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)
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 »
I think you might be misinterpreting the paper's motivations for talking to his employer/friend...it showed how this was so much like most domestic abuse situations...there were outsiders trying to help, and he would make "excuses" for the bruises, clam up, etc. I just think that was the reporter doing an thorough job that really, truly painted a picture of what this man's life was like. They did a grade A job. (Plus, they have followed the same formula for their profiles of female abuse victims...this has been an ongoing series).
posted by
Jo on February 1, 2005 07:39 AM
Cool. Thanks for the correction!
posted by
Nathan on February 1, 2005 07:40 AM
« Hide 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:
"Nuts."
UPDATE: Or, instead of writing this post, I could have just gone to read this one at Q and O.
Show Comments »
Intelligence is not a liberal strong suit. You know Teddy-boy's comments 2 days prior were in the hopes that the elections would go badly and people would bow to him and finally claim, "Oh, Teddy, you are just as great as your brothers afterall!" He and his ilk are delusional!
posted by
ReaderMom on January 31, 2005 07:34 PM
« Hide 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 »
You can't go - all the plants will die!
posted by
Mad Mikey on January 28, 2005 07:56 AM
As long as you post. *angelic grin*
No, really, enjoy it.
posted by
Deb on January 28, 2005 09:15 AM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
07:47 AM
|
Comments (2)
January 27, 2005
Yes.
Read More "Yes." »
In case he deletes it:
Today marks the 60th year since the liberation of Auschwitz. Single day things like this always strike a bit false. Too organized; too formal. Everyone comes out, somber and stern, says the right things, but there's a sense when the ceremonies are all done there's some brushing off the hands and a, "Ok, that's done. Who wants nachos?"
Distilling it to one big day makes it, should it come up or need to be discussed, too tempting to toss aside with a, "Dude, didn't we just do that in January? Forget about it until then when we'll get all stern and somber again." "Never again" has fallen into the too-typical international relations false formulation to exaggerate some events (Jenin, Guantanamo) for political/PR gain while ignoring others (Darfur) where real risk and effort are required.
It is good that, for a time here, a higher focus is on what happened. It is good that there are big documentary specials on PBS (even if they came with Linda Ellerby hosted 'discussions' after each segment). But I just hope the Holocaust doesn't become a "couple days in January and only when the anniversary year ends in 5 or 0" type of thing.
« Hide "Yes."
Show Comments »
Posted by Nathan at
07:48 PM
|
Comments (0)
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...?
Thoughts?
Read More ""I'm The Law In These Here Parts"" »
Show Comments »
Posted by Nathan at
02:50 PM
|
Comments (0)
January 26, 2005
The AIDS Heresy and the New Bishops.
Responses?
Show Comments »
I find the entire discussion fascinating. Looks like he laid his case out well. I'm agnostic on this one but I have to say that nothing--absolutely nothing--would surprise me at this point.
Sheesh. That was pretty non-commital, wasn't it?
posted by
Deb on January 27, 2005 08:29 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
09:17 PM
|
Comments (1)
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 »
Okay, so I drive a Jeep Cherokee, but my fuel efficient minivan wouldn't pull the pop-up camper, and we wanted to camp by Mount Rushmore, Yellowstone and Glacier and the Grand Tetons. I do recycle and get angry when a competing trash company throws my recycles in their garbage truck! (I even bring home the recycles from work!) I would love to look into the hybrid cars, but we're trying not to go bankrupt! (grin)
posted by
ReaderMom on January 26, 2005 08:33 PM
Well, I didn't say everyone should drive a Honda Civic. It comes down to the vehicle you feel you need.
...but that's not going to stop me from feeling smug when we both pull away from the gas station but I've got an extra $20 in my pocket to spend at the used book store! [grin]
posted by
Nathan on January 26, 2005 08:42 PM
I heard an interesting story on NPR this morning where ranchers who describe themselves as being in the "radical center" are rejecting both hard right and tree-hugger perspectives on the environment. It sounds like a cool concept, where they're creating conservation easements across groups of properties that will guarantee that the properties won't be broken up into smaller properties with wildlife-disturbing roads and fences, and in return they get collective grazing rights and are allowed to burn scrub down to create better grazing land. They also limit the number of cattle to prevent overgrazing.
I think it's good to develop ideas that allow for sensible land use, as opposed to the we-can't-touch-the-environment theory. Win-win.
I probably didn't describe it well, here's a link to the story.
posted by
Hubris on January 27, 2005 09:02 AM
A little lacking in self-confidence for someone named Hubris, I must say...
It makes a good argument for libertarianism, I gotta say, or decentralized/localized decision-making at the very least (since I'm not libertarian).
The thing is, I think the US is populated enough, and we have enough "global consciousness" these days to understand that looking at long-term maintenance is much more wise than short-term profit. If you want your family land to stay in the family, you have to find good ways to use it...and you can do it better than some bureaucrat sitting in Washington who thinks he's in the wilderness if there isn't a Starbucks within 30 miles.
posted by
Nathan on January 27, 2005 10:23 AM
Actually, I have cash in my pocket when I leave the gas station, too! We have a grocery store here that has a gas station out front and for every $50 you spend on groceries, you get .10 off a gallon (they keep track with your store card), so I've gotten a full tank of gas for a mere $4.50 and that was for Super!! (grin)
I do want to get a more fuel efficient car and only use the Cherokee when we camp, but until our oldest is really in need of a car (within the year), that isn't going to happen.
posted by
ReaderMom on January 27, 2005 06:49 PM
Yeah, but that's cheating! [grin]
Seriously, though, I'm really not trying to set up any sort of competition here, just making the point that growing up in Montana, I loved the pristine wilderness of the Beartooth area so much that I don't think I could stand to see it ruined by pollution and overdevelopment....but that the draconian measures demanded by most eco-people goes too far and is usually counter-productive to boot. So as I grew in political savvy, I retained my love for the environment and always bought the most fuel-efficient vehicle I could get by with in every situation.
posted by
Nathan on January 27, 2005 06:56 PM
I'm just giving you a hard time! We were in Hungry Horse, Montana two summers ago where we met up with my dad and spent some time in Glacier National Park. VERY beautiful area...I would be even more mindful of conservation living there. We actually have conservation land surrounding our rather suburban neighborhood and we are strict about how it's taken care of...I suppose that we are IEC's, too!
P.S. Hope you have a nice few days off!
posted by
ReaderMom on January 28, 2005 06:27 PM
I'm not into stupid things like taking aluminum cans to the recycling center. I take them to the same scrapyard the winos use, and get fifty cents a pound for them.
posted by
triticale on February 1, 2005 04:51 PM
Woot! Nice thinking.
posted by
Nathan on February 1, 2005 06:40 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
11:05 AM
|
Comments (9)
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.
Anyone?
Show Comments »
Do you remember the tale of two Moxies? I got so many hits from Metafilter it took my blog down for awhile.
posted by
Jo on January 26, 2005 10:24 AM
So I'm getting set up for a blog-war? Cool.
posted by
Nathan on January 26, 2005 10:27 AM
Server Error
The server encountered an internal error and was unable to complete your request.
Could not connect to JRun Server.
I think you slashdotted them.
posted by
McGehee on January 26, 2005 11:13 AM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
10:03 AM
|
Comments (3)
Democrat Plans to Fight Terror
«
GWOT
»
McQ does some nice analysis.
Thesis:
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" »
1. Take the fight to the terrorists
A. Increase the U.S. Special Forces capability by 2,000 personnel over the next several years, greatly enhancing this nation's ability to track down and eliminate international terrorists in all corners of the globe.
B. Increase foreign language experts in the U.S. government, thereby ensuring that our troops and security personnel receive timely translations of critical conversations between terrorist organizations.
C. Strengthen measures to combat terrorist financing, a critical aspect of the war on terror.
Okay, this is 90% of the Bush Administration strategy (number pulled out of thin air, but you know what I mean). It would be probably 10% of the Democrat strategy. This is an improvement? Also, note point "B". What they are really saying here is "Stop kicking linguists out of the military because they are gay" which is is really a back-door (pun intended) way of saying "allow gays to serve openly in the military". Now, while I actually do support that, I don't like doing it in an underhanded way...and to be honest, most of these people getting kicked out are using the "gay" excuse because they just don't want to serve. If this option were taken away, you'd just see more Obesity discharges or sudden Conscientious Objector realizations.
And I'm sure the first place Democrats would look for point "C" would be Halliburton and the sale of SUVs.
2. Dry up the Breeding Grounds that Produce Terrorism.
A. Authorize additional funding for basic education programs to help nations provide a clear alternative to the madrassas that preach radical Islam.
B. Support to non-governmental organizations working to enhance democracy and development in the Muslim world.
C. New public diplomacy programs to explain U.S. policies and counter anti-U.S. propaganda, and a long term strategy to deal with key states; including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
It sounds identical to what President Bush is already doing, isn't it? I mean, if Afghanistan and Iraq weren't breeding grounds producing terrorism, what
is? Idaho? Are Democrats going to shift to depopulating/re-educationing Red-State America to prevent another Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing?
Oh, and points "A" and "B"? If you squint slightly, they say:
Raise taxes to increase spending in line with our idea of resolving "root causes".
3. Increase the U.S. Government's Accountability and Effectiveness to Counter the Terrorist Threat.
A. Deal with these problems by establishing a mechanism to assess the effectiveness of U.S. polices and programs on the war on terror.
B. Create tough criminal penalties for anyone caught defrauding or profiteering from U.S. foreign assistance programs.
C. Create an independent commission to hold accountable all of those responsible for the Abu Ghraib scandal.
This would be about 45% of the Democrat program. Specifically, make it a priority to appease terrorists, dictators, and the UN (apology for the redunancy) so that we will have more credibility to take on terror sometime in the
far off future. Make friends with France again. And point "C" is looking for a pretext to jail the entire Bush Administration, if possible. Well, except for those who plea-bargain (Powell) to implicate the true Masterminds of Evil (Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. In that order).
4. Prevent Terrorist Acts With Weapons of Mass Destruction
A. Expand the pace and scope of programs to eliminate and safeguard nuclear materials by authorizing a global cleanout of radioactive materials.
B. Expand the Cooperative Threat Reduction program beyond the Former Soviet Union.
C. Dramatically increase resources for a range of under-funded, yet vital, State and Defense Department programs.
D. Include a number of measures to increase border and port security and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack. It adds 1,500 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and Customs and Border Protection agents over 5 years; authorizes $3 billion over 4 years to ensure that MTSA standards are met and funds other port security measures; and creates or restores a number of programs designed to ensure that this nation's state and local first responders have the training and equipment they need to deal with this threat.
This is the other 45% of the Democrat agenda (leaving 10% of effort/funding for the first two, if you are keeping track). Let's call this "following the Democrat Strategy for the Homeland Security Department" plan, i.e., dramatically increase the number of people who get cushy federal jobs they can't be fired from and so tend to vote Democrat in gratitude. But notice the most detailed point of any given: point "D". What they are saying here is that while they will bloat federal government and commensurately raise your taxes as much as possible, they will only allow the addition of a token handful of border guards that won't do anything to stop all the new Democrat votes coming across the border from Mexico.
Okay, now I understand the Democrat proposal. Now can I smear it?
« Hide "Democrat Plans to Fight Terror"
Show Comments »
Posted by Nathan at
09:26 AM
|
Comments (0)
January 25, 2005
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
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 »
Nepotism/favoritism sucks. I'll never forget when our fixed ops manager had an affair with an admin assistant...his wife fell apart. So, the company created a job (that had never existed before) for his wife, gave her the office next to his, and installed a WINDOW inbetween the two offices so she could keep an eye on him. She got PAID to sit and watch the husband who earns six digits.
I got a .25 raise that year.
posted by
Jo on January 25, 2005 03:15 PM
After high school ended I left (fled) Santa Cruz because of the very reasons Ms. Denton is able to say and do as she pleases. If you lean right, you're always wrong. If you lean left, anything you say (i.e. "speak truth to power"), or anything you do (Nepotism, wasting Taxpayer/University funds, etc), no matter how idiotic or self-serving they may be, is allowed and defended because... (add your favorite liberal excuse here). Trust me, I've heard them all.
Every story I ever hear coming out of Santa Cruz usually falls under the 'Laughable Cook Fringe' page of a News Paper.
It's sad that such a beautiful coastal town is full of people who prefer admiring their so-called intellect instead of admiring great waves, prestine bay, and giant redwood groves. Evolution may be preached in that town, but it has yet to take effect.
posted by
Tony on January 26, 2005 10:15 AM
Jo, that guy must have been a huge asset (or at least 60% of one) to the company if they were willing to spend that kind of money. I would sooner have fired the sum'bitch and/or quietly encouraged his wife to kick him out of the house and sue for a huge alimony (and child support?) regime.
posted by
McGehee on January 26, 2005 11:07 AM
He was a year away from retirement, I often think that had a lot to do with it.
posted by
Jo on January 26, 2005 02:35 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
02:28 PM
|
Comments (4)
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 »
D'oh! ;)
posted by
Jo on January 25, 2005 02:35 PM
<groooooan>
posted by
McGehee on January 25, 2005 02:37 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
02:21 PM
|
Comments (2)
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)
The latest edition of Asia By Blog is now up for your reading pleasure. Please set your watches accordingly.
Show Comments »
I can't believe we used almost identical phrases on our blogs on the same day! Good lord.
posted by
Jo on January 25, 2005 01:54 PM
« Hide 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 »
Uh-huh.
I know that disclaimer was aimed directly at me.
(Big obvious Wink-Wink :D )
posted by
Rae on January 25, 2005 09:41 AM
That's because you are smart enough to know it really is all about you. [grin]
posted by
Nathan on January 25, 2005 09:49 AM
You're going to have to put them in the order of most updated, so you can get to the frequently-changing ones first! I of course would be down on the bottom, were I still blogging. :)
posted by
Jo on January 25, 2005 01:55 PM
Jo- blog, please?
Nathan~ it has taken a lifetime for me to learn it isn't all about me, but to know for just once it is, makes all the other efforts at humility and others-centeredness worth it. (grin and wink).
P.S. I just think I should have special status (like he does on my blogroll) outside of the obligatory MuNu roll. (Ahem).
posted by
Rae on January 25, 2005 03:58 PM
Are you requesting to be put in "Resources" or "Opposite Views", then? [grin]
posted by
Nathan on January 25, 2005 04:19 PM
Resources sounds perfect. As a mother and wife, I feel my complete life revolves around being resourceful :D
posted by
Rae on January 25, 2005 04:33 PM
I have become addicted to blogs and thanks to you I have added another. I now have 29 blogs in my favorites...wonder how many I can fit?!
posted by
ReaderMom on January 25, 2005 07:24 PM
Glad to be of service! And when will we see ReaderMom's blog start up? [grin]
posted by
Nathan on January 25, 2005 07:27 PM
I did start one and then dumped it after about a week. I didn't feel like I was accomplishing what I wanted at this point. I'm having too much fun going through everyone else's right now anyway!
I'm addicted like I was when we got our first computer back in 1990 and spent hours and hours on Prodigy newsgroups!
You keep posting and I'll keep reading!
posted by
ReaderMom on January 26, 2005 08:25 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
09:00 PM
|
Comments (9)
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 Blockbuster.com 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 »
I'm not sure I disagree with the phrasing at all, and I'm pro-life. If they'd said that he was 'chipping away at abortion rights' then that might be questionable, but Bush has supported (definitely in Texas, and I think nationally) restricting the legality of abortion. There may be a better way to put it, but I could imagine myself saying the exact same thing (approvingly).
posted by
R. Alex on January 25, 2005 02:40 PM
Hmmm...you may have a point. I still think the "chipping away at" is a negative phrasing, but I'll consider it.
I'll modify the post later if I change my mind, and give you props if I do.
posted by
Nathan on January 25, 2005 02:45 PM
Um, we wrote these on the wrong post...
posted by
Nathan on January 25, 2005 02:47 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
05:52 PM
|
Comments (3)
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 »
I don't think you need a grave to mourn. And I think women who have abortions mourn in their own private way...and that's something Dawn will never know or understand. And good for her, and I don't mean that in a snotty way at all.
Now then: this nonsense of groups "not allowing women to mourn" has got to stop. There is no integrity or virtue in spreading lies. I have more than one friend who went to a social worker at Planned Parenthood after feeling guilt and sorrow after an abortion...and they were met with kindness, understanding, empathy, and support.
I think it's terrible when to cast a negative light on a group, one must resort to complete untruths.
posted by
Jo on January 25, 2005 01:51 PM
The thing is, Jo, as much as I love you, this official statement by Planned Parenthood does fully meet my definition of "not allowing women to mourn". It straight-out tells women that abortion is not a big deal for most women, so if you feel any grief, there is something wrong with you, not with abortion or Planned Parenthood.
Maybe a compassionate worker goes against Planned Parenthood's official stance. That is a credit to the person, not to Planned Parenthood.
posted by
Nathan on January 25, 2005 02:15 PM
I know that one of our local LCSW volunteers went so far as to create a tipsheet called "ways to mourn"...and I think it's out there on the internet. I'll see if I can locate it.
posted by
Jo on January 25, 2005 02:29 PM
Hmm... nice site but be more informative!
posted by
Cari on July 15, 2005 04:02 AM
WOW! I'll add your site to my bookmarks.
posted by
EroComix on July 18, 2005 05:03 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
02:33 PM
|
Comments (5)
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)" »
Update:
Um, so maybe I could have left it at merely saying the election alone would not establish liberty in Iraq.
But I like to follow ideas to see where they lead. It may have weakened my point somewhat. If so, I'm sorry. But I see no real reason to truncate what has already been written. Maybe I'll refine them into separate essays later, but I tend to procrastinate on stuff like that.
« Hide "Democracy = Liberty? Not Necessarily (Updated)"
Show Comments »
A wise man once told me:
"One man's liberty is another man's slavery"
posted by
Jeremy on January 24, 2005 12:40 PM
"One man's liberty is another man's slavery"
WTF?
posted by
McGehee on January 25, 2005 02:32 PM
Yeah, that's what I was thinking...but I like and respect Jeremy (heck, he made me a GI Joe Card!), so I was willing to let it pass.
posted by
Nathan on January 25, 2005 02:35 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
12:08 PM
|
Comments (3)
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)
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.
Letters:
- "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
...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)
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 »
Been a while since I've seen that movie -- didn't even realize that was him.
But would an arrogant actor have included a scene in one of his movies where another character remarks on his very real resemblance to Arsenio Hall (Passenger 57? That was hysterical.
posted by
McGehee on January 24, 2005 06:26 PM
Well, I never saw that movie, so you could be right...
The movies he totally failed to win any sympathy from me due to what I perceived as arrogance were:
The Art of War
The Fan
Rising Sun
White Men Can't Jump
and
One Night Stand
It may be a character defect on my part, I don't know.
posted by
Nathan on January 24, 2005 06:38 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
06:14 PM
|
Comments (2)
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 »
An an outstanding Athiest I can speak to:
"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."
I don't even think about it really - death is death - end of story - worm food - it's not even worth thinking about.
posted by
Monkey on January 23, 2005 06:02 PM
I see no contradiction in our statements...
The equivalent term to "Context" in Mandarin Chinese is "the words that come before and after". If Death is the end, end of story, then there is no words coming after, and so it doesn't really fit at least one definition of "context".
But that's getting rather meta-philosophical, though, isn't it? [grin]
posted by
Nathan on January 23, 2005 06:07 PM
But it also suggests that life has no context -- if there is nothing before, and nothing after, then life, being therefore devoid of context, can have no meaning.
I prefer not to accept that. It means walking along the edge of a philosophical precipice that could not possibly make me a better human being.
posted by
McGehee on January 24, 2005 06:23 PM
Nice point, Kevin. And, yes, I heartily agree.
It's a variant of Pascal's Wager to think that way, and it would be foolish to base your entire faith only on that point...but I sincerely doubt you are doing that. And it does make a nice corroborating confirmation of our faith.
posted by
Nathan on January 24, 2005 06:32 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
03:18 PM
|
Comments (4)
January 22, 2005
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 »
You're only an alcoholic if you go to meetings. Otherwise, you're just a drunk. :-)
posted by
Kathleen on January 22, 2005 06:29 PM
Dark beer, huh? Sounds like good taste to me.
posted by
diamond dave on January 23, 2005 05:53 AM
My dark "beer" choice is Guinness. I usually drink about two of 'em over a four hour period - just sipping a bit each time for the taste. I drink them so slowly that I never get a "buzz" on, mainly because I hate hangovers. I do this just about every day, so I must be an alcoholic, eh?
posted by
Vulgorilla on January 23, 2005 05:58 AM
I drink my homemade stuff. Much better than anything I can buy ;)
posted by
Sharp as a Marble on January 23, 2005 06:48 AM
Yeah, I gotta try that homemade method. If you got that good of results on your first try, it seems worth an attempt.
posted by
Nathan on January 23, 2005 08:42 AM
Alcoholism is a tricky thing...if you're sneaking and lying about your drinking, it's a problem. If you can't stop after one or two, it's a problem...I don't think you have a problem. I think you enjoy a good dark beer! Enjoy!
posted by
ReaderMom on January 23, 2005 09:07 AM
You like to relax once in a while with a fashionable adult beverage.
I'd say you have EIB but you didn't say anything about smoking fine cigars.
posted by
McGehee on January 24, 2005 06:17 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
05:35 PM
|
Comments (7)
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 »
...like vanity plates on a rusted out car.
posted by
ReaderMom on January 23, 2005 09:09 AM
Nice one!
posted by
Nathan on January 23, 2005 10:38 AM
A spoiler on an Escort is like a turbocharger on a Yugo.
...diamond earrings on a warthog.
...afterburners on a Piper Cub.
posted by
McGehee on January 24, 2005 06:15 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
05:09 PM
|
Comments (3)
January 18, 2005
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 Word...you 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 »
That's a very good word, Nathan. I may borrow that sometime.
posted by
IowaSoccerMom on January 19, 2005 05:28 AM
You'd be amazed at how much an adult can learn from a children's devotional book. I sometimes use them as a primer.
posted by
diamond dave on January 19, 2005 01:39 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
10:17 PM
|
Comments (2)
January 16, 2005
Hi! I'm on vacation for one week. If I don't post, that's why! See you when I get back!
Show Comments »
Have a wonderful and relaxing vacation, Nathan.
posted by
Rae on January 16, 2005 10:35 PM
What Rae said. :-)
posted by
Deb on January 17, 2005 03:27 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
07:52 PM
|
Comments (2)
January 14, 2005
Zomby linked me regarding me linking him, so I thought I'd go ahead and return the favor.
Show Comments »
And so it continues, in an infinite loop... :-)
Reminds me of the olden days, really.
posted by
Deb on January 14, 2005 12:57 PM
:-)
Zomboys a nice guy...
posted by
theco on January 14, 2005 09:16 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
11:58 AM
|
Comments (2)
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" »
Let's say you buy a house for $250k, with a down payment of $50k. The closing costs on that are going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $5000 or so. Part of that includes paying money up front for a lower interest rate, so it's not all lost, but the shorter time you own the house, the less worth it is to "pay down the interest", i.e., "points". I may get into that later.
So you start out $5000 in the hole already.
You've got that $200,000 loan. If you do it for 15 years, I think your payments are around $1500 a month. Wow, eh? $1500/month should pay that loan down to nothing real quick, right? In fact, you do the math and is should be paid off in less than 8 years. So why does it take 15?
Have you looked at an amortization scedule lately? Your first month, the $1500 gets divided and something like $780 goes to interest, and and $720 to the principle. In fact, by the end of the first year, after shelling out $18,000, you've probably paid your loan down a whopping $300 or so. $17,700 of it went to the bank for interest. The second year you pay the loan down about $600, and it slowly goes up from there. You pay the bulk of the loan back in the last three years.
That's why it's vital to pay extra on the loan to pay it down as quickly as possible, because you an amazingly less amount of interest.
But I digress.
So take your house. In the three years you've owned it, you have paid down the loan less than $3000. You've been unlucky and the housing market has been flat the entire time, so you sell your $250k house for $250k. You still owe $247k, for a grand total profit of $3000! But wait, you started $5000 in the hole because of closing costs, right? And in selling, you have to put another $5000 or so fixing up the house, painting over the crayon marks, replacing the carpeting your daughter's gastric juices bleached out... And don't forget to pay the selling agent his 6% commission, which would thus be about $14k. So you made $3000 on the house, but lost about $24k on fees and expenses associated with buying and selling a house, for a grand total impact on your pocketbook of negative 21 Thousand Dollars!
Sort of. Don't forget taxes. Remember that $18k that went to the bank the first year? And the $17k that they pocketed the next year? Sucks, doesn't it? Well, the govt agrees, and so they don't make you pay taxes on it. Write off $18000 of your earned income from your taxes that year, saving you probably about $6000. For three years, that means you saved $18000 in taxes, meaning you are only $3000 in the hole now.
And I assumed a flat market for ease of computation and worst-case scenario. It's not hard to think that the market is going to go up at least $3000 on a $250k house over three years. If for some reason it does, rent out the house for 18 months, and the renters pay down your loan to the point were all these expenses vs remaining principle is in your favor and you almost cannot lose money.
So if you want to buy a house but aren't sure you can stay more than 3 years, what do you do?
First, buy a house in good structural condition with cosmetic problems. You can get a house with bad carpeting and a bad paint job for $15000 less than the market, probably, and do those things yourself for less than $5000, especially if you do the engineered wood flooring (cheaper than carpet and lasts longer). That's sweat equity of $10000 you just made for your effort.
Second, buy less than you can afford. My housing allowance in Hawaii is going to end up being something like $2600/month. I supposedly could afford a $400,000 house. But if the housing market doesn't go up, I could lose lots.
So I'm probably going to buy a $200,000 condo in okay shape and work to fix it up. Plus the maintenance association fees add on to the monthly payment, and taxes, and utilities, leaving me about $600 extra a month to pay down the loan. And remember, that's a housing allowance. That means even with a flat housing market, I'll make at least $10000 dollars after 3 years, absolute worst-case scenario And maybe as much as $50,000 if things go well.
I'll keep you posted on it.
Now you should understand why owning a house 3 years or less is a bad risk, but 5 years or more is nearly a guaranteed profit.
Is there a mortgage website that explains any of this? I never found one. I hope you can learn from my experience so as to make better decisions.
« Hide "Mortgages"
Show Comments »
I'm confused.
The principal is the amount of the original loan. In the $15,000 a month pay schedule, you cite $720 going towards paying down the principle. If that $720 is going towards paying down what you owe, then by the end of the year you should have paid down about $8,500 or so on the house. So I'm not quite understanding what you mean by only $300 going towards paying down the loan?
posted by
R. Alex on January 15, 2005 10:56 AM
I think mortgage-related information is one of those annoying things where everyone who might give you nicely laid out and clear information has a vested interest in selling you something; house or mortgage most likely, and therefore has an interest in obfuscating things.
Or not. Maybe it's all written by financial geeks who know things that they assume everyone else does, so they don't explain it clearly. The kind of thing also common with computer geeks.
posted by
Jay on January 15, 2005 02:30 PM
When we first went house hunting, we had on the top of our list that the house should have a sagging porch, because I had helped my father repair one such when I was ten, and still had access to the screw jacks.
Turned out we bought one without such, did barely nothing to improve it, and sold it 19 years later, as is, for six times the original purchase price. The trick is to watch the real estate trends and buy out in front of them.
posted by
triticale on January 17, 2005 03:56 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
07:48 AM
|
Comments (3)
January 13, 2005
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
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 »
You have a very humble and mature attitude about the whole affair, from what I can gather. I'm glad you have a place where you *can* vent. As far as being a good parent, I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that without continual uninterrupted grace from God, I'm a horrible mom.
You have given me pause to think about just how much I *am* engaging my own kids. I tend to be on the quiet, aloof side and I'd be happy spending an entire evening alone in a room if it were necessary. Solitary confinement wouldn't be punishment for me. Anyway, I have to struggle to purposefully engage my kids because it's not my nature. Thankfully they're all three pretty good at engaging with me!
Bless you, dear one. Keep blogging... : )
posted by
IowaSoccerMom on January 13, 2005 05:48 PM
Regardless of how you may feel about your ex-wife, preserving your children's love for their mother is absolutely the best thing you can do for them. This will pay off huge dividends as they grow older and mature and understand more about their mother.
My mother left our family when I was seven, due to a mid-life crisis. Despite the pain, anger, and disappointment he must have felt, my father NEVER said anything negative about my mother, at least not in my presence. I was too young to comprehend what was going on, I didn't have any answers, and I tended to take it out (unfairly) on my stepmother. As I grew older I realized that my mother had a lot of imperfections and made some serious mistakes with her life, but I still loved her anyway and forgave her . Today all members of my family (including parents and step-parents) can gather together without fear of conflict. Too many families these days are unable to do this.
I realize I've rambled a bit, but you seem to have struck a nerve. Letting your children love their mother despite her imperfections or your feelings about her is the right thing to do, and I can testify to that. They will thank you for it someday.
posted by
diamond dave on January 13, 2005 07:32 PM
My thanks to you both. Words....fail me.
posted by
Nathan on January 13, 2005 07:47 PM
Nathen- I did not write this but I fowarded it on to you for its wisdom. My daughter left her husband because he was an alcolic. We always treat him with respect and never say anything bad in front of him we we have contact. Good luck with your relationships with your children-BB
The nature of parenting
I frequently have had occasion in the last few weeks to contemplate the nature of parenting, and more particularly how I measure up in the endeavor. There are days, like today, when the work is so hard, so emotional, and so exhausting that I wonder how I can possibly continue with it one more day. We live in a culture that tells us incessantly how important it is to “be true to ourselves” and bombards us with the message that pursuit of our own personal happiness, convenience, satisfaction, and fulfillment is our highest calling. Applied to parenting, such a worldview is disastrous.
Parenting is a selfless undertaking, and I am convinced that if people grasped one scintilla of the daunting nature of the task, they might never willingly agree to take it on, in spite of its many rewards and satisfactions. Being human, no parent can ever be completely selfless, but we cannot afford to act as if our lives can continue unchanged by the birth of our children – because they change everything. (I recently saw a father on Oprah who said, as justification for his incredibly selfish behavior, that his life did not end when his childrens' began. I found myself shouting at the television, "YES IT DID!") It is an enormous responsibility – as parents, we are the primary influences on our children, the primary shaping force. And while we aren’t the exclusive factor in the equation, how we do our jobs will have a direct impact on what sort of adults our children grow up to be, which in turn affects what sort of culture and world we will all live in 20 and 30 and 40 years from now. And it’s all OJT! Although there are signposts along the way, we won’t really know what sort of job we’ve done until it’s all over and too late to change anything. That is a sobering and sometimes intimidating reality.
The other reality is that once the job is undertaken, we don’t really have the option of throwing in the towel. Of course, some people do so, or do it functionally if not literally. But for responsible parents, the option to give up when the going gets tough is no option at all. Of all the relationships we enter into in our lives, the one between parent and child is the one that we cannot end at will – friends come and go, marriages are terminated through divorce, but no matter what goes on between us, my daughter will be my daughter until the day I die.
My daughter is deeply discouraged, and doubts her own worth and value. This is not an uncommon condition in teenage girls, but in my daughter’s case, puberty is complicated by adoption-related issues of abandonment and anger. My job, as her mother, is to simultaneously hold her accountable and build her up – what a painfully difficult line to walk! I believe – though I do not know for certain – that I can train her best in part by setting an example worth emulating – equal parts prayer, grace, strength, compassion, humor, and commitment, at least to the best of my ability and with God’s help. Daughter leads me to believe I’m right in my belief by telling me, when she was crying to me this afternoon, that she “hates” me for being there for her no matter what, for loving her even when she doesn’t deserve it, and for believing in her even when she’s screwed up. I praise God that I am becoming better and better able to love her selflessly, and to resist taking her behavior personally, and I praise Him even more that she is beginning to recognize, respect and value that love – because from that will come a sense of her own value and a desire to be worthy of love and commitment. Out of that kind of desire and sense of Godly self-worth grows a willingness to set and meet high standards of behavior, in thought and deed, which are virtually impossible to impose externally through mere parental discipline.
My daughter doesn’t get away with as much as she thinks she does, and I am not nearly as stupid as she thinks I am. The difference is that she doesn’t see the big picture, and I am trying to. Love is a potent force, and I intend to continue to bathe her in it. I’m sure I am making mistakes, but I will not use my love for her – ever – to make her feel small, or worthless, or hopeless. I had enough of that growing up to know how devastating love can be when wielded selfishly. This relationship isn’t about me!!
I don’t have all the answers, not by a long shot. Parenting is incredibly hard work, but it is also an enormous privilege. God is softening my daughter’s heart, and I see signs of that every day. She’s wrestling with new self-awareness and a new sense of who she is as God’s child, as my child, as a young lady who is no longer a child but not yet a woman. I pray that God will continue to plant the soil of her spirit deeply, and I thank Him for the privilege of watering what grows there and tending it as best I am able. The outcome, ultimately, is in His hands.
May God bless and keep my daughter. May He give me strength, wisdom, and compassion as I undertake to shepherd her through these next few years. May He guard our family and keep it a place of refuge, of encouragement, and of love. May God keep us humble, with eyes and hearts turned eternally toward His light.
posted by The Grouchy Old Yorkie Lady permalink 7 Woofs | Trackback (0)
posted by
BOB BAKER on January 16, 2005 01:32 AM
Yorkie Lady, I can sure relate to you! My 16 yr old and I have been through some rough times.
Nathan, Since I am new to your blog I don't know that background on this, but I admire the way you are handling it. I wish I could say it will get easier, but it won't. Like yorkie said, kids don't see the big picture so it's hard to explain things to them. Just stay strong, pray hard, and keep being the kind of Dad you seem to be.
posted by
Rightwingsparkle on January 16, 2005 02:29 PM
« Hide 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 »
I have no doubt that the troops will be coming home over the next year, though I don't think it's going to start right away only because so much is still up in the air with the elections. Once the results are in and we see what happens with the insurgents, withdrawls will start probably as requested by the new leaders in Iraq.
posted by
ReaderMom on January 31, 2005 07:43 PM
Right. Troop levels in Iraq will remain at current levels for several more months, at least.
posted by
Nathan on January 31, 2005 07:48 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
07:52 AM
|
Comments (2)
Good stuff, as always, over at Simon's World.
If you want to learn things about Asia, go read his link roundup.
Show Comments »
You are kindly requested to send us your rock bottom price on the basis of CFR Bandar Abbass L/C at sight as soon as possible:
1. Granular Urea 46% 50000 Tones
2. Super Phospahte Triple 50000 Tones
3. Amunium Solphate 50000 Tones
4. Chloro Potasium 50000 Tones
5. Chlorpyrifos 98% 10 Tones
6. Fenvalerate 5000 KG
Also we need 10000 Granular Urea 46% L/C at sight for any port of Dubai.
posted by
shohreh on August 1, 2005 12:15 AM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
06:09 AM
|
Comments (1)
January 12, 2005
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 you...so why can't you seem to handle voting Republican without trying to change us?
Read More "What She Said" »
*RightWingSparkle, if I assume too much or put words in your mouth that you don't agree with, let me know, and I'll change what I wrote to fit your actual thoughts and feelings.
**One of the big aspects of whether humor is acceptable or not is the amount of derision vs contempt contained in the joke
« Hide "What She Said"
Show Comments »
I agree with everything you said. Thanks for linking me and quoting me!
If you are going to Jeff's site you can see that he is still a BIT upset about the whole Kid Rock thing. I have tried to get him to see it as no big deal. But he is having none of it. I think he is really taking it personally. Oh well. At least he knows that there are many of us conservative Republicans that certainly accept and love his kind of humor.
posted by
Rightwingsparkle on January 13, 2005 09:41 AM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
09:12 PM
|
Comments (1)
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 »
Anti-Republicans is a great term. As a Dem, I would never spit such venom at someone just cause I disagree with their politics for cryin' out loud. A better label for these folks than liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat would be just plain idiots.
posted by
Jay on January 12, 2005 09:33 AM
A better label for these folks than liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat would be just plain idiots.
Can't argue with that.
posted by
McGehee on January 13, 2005 07:05 AM
« Hide 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 problematic...my 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...
...so 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 »
Poor B. That's so sad. :(
posted by
Jo on January 12, 2005 08:11 AM
Hang in there, Nathan. I'm sorry things aren't working out, but you're a great daddy and you & the kids will weather this. Good for you, for taking action.
Let me know what I can do for you. In the meantime, I'll pray for you. (((hugs)))
posted by
IowaSoccerMom on January 12, 2005 08:35 AM
Well, if you ever want to babysit in Hawaii, let me know...[grin]
A few months ago, I might have felt bad with someone saying I'm a good dad. I still lost my temper too much and used too much of my old Army Sgt "Directive" style of leadership. But with God's help and lots of prayer, I am learning to remain patient, to adjust my words and tone and even the system of punishments and rewards according to the mood and needs of the kids.
It's difficult at times, but I think I'm through the worst of it. Seriously.
But more prayer is never a bad thing.
posted by
Nathan on January 12, 2005 08:40 AM
As a new father and a military member it kills me when I can't be home to spend time with my girls. My wife is with them, and she's doing a good job, but she gets to spend all day with them... I don't think she realizes how lucky she is. I feel like the worst father in the world if I go a minute past 5pm without seeing them. For me, anything past 5pm is their time, not mine.
Who knows what the future holds for my wife and I, but I do know that nothing in this world makes me happier then the time I get to spend with the little ones.
Good luck with all you're going through, and I hope it all works out in the end. Just remember that the kids remember the good times more than the bad, so make plenty of good times for them.
posted by
Tony on January 12, 2005 11:46 AM
Oh, honey, I'd be GLAD to come babysit in Hawaii... I'll bring my three along, and we'll head for the beach. I haven't seen the sun in so long I forgot what it feels like. : )
You're in my prayers, dear friend.
posted by
IowaSoccerMom on January 13, 2005 05:54 AM
That's just the saddest thing I can imagine.
posted by
McGehee on January 13, 2005 07:01 AM
Nathan, Taking the high road is always a good path as well as not burning bridges. (this comment is sponsored by AAA, apparently.) But I do mean it. I admire your attitude, and I do remember your family in prayer & will continue to.
posted by
Jane on January 14, 2005 10:11 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
08:00 AM
|
Comments (7)
»
Yippee-Ki-Yay! links with:
Heartbreaker
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 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
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 »
Disgusting. Plain and simple.
posted by
Sharp as a Marble on January 11, 2005 05:55 PM
I'm not so sure the omission was inadvertent. I saved the source though, just in case the decide to go back and actually quote the actual 1st Amendment.
posted by
Mike Howard on January 11, 2005 07:04 PM
« Hide 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
Ya'll go participate in this most excellent comment fundraiser, okay?
Show Comments »
Thank you for linking the site, Nate.
posted by
Rae on January 11, 2005 11:57 AM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
08:54 AM
|
Comments (1)
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 »
OT: Greg Hammonds, whose wife died of breast cancer, is hosting a comment fundraiser with the money raised to go to the National Breast Cancer Foundation’s programs for education and low-cost or free mammograms for low-income women. For every comment made, he or another of the sponsor's will donate $1. So, if you have the time to simply comment or even better to provide a link to direct traffic there, it would be super :D
posted by
Rae on January 11, 2005 08:52 AM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
08:47 AM
|
Comments (1)
January 10, 2005
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 »
I got 19/20 but I had to guesstimate on a couple or three.
Missed the Inkspot question.
Does this make me older than dirt?
posted by
Randy on January 10, 2005 08:45 PM
Or dirtier than old...
posted by
Nathan on January 10, 2005 08:56 PM
16 right, and only pushing 30. Both my 66 caprice and 70 Nova had the dimmer on the floorboards, so ya don't have to go back too far. And who doesn't love wax bottles and Blackjack gum? ;)
posted by
Jo on January 11, 2005 08:59 AM
19 out of 20 -- missed Macaroni. And I'm a tick over 35. But admittedly I guessed (albeit correctly) on three of them.
posted by
Morgan on January 11, 2005 11:10 AM
How can you forget Macaroni Pony? :)
posted by
Jo on January 11, 2005 11:21 AM
I didn't the pony one. I didn't actually care that much about the Kennedy's...
...probably why I never became a Democrat?
posted by
Nathan on January 11, 2005 11:24 AM
Well, yes, to know of Macaroni you would have to have an interest (or been alive to know) in the Kennedy presidency.
Macaroni used to wander the White House lawn. One day John F. Kennedy felt like someone was watching him...he looked up from his desk, and there was Macaroni. He offered for Macaroni to come over for a pat through the window, but shy Macaroni trotted off. :)
posted by
Jo on January 11, 2005 11:46 AM
How can you forget Macaroni Pony? :)
Guess I didn't use my noodle... ;)
posted by
Morgan on January 11, 2005 11:59 AM
Awwww, noodle! :P Too funny.
For anyone interested....
http://www.presidentialpetmuseum.com/whitehousepets-1.htm
posted by
Jo on January 11, 2005 01:37 PM
Fun one Nathan. I got 17 and I'm younger than you ;p(but not ny much).
posted by
Rae on January 14, 2005 09:52 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
04:08 PM
|
Comments (10)
»
Jeremy-Gilby-dot-com links with:
History Exam
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.
Please.
Show Comments »
Nathan - FWIW, I can't find any other stories or commentary on this. Unless it's just the whole Brad Pitt/Jennifer Anniston thing crowding it off the wires, this makes me think there might be less to the article than I feared. I hope so.
posted by
Robert the LB on January 11, 2005 05:57 AM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
03:42 PM
|
Comments (1)
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 »
"Where are the People?"
posted by
Jeremy on January 7, 2005 04:18 PM
I actually misread the title, thinking it said "Annan devours areas; death toll rises to 147,000"... the mental image alone was priceless.
posted by
R. Alex on January 7, 2005 07:13 PM
"brain skips" like that make my day. :)
posted by
Nathan on January 7, 2005 07:17 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
04:11 PM
|
Comments (3)
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.
Period.
Update:
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 »
I fall about halfway between traditional conservatism and libertarianism, so take this for what it's worth:
I agree with you insofar as cheap rhetoric is concerned and I, too, get mighty annoyed with a lot of the moderate carping. That said, I believe it unwise to target Kid Rock based largely on his earlier recordings. Kid Rock's more recent recordings read a lot like the old country musicians who did a lot of stupid things and are paying the price for them, including a song lamenting an aborted child, and of someone trying to find himself and, more liberally read, God. But the point is not Kid Rock (whose music I don't particularly care for), but that Kid Rock, if let in "the tent" can speak to an audience that won't listen to you or me. It'd be something else if he was intending to sing his younger, offensive stuff at the inauguration, but getting this worked up in protest of a reforming artist who risked his career in support of Bush is extremely unwise, a missed opportunity, and honestly one of the things that kept me from hearing and understanding the Republican message sooner.
posted by
R. Alex on January 7, 2005 08:08 PM
I can see your point.
A few thoughts/reactions: I don't really have an opinion of Kid Rock, to tell the truth. My reaction was for the commenters on Ms. Malkin's site who were disdainful of people who might not like Kid Rock representing the GOP or Conservatives.
And that's kind of the other thing. Absent some sort of repudiation of his past invective on his part, his appearance in the concert would be seen as a representation or endorsement, and I can understand why some people might object to that.
Personally, I'm not planning on watching the concert so I really don't care who they have. But it won't just be the Oak Ridge Boys and the singing policeman, I'm fairly sure.
posted by
Nathan on January 7, 2005 08:35 PM
I understand where you're coming from in regards to the comments section. The word "theocracy" has the same effect on me that the word "nazi" does in a debate. The problem is that moral issues are harder to discuss between people who are coming from very different sets of assumptions and it's easy for both sides of that debate to fall into a theocrat/heathen non-productive dynamic.
posted by
R. Alex on January 7, 2005 08:38 PM
...and when I get excited/passionate, I probably contribute to that! [grin]
But I try to calm down and restrict myself to discussions of my opinion, my gut reactions, and the facts (as best I understand them)...
...and then, the overall reason for this blog is to stimulate consideration and discussion, even if it too often falls short.
posted by
Nathan on January 7, 2005 08:41 PM
'Lower your standards to be more inclusive!"'
Your standards are no higher or lower because you have a diferent political opinion. In fact it could be well argued that your standards are lower based on your stances on gay marriage and other social positions.
If they want Kid Rock to play, let him play. It's a sad fact that conservatives have to have their entertainers pass a litmus test so they can listen to music.
The GOP is, well, was a fiscal conservative party. They have not always been socially conservative. One could argue, and many 'conservative' republicans of old have that the party is actually a liberal party with the government imposing it's will into the lives of Americans more and more.
A true conservative is not one to want the government to create laws to prevent freedom, but allows individuals freedoms, meaning 'small' government rules the day. Something the republican party doesn't adhere to much anymore. It's enough to make me go independent in the future.
posted by
DC on January 12, 2005 07:48 AM
The GOP is, well, was a fiscal conservative party.
Is it? Where-ever do you come up with that from?
The Republican Party has long been an advocate of very expensive military spending, has it not?
If you look more closely, it should be clear that the Republican Party is socially conservative. This has led them to opposing on principle many of the socially-liberal and entitlement programs. One of the arguments used to oppose liberals is that it makes better fiscal sense to not give money away to people who don't earn it because it removes impetus to working for yourself.
But that's not a commitment itself to save money whenever and where-ever possible at all. Now, those arguments for not wasting money giving it away so that you don't have to continually raise taxes attracted fiscal conservatives to the Party, but that hardly means "The GOP is or was a fiscal conservative party".
From your words, I guess you consider "true conservatives" to be indistinguishable from libertarians. To tell the truth, I get suspicious when anyone tries to staple the word "true" onto a word whose meaning is already well-known, because, just like you, they are trying to alter the meaning.
The nature of "conservatism", by definition is that we already have a good thing, there's no reason to mess it up by trying to move in any certain direction, except maybe back to a previously embraced circumstance, standard, or situation.
For instance, most conservatives would like to return to the government of the 50s, or perhaps the mid-80s. The conservatives I would associate with would not want to turn the clock back on racial issues, but feel that 'progress' in the sexual arena has reaped the whirlwind, and would prefer to return to more conservative sexual mores.
See? You can't insert your definition of "conservative" into that sentence without making it false. Thus, your assertion is clearly disproven.
The difference between Conservatives and Libertarians seems to be that Libertarians want the smallest government possible and pretend to be conservatives to try and advance their agenda, whereas conservatives just want to stop trying to fix what isn't broken.
I know you'll vehemently disagree with this, but that's okay. Feel free to vent.
posted by
Nathan on January 12, 2005 08:13 AM
I don't vehenently disagree with what you said. I think you are clearly wrong on several points but don't take much of this personally.
You said:'Is it? Where-ever do you come up with that from?'
From the fact that the party platform has long been associated with limited government intervenion into business actions. Your military statement not withstanding, that is more an exception to the historical rule.
'If you look more closely, it should be clear that the Republican Party is socially conservative.'
Again, historically they have not always been so. They are frequently moved by their more reasoned members.
'The nature of "conservatism", by definition is that we already have a good thing, there's no reason to mess it up by trying to move in any certain direction, except maybe back to a previously embraced circumstance, standard, or situation.'
No by definition a conservative is one who by the dictionary-Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. One must wonder why?
But that is semantics. Then one gets into a discussion on what is tradition? Is keeping slaves a valued tradition, not allowing women to vote, etc. All were at one time traditional values held by millions.
Tradition is a bad reason to continue doing something. If it had false premises at the get go carrying them on makes little sense. Much of 'progress' is simply shedding mundane laws and methodologies that a modern world simply has no use for give our current state of knowledge.
'For instance, most conservatives would like to return to the government of the 50s, or perhaps the mid-80s. The conservatives I would associate with would not want to turn the clock back on racial issues, but feel that 'progress' in the sexual arena has reaped the whirlwind, and would prefer to return to more conservative sexual mores.'
Ahhh, now the truth of the matter. They want the 50's? How sad. Our nation has progressed so far and yet these 'conservatives' long for bygone eras.
This is cafeteria conservatism at it's finest. Keep the racial progress, but oppress other freedoms. Oh yes our sexual mores are so terrible. To whom? A nation who goes into capitulations over an exposed nipple? That type of repression?
Why does it bother others what occurs in the privacy of anothers bedroom? I hate to tell all the social 'conservatives' out there but there is no more sex now then before, it is just more visible.
And yes a true conservative would be close to a libertarian in todays language. Limited government that doesn't intrude into the daily lives of citizens. One cannot be a conservative and want the goverment regulating private lives.
But feel free to disagree.
1 man 1 vote.
posted by
DC on January 12, 2005 11:07 AM
« Hide Comments
Knowing me, you have to know it's not Hollywood, right?
Right.
Show Comments »
Posted by Nathan at
03:00 PM
|
Comments (0)
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 »
January 06, 2005
Anyone who was serious about honoring the fallen troops would honor what they accomplished, not just the price they paid.
...
Those who are busy "honoring" the deaths of American troops in Iraq seldom have much to say about what those troops accomplished. The restoration of electricity, the re-opening of hospitals and schools, and all the other things being done to try to restore a war-devastated country get little attention, and everything that has gone wrong makes the front pages and TV news for weeks on end.
Emphasis mine.
Show Comments »
Posted by Nathan at
11:10 AM
|
Comments (0)
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 »
You said it so well!!!!!! Condescension on stilts. (!)
posted by
Jane on January 6, 2005 10:23 PM
I hope you don't watch CNN coverage of Africa or Asia too often, dude; you'll end up having a stroke before you hit 40. The BBC offers the most consistent stream of out-of-touch, elitist prigs who bash Americans for being out-of-touch elitist prigs, but CNN is way more accomplished (as it were) at ruthlessly goading ordinary people into fitting their preconceived triumphs-and-tragedies storyline.
posted by
Sean Kinsell on January 10, 2005 03:22 AM
« Hide 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
...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 »
Ah. I was wondering why you hadn't responded to my previous comment. A comment which has to rank among the most interesting, insightful, witty things ever written.
But, um, don't go looking for it, though. Just take my word for it.
posted by
Jon Henke on January 6, 2005 05:41 AM
I saw that comment, actually. I...laughed, I cried. It was better than Cats.
I just felt, with such a wonderful comment, how could do anything but tarnish its luster, muddle its insight?
No, it was the perfect comment. The proper way to respect such brilliance is to let it stand on its own, a shining jewel in a backdrop of black velvet.
The rest of you slacker commenters can only hope someday you are able to leave a comment half so moving.
posted by
Nathan on January 6, 2005 06:03 AM
Really? Damn. Now I wish I could remember what I wrote!
posted by
Jon Henke on January 7, 2005 08:46 AM
Yep. Those damned "Thnigs" really get me steamed up too.
But you know what I really hate? Smart-assed people who point out typos! ;)
posted by
Morgan on January 7, 2005 11:14 AM
Corrections of typos, I don't mind.
posted by
Nathan on January 7, 2005 12:36 PM
« Hide 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" »
6. I will not gloat over my enemies' predicament before killing them.
7. When I've captured my adversary and he says, "Look, before you kill me, will you at least tell me what this is all about?" I'll say, "No." and shoot him. No, on second thought I'll shoot him then say "No."
8. After I kidnap the beautiful princess, we will be married immediately in a quiet civil ceremony, not a lavish spectacle in three weeks' time during which the final phase of my plan will be carried out.
9. I will not include a self-destruct mechanism unless absolutely necessary. If it is necessary, it will not be a large red button labeled "Danger: Do Not Push". The big red button marked "Do Not Push" will instead trigger a spray of bullets on anyone stupid enough to disregard it. Similarly, the ON/OFF switch will not clearly be labeled as such.
10. I will not interrogate my enemies in the inner sanctum -- a small hotel well outside my borders will work just as well.
11. I will be secure in my superiority. Therefore, I will feel no need to prove it by leaving clues in the form of riddles or leaving my weaker enemies alive to show they pose no threat.
12. One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation.
13. All slain enemies will be cremated, or at least have several rounds of ammunition emptied into them, not left for dead at the bottom of the cliff. The announcement of their deaths, as well as any accompanying celebration, will be deferred until after the aforementioned disposal.
14. The hero is not entitled to a last kiss, a last cigarette, or any other form of last request.
15. I will never employ any device with a digital countdown. If I find that such a device is absolutely unavoidable, I will set it to activate when the counter reaches 117 and the hero is just putting his plan into operation.
16. I will never utter the sentence "But before I kill you, there's just one thing I want to know."
17. When I employ people as advisors, I will occasionally listen to their advice.
18. I will not have a son. Although his laughably under-planned attempt to usurp power would easily fail, it would provide a fatal distraction at a crucial point in time.
19. I will not have a daughter. She would be as beautiful as she was evil, but one look at the hero's rugged countenance and she'd betray her own father.
20. Despite its proven stress-relieving effect, I will not indulge in maniacal laughter. When so occupied, it's too easy to miss unexpected developments that a more attentive individual could adjust to accordingly.
21. I will hire a talented fashion designer to create original uniforms for my Legions of Terror, as opposed to some cheap knock-offs that make them look like Nazi storm troopers, Roman foot soldiers, or savage Mongol hordes. All were eventually defeated and I want my troops to have a more positive mind-set.
22. No matter how tempted I am with the prospect of unlimited power, I will not consume any energy field bigger than my head.
23. I will keep a special cache of low-tech weapons and train my troops in their use. That way -- even if the heroes manage to neutralize my power generator and/or render the standard-issue energy weapons useless -- my troops will not be overrun by a handful of savages armed with spears and rocks.
24. I will maintain a realistic assessment of my strengths and weaknesses. Even though this takes some of the fun out of the job, at least I will never utter the line "No, this cannot be! I AM INVINCIBLE!!!" (After that, death is usually instantaneous.)
25. No matter how well it would perform, I will never construct any sort of machinery which is completely indestructible except for one small and virtually inaccessible vulnerable spot.
26. No matter how attractive certain members of the rebellion are, there is probably someone just as attractive who is not desperate to kill me. Therefore, I will think twice before ordering a prisoner sent to my bedchamber.
27. I will never build only one of anything important. All important systems will have redundant control panels and power supplies. For the same reason I will always carry at least two fully loaded weapons at all times.
28. My pet monster will be kept in a secure cage from which it cannot escape and into which I could not accidentally stumble.
29. I will dress in bright and cheery colors, and so throw my enemies into confusion.
30. All bumbling conjurers, clumsy squires, no-talent bards, and cowardly thieves in the land will be preemptively put to death. My foes will surely give up and abandon their quest if they have no source of comic relief.
31. All naive, busty tavern wenches in my realm will be replaced with surly, world-weary waitresses who will provide no unexpected reinforcement and/or romantic subplot for the hero or his sidekick.
32. I will not fly into a rage and kill a messenger who brings me bad news just to illustrate how evil I really am. Good messengers are hard to come by.
33. I won't require high-ranking female members of my organization to wear a stainless-steel bustier. Morale is better with a more casual dress-code. Similarly, outfits made entirely from black leather will be reserved for formal occasions.
34. I will not turn into a snake. It never helps.
35. I will not grow a goatee. In the old days they made you look diabolic. Now they just make you look like a disaffected member of Generation X.
36. I will not imprison members of the same party in the same cell block, let alone the same cell. If they are important prisoners, I will keep the only key to the cell door on my person instead of handing out copies to every bottom-rung guard in the prison.
37. If my trusted lieutenant tells me my Legions of Terror are losing a battle, I will believe him. After all, he's my trusted lieutenant.
38. If an enemy I have just killed has a younger sibling or offspring anywhere, I will find them and have them killed immediately, instead of waiting for them to grow up harboring feelings of vengeance towards me in my old age.
39. If I absolutely must ride into battle, I will certainly not ride at the forefront of my Legions of Terror, nor will I seek out my opposite number among his army.
40. I will be neither chivalrous nor sporting. If I have an unstoppable super weapon, I will use it as early and as often as possible instead of keeping it in reserve.
41. Once my power is secure, I will destroy all those pesky time-travel devices.
42. When I capture the hero, I will make sure I also get his dog, monkey, ferret, or whatever sickeningly cute little animal capable of untying ropes and filching keys happens to follow him around.
43. I will maintain a healthy amount of skepticism when I capture the beautiful rebel and she claims she is attracted to my power and good looks and will gladly betray her companions if I just let her in on my plans.
44. I will only employ bounty hunters who work for money. Those who work for the pleasure of the hunt tend to do dumb things like even the odds to give the other guy a sporting chance.
45. I will make sure I have a clear understanding of who is responsible for what in my organization. For example, if my general screws up I will not draw my weapon, point it at him, say "And here is the price for failure," then suddenly turn and kill some random underling.
46. If an advisor says to me "My liege, he is but one man. What can one man possibly do?” I will reply "This." and kill the advisor.
47. If I learn that a callow youth has begun a quest to destroy me, I will slay him while he is still a callow youth instead of waiting for him to mature.
48. I will treat any beast which I control through magic or technology with respect and kindness. Thus if the control is ever broken, it will not immediately come after me for revenge.
49. If I learn the whereabouts of the one artifact which can destroy me, I will not send all my troops out to seize it. Instead I will send them out to seize something else and quietly put a Want-Ad in the local paper.
50. My main computers will have their own special operating system that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and Macintosh PowerBooks.
51. If one of my dungeon guards begins expressing concern over the conditions in the beautiful princess' cell, I will immediately transfer him to a less people-oriented position.
52. I will hire a team of board-certified architects and surveyors to examine my castle and inform me of any secret passages and abandoned tunnels that I might not know about.
53. If the beautiful princess that I capture says "I'll never marry you! Never, do you hear me, NEVER!!!” I will say "Oh well" and kill her.
54. I will not strike a bargain with a demonic being then attempt to double-cross it simply because I feel like being contrary.
55. The deformed mutants and odd-ball psychotics will have their place in my Legions of Terror. However before I send them out on important covert missions that require tact and subtlety, I will first see if there is anyone else equally qualified who would attract less attention.
56. My Legions of Terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
57. Before employing any captured artifacts or machinery, I will carefully read the owner's manual.
58. If it becomes necessary to escape, I will never stop to pose dramatically and toss off a one-liner.
59. I will never build a sentient computer smarter than I am.
60. My five-year-old child advisor will also be asked to decipher any code I am thinking of using. If he breaks the code in less than 30 seconds, it will not be used. Note: this also applies to passwords.
61. If my advisors ask "Why are you risking everything on such a mad scheme?” I will not proceed until I have a response that satisfies them.
62. I will design fortress hallways with no alcoves or protruding structural supports which intruders could use for cover in a firefight.
63. Bulk trash will be disposed of in incinerators, not compactors. And they will be kept hot, with none of that nonsense about flames going through accessible tunnels at predictable intervals.
64. I will see a competent psychiatrist and get cured of all extremely unusual phobias and bizarre compulsive habits which could prove to be a disadvantage.
65. If I must have computer systems with publicly available terminals, the maps they display of my complex will have a room clearly marked as the Main Control Room. That room will be the Execution Chamber. The actual main control room will be marked as Sewage Overflow Containment.
66. My security keypad will actually be a fingerprint scanner. Anyone who watches someone press a sequence of buttons or dusts the pad for fingerprints then subsequently tries to enter by repeating that sequence will trigger the alarm system.
67. No matter how many shorts we have in the system, my guards will be instructed to treat every surveillance camera malfunction as a full-scale emergency.
68. I will spare someone who saved my life sometime in the past. This is only reasonable as it encourages others to do so. However, the offer is good one time only. If they want me to spare them again, they'd better save my life again.
69. All midwives will be banned from the realm. All babies will be delivered at state-approved hospitals. Orphans will be placed in foster-homes, not abandoned in the woods to be raised by creatures of the wild.
70. When my guards split up to search for intruders, they will always travel in groups of at least two. They will be trained so that if one of them disappears mysteriously while on patrol, the other will immediately initiate an alert and call for backup, instead of quizzically peering around a corner.
71. If I decide to test a lieutenant's loyalty and see if he/she should be made a trusted lieutenant, I will have a crack squad of marksmen standing by in case the answer is no.
72. If all the heroes are standing together around a strange device and begin to taunt me, I will pull out a conventional weapon instead of using my unstoppable super weapon on them.
73. I will not agree to let the heroes go free if they win a rigged contest, even though my advisors assure me it is impossible for them to win.
74. When I create a multimedia presentation of my plan designed so that my five-year-old advisor can easily understand the details, I will not label the disk "Project Overlord" and leave it lying on top of my desk.
75. I will instruct my Legions of Terror to attack the hero en masse, instead of standing around waiting while members break off and attack one or two at a time.
76. If the hero runs up to my roof, I will not run up after him and struggle with him in an attempt to push him over the edge. I will also not engage him at the edge of a cliff. (In the middle of a rope-bridge over a river of molten lava is not even worth considering.)
77. If I have a fit of temporary insanity and decide to give the hero the chance to reject a job as my trusted lieutenant, I will retain enough sanity to wait until my current trusted lieutenant is out of earshot before making the offer.
78. I will not tell my Legions of Terror "And he must be taken alive!" The command will be "And try to take him alive if it is reasonably practical."
79. If my doomsday device happens to come with a reverse switch, as soon as it has been employed it will be melted down and made into limited-edition commemorative coins.
80. If my weakest troops fail to eliminate a hero, I will send out my best troops instead of wasting time with progressively stronger ones as he gets closer and closer to my fortress.
81. If I am fighting with the hero atop a moving platform, have disarmed him, and am about to finish him off and he glances behind me and drops flat, I too will drop flat instead of quizzically turning around to find out what he saw.
82. I will not shoot at any of my enemies if they are standing in front of the crucial support beam to a heavy, dangerous, unbalanced structure.
83. If I'm eating dinner with the hero, put poison in his goblet, then have to leave the table for any reason, I will order new drinks for both of us instead of trying to decide whether or not to switch with him.
84. I will not have captives of one sex guarded by members of the opposite sex.
85. I will not use any plan in which the final step is horribly complicated, e.g. "Align the 12 Stones of Power on the sacred altar then activate the medallion at the moment of total eclipse." Instead it will be more along the lines of "Push the button."
86. I will make sure that my doomsday device is up to code and properly grounded.
87. My vats of hazardous chemicals will be covered when not in use. Also, I will not construct walkways above them.
88. If a group of henchmen fail miserably at a task, I will not berate them for incompetence then send the same group out to try the task again.
89. After I capture the hero's super weapon, I will not immediately disband my legions and relax my guard because I believe whoever holds the weapon is unstoppable. After all, the hero held the weapon and I took it from him.
90. I will not design my Main Control Room so that every workstation is facing away from the door.
91. I will not ignore the messenger that stumbles in exhausted and obviously agitated until my personal grooming or current entertainment is finished. It might actually be important.
92. If I ever talk to the hero on the phone, I will not taunt him. Instead I will say this; his dogged perseverance has given me new insight on the futility of my evil ways and that if he leaves me alone for a few months of quiet contemplation I will likely return to the path of righteousness. (Heroes are incredibly gullible in this regard.)
93. If I decide to hold a double execution of the hero and an underling who failed or betrayed me, I will see to it that the hero is scheduled to go first.
94. When arresting prisoners, my guards will not allow them to stop and grab a useless trinket of purely sentimental value.
95. My dungeon will have its own qualified medical staff complete with bodyguards. That way if a prisoner becomes sick and his cellmate tells the guard it's an emergency, the guard will fetch a trauma team instead of opening up the cell for a look.
96. My door mechanisms will be designed so that blasting the control panel on the outside seals the door and blasting the control panel on the inside opens the door, not vice versa.
97. My dungeon cells will not be furnished with objects that contain reflective surfaces or anything that can be unraveled.
98. If an attractive young couple enters my realm, I will carefully monitor their activities. If I find they are happy and affectionate, I will ignore them. However if circumstance have forced them together against their will and they spend all their time bickering and criticizing each other except during the intermittent occasions when they are saving each others' lives at which point there are hints of sexual tension, I will immediately order their execution.
99. Any data file of crucial importance will be padded to 1.45Mb in size.
100. Finally, to keep my subjects permanently locked in a mindless trance, I will provide each of them with free unlimited Internet access.
101. I will not order my trusted lieutenant to kill the infant who is destined to overthrow me -- I'll do it myself.
102. I will not waste time making my enemy's death look like an accident -- I'm not accountable to anyone and my other enemies wouldn't believe it.
103. I will make it clear that I do know the meaning of the word "mercy"; I simply choose not show them any.
104. My undercover agents will not have tattoos identifying them as members of my organization, nor will they be required to wear military boots or adhere to any other dress codes.
105. I will design all doomsday machines myself. If I must hire a mad scientist to assist me, I will make sure that he is sufficiently twisted to never regret his evil ways and seek to undo the damage he's caused.
106. If my supreme command center comes under attack, I will immediately flee to safety in my prepared escape pod and direct the defenses from there. I will not wait until the troops break into my inner sanctum to attempt this.
107. Even though I don't really care because I plan on living forever, I will hire engineers who are able to build me a fortress sturdy enough that, if I am slain, it won't tumble to the ground for no good structural reason.
108. Any and all magic and/or technology that can miraculously resurrect a secondary character who has given up his/her life through self sacrifice will be outlawed and destroyed.
109. I will see to it that plucky young lads/lasses in strange clothes and with the accent of an outlander shall REGULARLY climb some monument in the main square of my capital and denounce me, claim to know the secret of my power, rally the masses to rebellion, etc. That way, the citizens will be jaded in case the real thing ever comes along.
110. I will not employ devious schemes that involve the hero's party getting into my inner sanctum before the trap is sprung.
111. I will offer oracles the choice of working exclusively for me or being executed.
112. I will not rely entirely upon "totally reliable" spells that can be neutralized by relatively inconspicuous talismans.
113. I will make the main entrance to my fortress standard-sized. While elaborate 60-foot high double-doors definitely impress the masses, they are hard to close quickly in an emergency.
114. I will never accept a challenge from the hero.
115. I will not engage enemies single-handedly until all my soldiers are dead.
116. If I capture the hero's starship, I will keep it in the landing bay with the ramp down, only a few token guards on duty and a ton of explosives set to go off as soon as it clears the blast-range.
117. No matter how much I want revenge, I will never order an underling "Leave him. He's mine!"
118. If I have equipment which performs an important function, it will not be activated by a lever that someone could trigger by accidentally falling on when fatally wounded.
119. I will not attempt to kill the hero by placing a venomous creature in his room. It will just wind up accidentally killing one of my clumsy henchmen instead.
120. Since nothing is more irritating than a hero defeating you with basic math skills, all of my personal weapons will be modified to fire one more shot than the standard issue.
121. If I come into possession of an artifact which can only be used by the pure of heart, I will not attempt to use it regardless.
122. The gun turrets on my fortress will not rotate enough so that they may direct fire inward or at each other.
123. If I decide to hold a contest of skill open to the general public, contestants will be required to remove their hooded cloaks and shave their beards before entering.
124. Prior to kidnapping an older male scientist and forcing him to work for me, I will investigate his offspring and make sure that he has neither a beautiful but naive daughter who is willing to risk anything to get him back, nor an estranged son who works in the same field but had a falling-out with his father many years ago.
125. Should I actually decide to kill the hero in an elaborate escape-proof deathtrap room (water filling up, sand pouring down, walls converging, etc.) I will not leave him alone five-to-ten minutes prior to "imminent" death, but will instead (finding a vantage point or monitoring camera) stick around and enjoy watching my adversary's demise.
126. Rather than having only one secret escape pod, which the hero can easily spot and follow, I'll simultaneously launch a few dozen decoys to throw him off track.
127. Prison guards will have their own cantina featuring a wide variety of tasty treats that will deliver snacks to the guards while on duty. The guards will also be informed that accepting food or drink from any other source will result in execution.
128. I will not employ robots as agents of destruction if there is any possible way that they can be re-programmed or if their battery packs are externally mounted and easily removable.
129. Despite the delicious irony, I will not force two heroes to fight each other in the arena.
130. All members of my Legions of Terror will have professionally tailored uniforms. If the hero knocks a soldier unconscious and steals the uniform, the poor fit will give him away.
131. I will never place the key to a cell just out of a prisoner's reach.
132. Before appointing someone as my trusted lieutenant, I will conduct a thorough background investigation and security clearance.
133. If I find my beautiful consort with access to my fortress has been associating with the hero, I'll have her executed. It's regrettable, but new consorts are easier to get than new fortresses and maybe the next one will pay attention at the orientation meeting.
134. If I am escaping in a large truck and the hero is pursuing me in a small Italian sports car, I will not wait for the hero to pull up along side of me and try to force him off the road as he attempts to climb aboard. Instead I will slam on the brakes when he's directly behind me. (A rudimentary knowledge of physics can prove quite useful.)
135. My doomsday machine will have a highly-advanced technological device called a capacitor in case someone inconveniently pulls the plug at the last second. (If I have access to REALLY advanced technology, I will include a back-up device known as a battery.)
136. If I build a bomb, I will simply remember which wire to cut if it has to be deactivated and make every wire red.
137. Before spending available funds on giant gargoyles, gothic arches, or other cosmetically intimidating pieces of architecture, I will see if there are any valid military expenditures that could use the extra budget.
138. The passageways to and within my domain will be well-lit with fluorescent lighting. Regrettably, the spooky atmosphere will be lost, but my security patrols will be more effective.
139. If I'm sitting in my camp, hear a twig snap, start to investigate, then encounter a small woodland creature, I will send out some scouts anyway just to be on the safe side. (If they disappear into the foliage, I will not send out another patrol; I will break out the napalm.)
140. I will instruct my guards when checking a cell that appears empty to look for the chamber pot. If the chamber pot is still there, then the prisoner has escaped and they may enter and search for clues. If the chamber pot is not there, then either the prisoner is perched above the lintel waiting to strike them with it or else he decided to take it as a souvenir (in which case he is obviously deeply disturbed and poses no threat). Either way, there's no point in entering.
141. As an alternative to not having children, I will have lots of children. My sons will be too busy jockeying for position to ever be a real threat, and the daughters will all sabotage each other's attempts to win the hero.
142. If I have children and subsequently grandchildren, I will keep my three-year-old granddaughter near me at all times. When the hero enters to kill me, I will ask him to first explain to her why it is necessary to kill her beloved grandpa. When the hero launches into an explanation of morality way over her head that will be her cue to pull the lever and send him into the pit of crocodiles. After all, small children like crocodiles almost as much as Evil Overlords and it's important to spend quality time with the grandkids.
143. If one of my daughters actually manages to win the hero and openly defies me, I will congratulate her on her choice, declare a national holiday to celebrate the wedding, and proclaim the hero my heir. This will probably be enough to break up the relationship. If not, at least I am assured that no hero will attack my Legions of Terror when they are holding a parade in his honor.
144. I will order my guards to stand in a line when they shoot at the hero so he cannot duck and have them accidentally shoot each other. Also, I will order some to aim above, below, and to the sides so he cannot jump out of the way.
145. My dungeon cell decor will not feature exposed pipes. While they add to the gloomy atmosphere, they are good conductors of vibrations and a lot of prisoners know Morse code.
146. If my surveillance reports any un-manned or seemingly innocent ships found where they are not supposed to be, they will be immediately vaporized instead of brought in for salvage.
147. I will classify my lieutenants in three categories: distrusted, trusted, and completely trusted. Promotion to the third category will be awarded posthumously.
148. Before ridiculing my enemies for wasting time on a device to stop me that couldn't possibly work, I will first acquire a copy of the schematics and make sure that in fact it couldn't possibly work.
149. Ropes supporting various fixtures will not be tied next to open windows or staircases, and chandeliers will be hung way at the top of the ceiling.
150. I will provide funding and research to develop tactical and strategic weapons covering a full range of needs so my choices are not limited to "hand to hand combat with swords" and "blow up the planet".
151. I will not set myself up as a god. That perilous position is reserved for my trusted lieutenant.
152. I will instruct my fashion designer that when it comes to accessorizing, second-chance body armor goes well with every outfit.
153. My Legions of Terror will be an equal-opportunity employer. Conversely, when it is prophesied that no man can defeat me, I will keep in mind the increasing number of non-traditional gender roles.
154. I will instruct my Legions of Terror in proper search techniques. In particular, if they are searching for escapees and someone shouts, "Quick! They went that way!” they must first ascertain the identity of this helpful informant before dashing off in hot pursuit.
155. If I know of any heroes in the land, I will not under any circumstance kill their mentors, teachers, and/or best friends.
156. If I have the hero and his party trapped, I will not wait until my Super weapon charges to finish them off if more conventional means are available.
157. Whenever plans are drawn up that include a time-table, I'll post-date the completion 3 days after it's actually scheduled to occur and not worry too much if they get stolen.
158. I will exchange the labels on my folder of top-secret plans and my folder of family recipes. Imagine the hero's surprise when he decodes the stolen plans and finds instructions for Grandma's Potato Salad.
159. If I burst into rebel headquarters and find it deserted except for an odd, blinking device, I will not walk up and investigate; I'll run like hell.
160. Before being accepted into my Legions of Terror, potential recruits will have to pass peripheral vision and hearing tests, and be able to recognize the sound of a pebble thrown to distract them.
161. I will occasionally vary my daily routine and not live my life in a rut. For example, I will not always take a swig of wine or ring a giant gong before finishing off my enemy.
162. If I steal something very important to the hero, I will not put it on public display.
163. When planning an expedition, I will choose a route for my forces that does not go through thick, leafy terrain conveniently located near the rebel camp.
164. I will hire one hopelessly stupid and incompetent lieutenant, but make sure that he is full of misinformation when I send him to capture the hero.
165. As an equal-opportunity employer, I will have several hearing-impaired body-guards. That way if I wish to speak confidentially with someone, I'll just turn my back so the guards can't read my lips instead of sending all of them out of the room.
166. If the rebels manage to trick me, I will make a note of what they did so that I do not keep falling for the same trick over and over again.
167. If I am recruiting to find someone to run my computer systems, and my choice is between the brilliant programmer whose head of the world's largest international technology conglomerate and an obnoxious 15-year-old dork who's trying to impress his dream girl, I'll take the brat and let the hero get stuck with the genius.
168. I will plan in advance what to do with each of my enemies if they are captured. That way, I will never have to order someone to be tied up while I decide his fate.
169. If I have massive computer systems, I will take at least as many precautions as a small business and include things such as virus-scans and firewalls.
170. I will be an equal-opportunity despot and make sure that terror and oppression is distributed fairly, not just against one particular group that will form the core of a rebellion.
171. I will not locate a base in a volcano, cave, or any other location where it would be ridiculously easy to bypass security by rappelling down from above.
172. I will allow guards to operate under a flexible work schedule. That way if one is feeling sleepy, he can call for a replacement, punch out, take a nap, and come back refreshed and alert to finish out his shift.
173. Although it would provide amusement, I will not confess to the hero's rival that I was the one who committed the heinous act for which he blames the hero.
174. If I am dangling over a precipice and the hero reaches his hand down to me, I will not attempt to pull him down with me. I will allow him to rescue me, thank him properly, then return to the safety of my fortress and order his execution.
175. I will have my fortress exorcized regularly. Although ghosts in the dungeon provide an appropriate atmosphere, they tend to provide valuable information once placated.
176. I will add indelible dye to the moat. It won't stop anyone from swimming across, but even dim-witted guards should be able to figure out when someone has entered in this fashion.
177. If a scientist with a beautiful and unmarried daughter refuses to work for me, I will not hold her hostage. Instead, I will offer to pay for her future wedding and her children's college tuition.
178. If I have the hero cornered and am about to finish him off and he says "Look out behind you!!" I will not laugh and say "You don't expect me to fall for that old trick, do you?" Instead I will take a step to the side and half turn. That way I can still keep my weapon trained on the hero, I can scan the area behind me, and if anything was heading for me it will now be heading for him.
179. I will not outsource core functions.
180. If I ever build a device to transfer the hero's energy into me, I will make sure it cannot operate in reverse.
181. I will decree that all hay be shipped in tightly-packed bales. Any wagonload of loose hay attempting to pass through a checkpoint will be set on fire.
182. I will not hold any sort of public celebration within my castle walls. Any event open to members of the public will be held down the road in the festival pavilion.
183. Before using any device which transfers energy directly into my body, I will install a surge suppressor.
184. I will hire a drama coach. The hero will think it must be a case of mistaken identity when confronted by my Minnesota accent (if everyone sounds American) or my Cornwall accent (if everyone sounds British).
185. If I capture an enemy known for escaping via ingenious and fantastic little gadgets, I will order a full cavity search and confiscate all personal items before throwing him in my dungeon.
186. I will not devise any scheme in which Part A consists of tricking the hero into unwittingly helping me and Part B consists of laughing at him then leaving him to his own devices.
187. I will not hold lavish banquets in the middle of a famine. The good PR among the guests doesn't make up for the bad PR among the masses.
188. I will funnel some of my ill-gotten gains into urban renewal projects. Although slums add a quaint and picturesque quality to any city, they too often contain unexpected allies for heroes.
189. I will never tell the hero "Yes I was the one who did it, but you'll never be able to prove it to that incompetent old fool." Chances are that incompetent old fool is standing behind the curtain.
190. If my mad scientist/wizard tells me he has almost perfected my Super weapon but it still needs more testing, I will wait for him to complete the tests. No one ever conquered the world using a beta version.
191. I will not appoint a relative to my staff of advisors. Not only is nepotism the cause of most breakdowns in policy, but it also causes trouble with the EEOC.
192. If I appoint someone as my consort, I will not subsequently inform her that she is being replaced by a younger, more attractive woman.
193. If I am using the hero's girlfriend as a hostage and am holding her at the point of imminent death when confronting the hero, I will focus on her and not him. He won't try anything with his true love held hostage. On the other hand, the fact that she has been weak, slow-witted, naive and generally useless up to this point has no bearing on her actions at the moment of dramatic climax.
194. I will make several ludicrously erroneous maps to secret passages in my fortress and hire travelers to entrust them to aged hermits.
195. I will not use hostages as bait in a trap. Unless you're going to use them for negotiation or as human shields, there's no point in taking them.
196. I will hire an expert marksman to stand by the entrance to my fortress. His job will be to shoot anyone who rides up to challenge me.
197. I will explain to my Legions of Terror that guns are ranged weapons and swords are not. Anyone who attempts to throw a sword at the hero or club him with a gun will be summarily executed.
198. I will remember that any vulnerability I have are to be revealed strictly on a need-to-know basis. I will also remember that no one needs to know.
199. I will not make alliances with those more powerful than myself. Such a person would only double-cross me in my moment of glory. I will make alliances with those less powerful than myself. I will then double-cross them in their moment of glory.
200. During times of peace, my Legions of Terror will not be permitted to lie around drinking mead and eating roast boar. Instead they will be required to obey my dietician and my aerobics instructor.
201. All giant serpents acting as guardians in underground lakes will be fitted with sports goggles to prevent eye injuries.
202. All crones with the ability to prophesy will be given free facelifts, permanents, manicures, and Donna Karan wardrobes. That should pretty well destroy their credibility.
203. I will not employ an evil wizard if he has a sleazy mustache.
204. I will hire an entire squad of blind guards. Not only is this in keeping with my status as an equal opportunity employer, but it will come in handy when the hero becomes invisible or douses my only light source.
205. All repair work will be done by an in-house maintenance staff. Any alleged "repairmen" who show up at the fortress will be escorted to the dungeon.
206. When my Legions of Terror park their vehicle to do reconnaissance on foot, they will be instructed to employ The Club.
207. Employees will have conjugal visit trailers which they may use provided they call in a replacement and sign out on the timesheet. Given this, anyone caught making out in a closet while leaving their station unmonitored will be shot.
208. Members of my Legion of Terror will attend seminars on Sensitivity Training. Its good public relations for them to be kind and courteous to the general population when not actively engaged in sowing chaos and destruction.
209. I will not, under any circumstances, marry a woman I know to be a faithless, conniving, back-stabbing witch simply because I am absolutely desperate to perpetuate my family line. Of course, we can still date.
210. All guest-quarters will be bugged and monitored so that I can keep track of what the visitors I have for some reason allowed to roam about my fortress are actually plotting.
211. If my chief engineer displeases me, he will be shot, not imprisoned in the dungeon or beyond the traps he helped design.
212. I will not send out battalions composed wholly of robots or skeletons against heroes who have qualms about killing living beings.
213. I will not wear long, heavy cloaks. While they certainly make a bold fashion statement, they have an annoying tendency to get caught in doors or tripped over during an escape.
214. If a malignant being demands a sacrificial victim have a particular quality, I will check to make sure said victim has this quality immediately before the sacrifice and not rely on earlier results. (Especially if the quality is virginity and the victim is the hero's girlfriend.)
215. If I ever MUST put a digital timer on my doomsday device, I will buy one free from quantum mechanical anomalies. So many brands on the market keep perfectly good time while you're looking at them, but whenever you turn away for a couple minutes then turn back, you find that the countdown has progressed by only a few seconds.
216. If my Legions of Terror are defeated in a battle, I will quietly withdraw and regroup instead of launching a haphazard mission to assassinate the hero.
217. If I'm wearing the key to the hero's shackles around my neck and his former girlfriend now volunteers to become my mistress and we are all alone in my bedchamber on my bed and she offers me a goblet of wine, I will politely decline the offer.
218. I will not pick up a glowing ancient artifact and shout "Its power is now mine!!!" Instead I will grab some tongs, transfer it to a hazardous materials container, and transport it back to my lab for study.
219. I will be selective in the hiring of assassins. Anyone who attempts to strike down the hero the first instant his back is turned will not even be considered for the job.
220. Whatever my one vulnerability is, I will fake a different one. For example, ordering all mirrors removed from the palace, screaming and flinching whenever someone accidentally holds up a mirror, etc. In the climax when the hero whips out a mirror and thrusts it at my face, my reaction will be "Hmm...I think I need a shave."
221. My force-field generators will be located inside the shield they generate.
222. I reserve the right to execute any henchmen who appear to be a little too intelligent, powerful, or devious. However if I do so, I will not at some subsequent point shout "Why am I surrounded by these incompetent fools?!"
223. I will install a fire extinguisher in every room -- three, if the room contains vital equipment or volatile chemicals.
224. I will build machines which simply fail when overloaded, rather than wipe out all nearby henchmen in an explosion or worse yet set off a chain reaction. I will do this by using devices known as "surge protectors".
225. I will explain to my guards that most people have their eyes in the front of their heads and thus while searching for someone it makes little sense to draw a weapon and slowly back down the hallway.
226. I will have a staff of competent detectives handy. If I learn that someone in a certain village is plotting against me, I will have them find out who rather than wipe out the entire village in a preemptive strike.
227. I will never bait a trap with genuine bait.
228. If the hero claims he wishes to confess in public or to me personally, I will remind him that a notarized deposition will serve just as well.
229. If I have several diabolical schemes to destroy the hero, I will set all of them in motion at once rather than wait for them to fail and launch them successively.
230. I will not procrastinate regarding any ritual granting immortality.
231. Mythical guardians will be instructed to ask visitors name, purpose of visit, and whether they have an appointment instead of ancient riddles.
« Hide "Worth Revisiting"
Show Comments »
Thanks. I just wasted about 27 minutes of my company's time.
Your list or did you get this from somewhere?
posted by
Sharp as a Marble on January 5, 2005 10:12 AM
It's been around a while:
http://minievil.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html
posted by
Don on January 5, 2005 02:07 PM
SaaM,
You should know me well enough by now to know I'm not that funny...
posted by
Nathan on January 5, 2005 03:58 PM
27 minutes, eh? Only made it to #3, I surmise?
posted by
Nathan on January 5, 2005 07:36 PM
Now that's some goood evil.
Muhahahahahahaha!
posted by
Mikey on January 6, 2005 05:43 AM
The thing I enjoy doing as I read through them is to try and see if I can think of a movie in which that happened.
Like when the list mentions "locking up cute little helpers, like ferrets" (#42), I think: Beastmaster. "Never turn into a snake" (#34): Conan the Barbarian. The ones about having the hero's girlfriend sent to your bedchamber is from many movies, but I tend to think of Flash Gordon for that one. Several of them, like the indestructible device with one weak point, the labeled control room, the trash compacter...I would ascribe those to "Star Wars".
Does anyone have the time/patience to try and do the complete list?
...the whole "absorb an energy field" thing, though, leaves me drawing a blank.
posted by
Nathan on January 6, 2005 06:09 AM
« Hide Comments
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 »
What a ridiculous bunch of drivel. I am a Christian and I find Novaks statement filled with so many logical inconsistencies to make it laughable.
I actually feel sorry for him.
posted by
DC on January 12, 2005 07:52 AM
...but I'm a Christian and pretty much agree with him. So your being a Christian really doesn't give you any additional credibility in and of itself.
Care to point out any of the inconsistencies? Or is this a "Sen. Reid" criticism, perfect in its vagueness and ambiguity?
Since you didn't actually explain what part(s) you had difficulties with, I'm left to guess. But let me just say that I've been studying the Bible for a number of years, and read a good deal of theology regarding the Bible and Christianity, and nothing Mr. Novak says disagrees with what's in there. Morever, there's nothing that obviously contradicts the important points of St Augustine, Martin Luther, C.S. Lewis, and actually provides a plausible answer for some of what we see in the world about belief and unbelief. That's a good start for a working hypothesis.
If you have a specific logical objection, describe it. I'll see if I can help you. If you only come to nitpick and condescend, you are on your own.
posted by
Nathan on January 12, 2005 08:26 AM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
07:55 AM
|
Comments (2)
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)
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 »
I'd have to disagree. "Flood" has a number of meanings, not all having to do with water. I'd say that "flood the zone" derives from the second intransitive verb definition listed at dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=flood): To pour forth; overflow.
I suspect that this definition arose when someone was trying to describe some action that resembled a flood in terms of "covering" every part of an area.
posted by
wheels on January 6, 2005 10:32 PM
Um, I don't want to sound to flippant or dismissive, but:
No. It's a sports term.
"Zone coverage" was developed in basketball and baseball as an easier way to cover receivers and shifty guards who could juke a defender out of his shoes. The defender covered his area, or zone. So offenses reacted by putting more guys in a zone than the person responsible for the zone could cover. So defenses would assign 1-2 extra guys to help out if their zone was empty. So offenses would put more guys in the zone than the defense could cover. If the defense put everyone in the zone, then it was too easy to break someone free on a 'back door' move.
The term for putting lots of guys in one zone is called "flooding the zone".
I thought that was common knowledge. But then, I'm a big-time football fan.
posted by
Nathan on January 6, 2005 10:52 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
06:22 AM
|
Comments (2)
January 04, 2005
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 »
I'm a bad boy because not only do I feel obligated to help her situation but I discussed said obligations with my wife. My pregnant wife. My pregnant wife who happens to be sick with a nasty flu.
Needless to say the couch was rather comfortable last night ;)
posted by
Sharp as a Marble on January 5, 2005 06:59 AM
« Hide 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)
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" »
*According to what I've written, directly/roughly castigating someone (deliberately placing your conceit higher in importance than their self-esteem) is also a sin, isn't it?
**this is why it is probably still acceptable to kill someone to protect an innocent life. It would also mean that an abortion to save the life of the mother is an extremely gray area. But it also means that abortion is no more or less a sin than stealing a penny that doesn't belong to you: the importance of the sin is the damage it does to your soul, not to someone else's well-being. As such, repentence washes you clean of the sin of abortion, just as clean as if you "only" stole a penny. It only remains a sin if it continues to keep you from God's love. That's why Satan will tell you your sin is horrible: because it keeps you from accepting God's freely-given Love and Forgiveness.
« Hide "Musings on the Efficacy of God"
Show Comments »
What a great post! I particularly like the pattern of numbers analogy -- that really made me think. I've just started the Purpose Driven Life, and this relates to the first question: given the cultural message that says that it's all about me, what can I do to remind myself daily that my life is really about living for God?
Your post is additional food for thought -- thanks.
posted by
Grouchy Old Yorkie Lady on January 4, 2005 09:10 AM
Great insights! I think I'll link to this post on my blog.
posted by
Wacky Hermit on January 4, 2005 12:02 PM
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.
That's when I check to see if you're paying me by the hour.
posted by
McGehee on January 4, 2005 02:18 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
06:10 AM
|
Comments (3)
January 03, 2005
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" »
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.
« Hide "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
IRAQI POLICE GRADUATE 1,938 SPECIALIZED POLICE
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 »
I'm sure you could cherry pick a few items off my blog..
posted by
Sharp as a Marble on January 3, 2005 11:53 AM
I could cherry pick a few from your comments on my blog.
posted by
Nathan on January 3, 2005 12:02 PM
Absolutely, thas why when people ask if i'm a liberal/democrat or conservative/republican i say: None of the above i can and do think for myself.
posted by
TheCO on January 3, 2005 08:06 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
11:45 AM
|
Comments (3)
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" »
Here's the next photo...doesn't look like a tomato to me:
« Hide "Proof"
Show Comments »
Is that a tomato?
posted by
Jo on January 3, 2005 01:14 PM
Okay, she's cute and all, but don't you think she's a little young to be referred to as a tomato?
Oh.
No, I think it's some sort of fruit common in China. A persimmon?
posted by
Nathan on January 3, 2005 01:20 PM
I thought it was a persimmon in the first picture.
I think her cheeks are like yours, Nate.
And, Jo-I've missed you!
P.S. Nate, I told R about your comment over at ZB's about the whole three-cord thing. He loved it.
posted by
Rae on January 3, 2005 08:53 PM
she looks EXACTLY like her mother?? Dude, you're sick! Okay, bad joke. Really really bad. She is adorable beyond belief. I am so glad you treasure them so. I am sure they are lucky to have you.
posted by
Jane on January 7, 2005 10:04 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
10:52 AM
|
Comments (4)
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.
Oops.
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" »
*those arguing against a Newtonian, mechanistic, diety-exclusionary view of the universe
**the atheists who assert science has disproven the possibility of God, the people who find a "God with no beginning or end" less possible than a universe with no apparent origin, those who have taken science for their "god", whether they admit it or not.
***anyone who thinks the scientific understanding of the universe is still anything but "extremely limited" isn't paying attention to the evidence.
« Hide "Science and its Adherents"
Show Comments »
There, you've been pinged... : )... I got sidetracked today with my daughter's health issues.
Great post, BTW.
posted by
IowaSoccerMom on January 3, 2005 04:39 PM
« Hide 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
Check out this picture:
Read More "Seen on a French Fry Bag" »
Wouldn't you feel a little scared to see something like that coming at you on a stormy night?
"My, what sharp teeth you have, Ronald! Your burgers and shakes aren't really tough enough to justify canines like that!"
« Hide "Seen on a French Fry Bag"
Show Comments »
"Ronald? Why do you suddenly sound just like Tim Curry?"
posted by
McGehee on January 1, 2005 05:10 PM
What? Talking about "nicely rounded dipthongs"?
posted by
Nathan on January 1, 2005 05:25 PM
Ronald has 6 ways to kill you....
posted by
Christopher Cross on January 2, 2005 12:25 AM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
04:49 PM
|
Comments (3)
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 »
Noel is her name? That is such a lovely, feminine name.
posted by
Rae on January 1, 2005 02:39 PM
I'm struggling with the spelling of it. Everyone who just sees it without knowing her gender thinks it's Noel, rhyming with Joel, and thinks it's a boy's name. But the Christmas word is pronounced Noel, and in fact, she was named more than a year before she was even conceived as we were driving around looking at Christmas lights one evening. People seem to want it spelled with an extra 'le' to pronounce it that way without prompting.
I never wanted to give my kids a troublesome name. I guess she'll decide what she wants to do with it by the time she gets to high school...
posted by
Nathan on January 1, 2005 04:53 PM
Hmm, then I said it correctly.
I started going by my middle name when I was fifteen. It stuck. I still sign my first name and middle initial. I like Rae- it is unique, but my first name is so feminine sounding that I occasionally do miss hearing it.
Noel is lovely.
Remember, Nate, just like anything else, practice makes perfect. Besides, I am sure that the people at her daycare see you as the single, attentive daddy that you are...and smile. :D
posted by
Rae on January 1, 2005 08:25 PM
Oops, was thinking of the elastic/ponytail situation with that last line.
posted by
Rae on January 1, 2005 08:26 PM
Your meaning was clear to me.
I've talked to the daycare monitors, and I seem to have their sympathy, if not empathy.
They have standing orders to tell me if there's something I'm missing cuz I'm an ignorant daddy. The thing that seems to get them the most irritated is that I don't give them medicine for colds.
My thinking is that cold medicine doesn't help 'em get over it any quicker, and usually doesn't even do much for runny noses or coughing, so it's little more than a placebo for kids too young to understand what it's supposed to do. Extra water, extra sleep, and let it run its course, I believe.
The only medicine I ever give the kids is stuff that cures. Or if the coughing gets bad enough to keep them awake...but that hasn't happened yet.
posted by
Nathan on January 1, 2005 08:32 PM
We don't just gratuitously hand out the tasty stuff either. However, I do run a humidifer in the girls bedrooms and that works wonders. Also, if a cough is interupting sleep I will administer a little Triaminic, but other than that, nothing wrong with a tissue.
The Daycare workers just like the meds 'cause they make the children sleep real good.
posted by
Rae on January 1, 2005 08:52 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
10:48 AM
|
Comments (6)
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 »
My wife won't let me near the barrets or scrunci's.
You're a brave man for the cutting. We've only snipped off a few hairs off of Georgia in her entire life!
posted by
Sharp as a Marble on January 1, 2005 02:01 PM
Yes. As the mom of four daughters, we have this down :D
1)Divide hair evenly with small, inexpensive black pocket comb, but only after throughly, patiently brushing hair.
2)Use only covered elastics(rubber bands can get stuck in hair and really hurt!) They cost a bit more, but are worth it.
3)Gently hold hair in your less dominate hand (left for me).
4)While holding hair, place thumb,index and middle finger into elastic, stretching it open.
5)Wrap fingers with the elastic on them around base of hair-grouping held in other in hand.
6)Now the hand with the elastic should be the only hand holding the hair.
7)With left hand,pull elastic over hair grouping.
8)Elastic should now be over the hair group.
9)Counter pull the hair against one side of the elastic with right hand (so should look like a figure eight with hair in one of the loops). .
10)With left hand, take slack in elastic and twist elastic over.
11)Repeat steps 4-10 until hair is held sufficiently tight.
A teeny tiny bit of pomade rubbed between hands and lightly applied to hair will smooth it down and give a better groomed style.
How was that, Nate?
posted by
Rae on January 1, 2005 03:00 PM
Rae,
Well, part of my problem is probably inexperienced, clumsy man-hands, but so far, the only way I've been able to avoid having too many stray strands and pulled hair on the 2nd warp is to actually twist and hold the hair...that kinda keeps it in a more consistent clump.
I can get 'em in there, but the shape of the hair being held by the elastic band (yeah, no rubber bands) isn't at all consistent...most of the time, they aren't even symmetrical (one ending up higher on the head than the other).
I may try at some point to put all the long back stuff in a ponytail at some point...but she likes the two Boo-like pigtails. I'll post a pic of 'em in the next few minutes.
SaaM,
I'm probably going to let it all grow out from here, now.
posted by
Nathan on January 1, 2005 04:58 PM
Wow...wait until you have to do braids!
One thing I tell dads about is the twist method...divide sections in two, and then just twist each section of hair until it makes a little twisty-bun on her head, and pin the end of it down with a snap clip style barrette. When you pop out the barrettes at the end of the day, you get some cute curly waves, too.
posted by
Jo on January 3, 2005 07:30 AM
Actually, I can kinda do braids already...not well, of course, but at least someone can look at it and go, "Hey, those are braids, aren't they?"
Your twist method sounds interesting, but I may need pictures. Right now, it sounds like a fairly decent toture method for Guantanamo Bay.
posted by
Nathan on January 3, 2005 07:51 AM
I think I am gonna have to post some suggested new books for the newly single dad, Nathan, over on my blog. You know, solicit some gift giving via Amazon or Barnes and Noble.
P.S. You know, the style these days is for hair to be slightly messy, so even if the do isn't perfect, it will still be a)stylish, and b) cute because everyone will know her daddy did her hair.
posted by
Rae on January 4, 2005 11:49 AM
Use Chip-Clips!
When it comes to pulling my daughter's hair up, I cheat. I use chip-clips. Yes, I only do it at home so people don't think I'm cruel, but they work extremely well and are easy to operate. Plus, they save me from having to clean the food out of their hair.
My Daughters love using them now at home and whenever they sit down to eat they ask for their chip-clips.
Go figure...
posted by
Tony on January 12, 2005 11:59 AM
I love the idea! I'll try it!
posted by
Nathan on January 12, 2005 12:42 PM
« Hide Comments
Posted by Nathan at
10:42 AM
|
Comments (8)