with that to win elections.

I may not be able to do anything to make my children's environment less polluted, but I can and will continue to fight that battle to try to return a more children-friendly society for my grandchildren. If you think because you are an adult that we can stop trying to protect children, I don't really want to discuss politics or society with you. It's easier for an adult to make choices to find the lavicious material they want than it is for a child to avoid it when "adult level" is the default. I'm not trying to turn the clock back to the 50s, but mid-70s or early 80s standards wouldn't be bad.

There's nothing wrong with you holding your view, mind you. But I won't knuckle under to your "let's be reasonable: do it my way" arguments.


Lest I leave a wrong impression, I'm not talking about kicking anyone out for holding a view not 100% in-line with mine. I'm saying that if you join a group, you assimilate first, then try to change attitudes from within through debate and discussion. And using arguments that are more rhetoric than substantive is a little childish.

Here's the comment I left over at Gary Cruse's site:

Well, I got a little excited in my writing, perhaps, but my point is simply: moderates may have made the difference in the national election, but you can't use that to blackmail the whole party into accepting your viewpoint. We will discuss and work out our differences of opinion as normal.
Now, it may be that we will become the party of South Park Republicans. If it happens because of reasoned debate, discussion, and simple numbers, no problem.
But when I see moderate Republican voters complaining about Christian conservatives, worrying aloud about the GOP moving toward instituting a 'theocracy', and otherwise trying to change the GOP into a Democrat Party Lite, should I be sanguine about it?
No, I'll debate and argue.
What I won't do is whine and threaten that if the whole party doesn't kowtow to my opinions, I'll take my vote and go home, like I've seen many moderates do.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:51 PM | Comments (7)
» The Owner's Manual links with: Big Tent or Sno-cone?
» Jeff links with: Who may support America? Part II
» The LLama Butchers links with: This one's right up there with the Nullification Crisis, Court-Packing, and dare we say the Revolution itself
Good Flick « Stuff Important to Me »

Knowing me, you have to know it's not Hollywood, right?


Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:00 PM | Comments (0)
Say "Hello" To My Little Quiz « Link O' Admiration »

Man, Grayhawk can use words as devastatingly as he uses small arms. I'm glad he's on our side.

This time he's come up with a little quiz that tests how well the media has spun the facts of Abu Ghraib into an anti-military indictment. Go take the test; report what you got back here, if you want.

I got 100%. Hint: choose the answer that seems to represent the most cynical assumption about the essential dishonesty of news media. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked! Well, okay, I'm not...exeperience has shown me that usually the most accurate response is to doubt the veracity of news media when they have an opportunity to make both the military and a Republican administration look bad. Grayhawk has the citations to back it up.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:04 AM | Comments (0)
Top 10 Signs the UN Has Gotten Involved in the Clean-Up from a Natural Disaster « Politics As Usual »

10. The relief coordinator insists you speak French, the Language of International Diplomacy.

9. The form for charitable donations has some small script at the bottom that says, 15% gratuity added for citizens from the US, UK, Australia, or Poland.

8. "There aren't any Jews or women on the relief team, are there?"

7. All the food packages have the most curious labeling: the "U" appears to be printed right on the package, but the "N" appears to be a hastily applied sticker...

6. When you ask the relief coordinator which activity he wants to observe today, he counters with "which ones are the CNN camera crews going to?"

5. When speaking with the relief coordinator, he keeps getting a glazed look on his face. Roused from his reverie, he says, "I'm sorry, I was just thinking about all that mad donations money I'm going to be in charge of..."

4. The bureaucrats pull you aside and ask you which refugee camps have the most hot 12-year-old girls.

3. The person dropping off supplies keeps muttering something like "...the best powder in three years and I'm pulled from the slopes for this backward, podunk, dirty..."

2. The relief coordinator has more dressing room demands than Van Halen Barbara Streisand.

And the Number One Sign the UN has Gotten Involved in the Clean-Up from a Natural Disaster is:

Read More "Top 10 Signs the UN Has Gotten Involved in the Clean-Up from a Natural Disaster" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:36 AM | Comments (0)
» Accidental Verbosity links with: No, I'm not literally ROFLMAO, which is good because I need somewhere to sit.
» Multiple Mentality | links with: Items of Interest #3
» The LLama Butchers links with: Top ten signs the UN is involved in your disaster relief effort

January 06, 2005

Fisking CNN « Media Distortions »

It was Wolf Blitzer’s Report on CNN on 5 Jan.
He was talking with a reporter in Phuket, and the reporter said something like:

"The hardest hit are the children who had their lives wiped out by the tsunami. I watched a group of them in a classroom, and they seemed happy: laughing, playing, learning. But it only took a few minutes of talking with them before the tears came. You wonder how they will be able to recover from such devastating losses."
…so the kids were in the process of healing the way kids do: getting on with their lives. And then you came along, and for the sake of your exploitive storyline, talked them back into being upset. If they have nightmares for life, it's because you upset the healing process. Nice job, idiot.
"We followed one girl walking home alone, and you wonder what is going through her mind."
I would assume she was probably thinking, "Stay away from me, you weirdo. Stop following me!"

The reporter then moved on to talk about the people cleaning up:

"After the tsunami came the next step, which may be even worse."

What? The CNN reporters descending en masse to advance their careers to the detriment of the locals?

"The clean-up: These people are working so hard. Many work as long as they can stay awake. One wonders where they find the energy to persevere in such hard working conditions, why they continue."
And I’m sure it helps inspire them to see you standing there in a clean shirt, rested and relaxed, holding a chilled bottle of water you don’t share. They are probably motivated by the hope that as soon as they finish what they have to do (cleaning up their country), they can rip your head from its body.

That wasn't all of the condescending garbage spouted by this jerk, not by half. But it’s all I can remember. Then a later segment on the news channel (after Wolf Blitzer’s Report was over?) went to an attractive young lady (with clean clothes, perfect make-up and hair, obviously freshly-showered) who was going to talk about "Living the Tragedy in Sri Lanka". I hope that someday I can meet her at a party and listen to her bragging about the tragedy she "lived" in January 2005….like maybe she could only get her latte in a 14-ounce plastic cup instead of her usual 12-ounce, and not even earth-friendly biodegradable! ...or something equally petty. The gall of these people to assume they can package up the tragedy and dole it out in sympathetic packets of rationed guilt and responsibility…

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:50 AM | Comments (2)
» Yippee-Ki-Yay! links with: Clown News Network
» evolution links with: natural selections

January 05, 2005

Things I Hate « Stuff Important to Me »

...forgetting to change the email notification for trackbacks and comments to my work email address.

Sorry, folks, I wasn't intending to not dignify your remarks with a reply.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:55 PM | Comments (5)
Worth Revisiting « Humor »

The Top 231 Things I'd do
if I Ever Became an Evil Overlord
(In no particular order)
1. My Legions of Terror will have helmets with clear Plexiglas visors, not face-concealing ones.
2. My ventilation ducts will be too small to crawl through.
3. My noble half-brother, whose throne I usurped will be killed, not kept anonymously imprisoned in a forgotten cell of my dungeon.
4. Shooting is not too good for my enemies.
5. The artifact which is the source of my power will not be kept on the Mountain of Despair beyond the River of Fire guarded by the Dragons of Eternity. It will be in my safe-deposit box. The same applies to the object which is my one weakness.

Read More "Worth Revisiting" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:14 AM | Comments (6)
» The LLama Butchers links with: Sensible, Efficient Megalomania
» Tim Worstall links with: Ever Wanted to Know How to be a Successful Evil Overlord?

Michael Novak rocks

God is God.

God is our Judge.

We are not His judge.

The question is not, "Does God measure up to our (liberal, compassionate, self-deceived) standards?" The question is, "Will we learn — in silence and in awe at the far-beyond-human power of nature — how great, on a far different scale from ours, is God's love?"

It would be the greatest and most obscene of illusions for a man, any man, to imagine that he has greater love for a child mangled in the oily, dark waters of the recent tsunami than the Creator of that child has. It would be like Ivan Karamazov being unable to forgive God so long as one single child anywhere went to bed at night crying in loneliness and in pain. Who is Karamazov to think that his own love for that child — a purely abstract, speculative, hard-case, counterexample love — is greater than that of the child's Creator?

Yes. There's more. You should read the whole thing. I'd paste it all here, but I'd probably run afoul of copyright laws if I did so...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:55 AM | Comments (2)
Another Great Reagan « Link O' Admiration »

From Mudville Gazette, I'm accepting a mission to spread some information as wide as I can:

Michael is a very well known portrait artist and a Vietnam veteran. He recently decided to retire and focus exclusively on providing free portraits of fallen service men and women for their families. He's done this for a number of our Stryker soldiers. He's trying to get the word out and I'd like to help him accomplish that. In his own words via email:

"I'm about to retire early from my job and the reason for that is the love I've received from all of you.
This hasn't been an easy decision, I've prayed a lot about what to do but each time the answer is the same, do the pictures. I need to reach as many parents and families of those we are losing with my gift."

Michael Reagan

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:31 AM | Comments (0)
Flood the Zone « Media Distortions »

Bunches of people who matter more than me are shocked that the CNN director used the word "flood" in relation to covering the aftermath of the tsunami.

Let me ask you: are words that are spelled the same but have different meanings really the same word?

For instance, is "bear - the animal" really the same word as "bear - to endure"?

I think you can make an argument that they are not. Mr. Klein was not thinking of "bunches of water covering what is normally land" when he used the word. By the very words he used, it is clear that the mental image he had that he was trying to convey was of a bunch of athletes overwhelming rivals by sending more people than the rival could match, in order to score a touchdown. That's what the term "flood the zone" means.

The mind is an interesting thing. People who haven't lived in the South for years often cannot remove the word "ya'll" from their vocabulary because it fills a conceptual gap in proper English language: 2nd person plural.

Some people are perhaps making a career out of being offended, I think.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:22 AM | Comments (2)

January 04, 2005

Beyond Parody « Social Issues »

When phrases like this are uttered for the record:

It's also really empowering because it's not about turning a guy on - it's about turning yourself on and learning about being comfortable with your own body."

...the thinking has obviously atrophied.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:13 PM | Comments (1)
Zarqawi Captured? « GWOT »

Iraqi Kurdistan Radio, the first to report the capture of Saddam Hussein, reports that Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi has been arrested in Baakuba (Baquba).

No official confirmation has been made. Maybe it's nothing. Maybe it's a huge breakthrough, just in time to disrupt anti-election activities. We'll see.

Update: Looks like "not". [sigh] Oh, well. I'm holding out hope it is a denial for misinformation reasons...

This, however, is certain, and a setback: Baghdad Governor Assassinated

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:54 AM | Comments (0)
Musings on the Efficacy of God « Stuff Important to Me »

Let's say I provided a fairly long string of numbers to you. I ask you to determine whether it is an actual pattern, and then predict the next few numbers in the series, or if it is random.

You spend 10 hours on it and see no discernable pattern. How much more time do you spend?

15 minutes? An hour? A few minutes a day for a month?

Change the parameters: Let's say it is your job to do this. You are getting paid $40k a year to determine whether or not it is a pattern. You have other strings to check on, as well, but it isn't uncommon to require a month or two to determine beyond reasonable doubt that it is or isn't a pattern. Now how long do you spend? 2 months? 3? 12?

Now let's say I tell you that it definitely is a pattern, without a doubt, and I'm just seeing if you are smart enough to figure it out. It is a direct challenge to your expertise at pattern-finding. Do you spend more than a year?

What if you are the world's foremost leading pattern-finder? Do you give it a cursory glance and dismiss it, or do you work even longer?

Change the parameters again: You are an amateur mathematician, and I have promised $10 million to anyone who figures out the pattern. Your loved one will die within 15 years of a disease that would definitely be cured if you could come up with $8 million dollars. Do you spend every minute of the 15 years?

Now compare that to God and the Bible. If look into the Bible with an open mind but little persistence, are you really going to find the patterns of Truth? Probably not. Even if you've been raised as a Christian, you may eventually give up and stop looking for the patterns of Truth in the Bible. These ex-Christians tend to be very vehement in denying there is any pattern. They claim their experience as a Christian lends them credibility in "debunking" the myth of God. But aren't they really just quitters? That should make them less credible in any listeners' view.

Paradigm does matter.

If you start reading the Bible as if it actually is God, you will be disappointed, because God is not contained in a book. It is a roadmap to finding God, but you have to understand that is all it is. If you try to use Rand-McNally's Road Atlas to sail to Hawaii, you will probably ground on shoals. Is that a reason to blame Rand-McNally? If you use a dictionary as your sole source to write a report on the Viet Nam War, do you blame the dictionary if your information is insufficient to get an A? The Bible is one of the tools of the Christian in finding who God is, but you have to use the tool correctly.

If you start reading the Bible assuming every word was exactly inspired by God and utterly perfect, you will get stuck on some apparent contradictions. You will get stuck on some mulitiple copies with minor spelling or syntax variations. You will get stuck on the idea that some writings of the time were rejected at the time the Bible was put together. But if you understand Who God is, you can read the Bible with the paradigm that God has the power to make sure His Word is clear and correct, and the rest is fluff. This is in the same manner that a scratch on a DVD doesn't render it unviewable or make its data unreadable. Getting caught in the minutiae of the Bible ignores the miraculously high signal-to-noise ratio found there.

If your paradigm is that God is who He says He is, and that He is actually God (not just a superb or super human), and then read the Bible looking to understand His Will, some of the apparent contradictions of the Bible melt away.
For instance, how could a God of Love reject homosexuality, when that is nothing more than two people loving each other who happen to be the same sex? Well, that's confusing true love with earthly desire, isn't it? All loves are not equal, all loves do not come from the same motivation, all loves are not perfectable. Rather than attempting to elevate love between two people to the level of His Perfect Love, if you look at it from the viewpoint that our human love for each other is only a pale reflection of the love we should have for Him, which is an immature and dim reflection of the Love He has for us, then you can see that our love for each other really doesn't determine sin or righteousness. Rather, God is Perfect, and sin is that which is not-God. God didn't sit down and make a list of rules for us based on what He thought was good. Rather, He knows that when we selfishly place our will above His in anything, we are acting in a way that moves us farther from His presence. That hurts us. To help prevent us from being hurt, He gave us a guideline to help us begin to understand how we hurt ourselves and each other. That's all sin is: hurting ourselves and each other. For instance, abortion is a sin, not because a life is snuffed out, but because a person has callously chosen their own convenience above that of another person.** It isn't actually the death that is the sin, it is the selfish choosing of "self" over others.

Want to test that idea? Here ya go:

Consider that God tells us to not be concerned with our physical situation. Don't worry about tomorrow, for it will take care of itself. Don't worry about what you will eat or what you will wear, because God loves you more than the birds and flowers, and aren't they taken care of? Don't worry about whether you are slave, or poor, or whatever, because the important thing is not this earthly life or your enjoyment of it, but the next life andyour immortal soul.
But then He turns around and tells us to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. If physical comfort in this life doesn't matter, why should we bother? Because it isn't the physical comfort of the recipient that really matters. It is that you give of yourself, reducing your comfort or security in order to help someone else. You are giving for no other reason because God says so. It is denying yourself to help.

Do you see? It isn't actually the life that matters. It isn't actually the recipient that really matters to you. It is the effect on your heart, soul, and spirit that matters. If you give, you give of yourself, and end up getting more back.

In the same manner, the reason God doesn't want us to sin is that He doesn't want our hearts to grow cold, He doesn't want us to be selfish, He doesn't want us to be self-centered and make Gods of ourselves. He wants us to see the value of aligning our hearts, minds, and wills with His, and how happy, content, and peaceful we become when we do so.

I may have worded some of this clumsily or badly. I'll probably revise it throughout the day to word it more capably. I will certainly take any feedback* in mind if improving parts of this become absolutely necessary.

Read More "Musings on the Efficacy of God" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:10 AM | Comments (3)

January 03, 2005

I Gotta Get a Dog, Now « Stuff Important to Me »

Yeah, the animals did understand that something was up. At least, this one seemed to know...

Thanks for the tip, Jo.

Read More "I Gotta Get a Dog, Now" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 01:18 PM | Comments (0)
Good News, Hoping for More of the Same


The Iraqis are stepping up to take care of their own security. It takes time to train people to this level. I don't know how many people they can run through course every 6 months, but once the elections go smoothly, I expect more people to volunteer for this duty.

The only way we can leave in peace is if the Iraqis step up and take responsibility and ownership of their nation.

Via Mudville Gazette's long (but well-worth reading) comparison of MSM vs Centcom news releases.

Read More "Good News, Hoping for More of the Same" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:56 AM | Comments (0)
Do You Think The Invective On The Left and Right is Equally Bad? « Politics As Usual »

Then check out this list: The 40 Most Obnoxious Quotes of 2004.

First, set aside for the moment the preponderance of prominent Democrats and liberals. Can you imagine a left-wing version including prominent Democrats on their list as Mr. Hawkins included prominent Republicans? No, me either.

Second, returning to the overwhelming majority of Democrats and liberals making the list, this was written by a self-proclaimed right-winger. If you think that biases him too much against liberals, then I challenge you to make a similar list of obnoxious quotes from equally-prominent Republicans and conservatives. If you can, I'd love to see it.

Read More "Do You Think The Invective On The Left and Right is Equally Bad?" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:45 AM | Comments (3)
Proof « Kidblogging »

Since I recently claimed my daughter gets her adorable-ness from her father (i.e.: Me), I thought maybe I'd better actually be honest for once and provide the real story:
She gets it from her Mom, of course. This picture is the spitting image of her mother:


...eyes, eybrows, mouth, nose, chewing method: all nearly identical.

The picture is from about a year ago. She's starting to look a little less like Mom now...

Prominent Democrat politicians said this means President Bush should reach out across the aisle and not push his agenda in order to help unite the country.

Read More "Proof" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:52 AM | Comments (4)
Science and its Adherents « New Thinking »

There's a bunch of good crunchy stuff for New Thinkers* in this article about Einstein.

The story starts in the late 19th century, when the scientific establishment believed in an eternal and unchanging universe. This was a neat theory of cosmology, because a universe that had always existed did not raise any awkward questions, such as "When was the universe created?" and "What (or Who) created it?"

Just the question Newtonian atheists don't want asked. So they turn to explanations like "Big Bang" to exclude the possibility of God.

Maybe they don't know the history of the theory:

The Big Bang model was initially ridiculed by the scientific establishment. For example, one of its pioneers, Georges Lemaître, was both a cosmologist and an ordained priest, so critics cited his theology as his motivation for advancing such a crackpot theory of creation. They suspected that the model was Lemaître's way of sneaking a Creator into science. While Einstein was not biased against Lemaître's religious background, he did call the priest's physics "abominable." It was enough to banish the Big Bang model to the hinterlands of cosmology.


Well, what was Einstein's take?

Gravity seemed to be incompatible with an eternal, unchanging universe, and Einstein certainly had no sympathy for the alternative view of a collapsing universe, stating that: "To admit such a possibility seems senseless."

Einstein was reluctant to invoke God, so his solution was to fiddle with his theory of general relativity, adding an antigravity force alongside familiar gravity. This repulsive force would counteract gravity over cosmic distances, thereby maintaining the overall stability of the universe. There was no evidence for this antigravity force, but Einstein assumed that it had to exist in order to provide a platform for eternity.

Yep, you got that right. Without any proof, mathematical or otherwise, he postulated. That's Science! for "made crap up", and waited for other scientists to find more evidence to prove or disprove his idea. God, however, is right out. Even if it is perfectly in line with the theories of quantum mechanics...

But Einstein was brilliant, and even crap he just makes up has got to be true, right?

However, in 1929 Einstein was forced to eat humble pie. Edwin Hubble, working at Mount Wilson Observatory in Southern California, showed that all the distant galaxies in the universe were racing away from one another as though they were debris from a cosmic explosion. The Big Bang model seemed to be correct. And, while it would take several decades before the theory was accepted by the scientific establishment, Einstein, to his credit, did not fight on. "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and even called his repulsive force the biggest blunder of his career.

But there's a twist in the tale:

If gravity pulls everything together, then the expansion of the Big Bang should be slowing, because all the receding galaxies would be attracted to one another. In 1998, however, when astronomers tried to measure this deceleration, they were astonished to find that the universe is in fact accelerating. The galaxies are apparently moving apart faster and faster as time passes.

What is the best explanation scientists can come up with? The existence of an antigravity force. Theorists call this repulsive effect "dark energy," but it is exactly the sort of force that Einstein posited to maintain the stability of the universe. Antigravity is now back in fashion some seven decades after he abandoned it.

Yep, we're back to "making crap up without any real evidence". Don't get me wrong: you have to have a working theory in order to help direct search for more evidence and greater understanding. You can't just gather data and expect it to make sense. You have to sort it into "supporting" and "undermining" groups based on your paradigm. So for all my joking around about "making crap up", I do understand the necessity of it.

But Science! adherents** would have you believe that "current theory" is more than just theory, that it has been proven there is no God, that the universe has been demonstrated beyond doubt to be clockwork and automatic and needs no creator. No. Emphatically no. We are just starting to understand some of the aspects of the universe, and our theories are rudimentary at best, if not outright nonsense. But ya gotta start somewhere.

The problem for Science! adherents is that to look at all the current evidence and postulate the idea of dark matter as being the only rational explanation is pretty much equivalent to the ancient Greeks seeing lightning and thunder and assuming Zeus is angry at Hera. It's a working assumption that works in an extremely limited understanding of the universe.***

Hat Tip to Dean. (I didn't have to register for the NYTimes article using his link).

Read More "Science and its Adherents" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:07 AM | Comments (1)
» Anywhere But Here links with: If You Don't Know, Make Something Up

January 01, 2005

Pigtails « Kidblogging »



Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:00 PM | Comments (2)
Seen on a French Fry Bag « Stuff Important to Me »

Check out this picture:

Read More "Seen on a French Fry Bag" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:49 PM | Comments (3)
Skills « Kidblogging »

I'm planning on buying my son a digital camera this year. Not an expensive one, necessarily, but one with a number of options for manual adjustment. My plan is to let him start exploring how to take pictures, including artistc composition, focus, picking shots, and general use of computer for manipulation, including computer adjustment afterwards, arranging, storing, emailing, CD burning.

I think I'll give it to him for his 6th birthday, and then I can buy one for Noel on her 6th birthday, to give her something to look forward to.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:48 AM | Comments (6)
Barrettes, Pigtails, and Such « Kidblogging »

One of the more interesting things of being a virtual* single parent is trying to be a Mommy to my daughter.

Her hair was getting in her face/eyes, so at daycare they started putting her hair up. Well, I don't want anyone to have to do something for me, so I started using clips as much as I could. I wasn't very good at it. After about a week I went ahead and gave her a haircut. Of course, it wasn't very good...but it wasn't horrible, either.

But it left her hair a little too short to use clips/barrettes now.

Just for fun, I guess, the lady at daycare used the bands to make pigtails. I told her she looked like "Boo" from "Monsters, Inc.", so she started asking me to do it. So I tried. I've gotten better in the last three days, but it is really difficult to do it smoothly and evenly. Any suggestions?

I'm going to let her hair continue to grow, I think, to make some of these "pretty" things easier.

I almost dread trying to do braids... [grin]

Read More "Barrettes, Pigtails, and Such" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:42 AM | Comments (8)