Miscellany

-The beauty of Hulu.com is that you can revisit childhood TV favorites. My childhood wasn't that long ago (some would argue it has yet to end), but it is nonetheless fun to watch shows I haven't seen in years. I was saddened to learn that Sliders, while entertaining, doesn't hold up well. The plot holes and inconsistencies are legion. Can they slide early? In some episodes they do, but in others they act as if they can't. One of the ongoing plot devices is a "race against time" as they struggle to be ready to slide when the timer goes off, lest they be stuck on one planet forever. There are two problems here though. First of all, if they can move the timer forward, which they sometimes can, why can't they delay it? Secondly, since Quinn built the timer from scratch once, if they lost their window, why couldn't he just build a new timer from scratch and start over again? Oh well, at least the A-Team aged gracefully.

-Give credit where it's due. Obama was wrong to say he would release pictures of prisoner interrogations, but at least he realized his mistake and decided to fix it.

-Patience. It occurred to me today that the word refers to two related, but distinct attributes. One refers to our forbearance with others in trying circumstances, and the other refers to our ability to be content when forced to endure the passage of time. One is not necessarily connected to the other. For example, I can be patient with a child who is learning to read, but lose my mind knowing a present is waiting under the tree for Christmas morning. Anyway, doesn't it seem like they deserve separate words?

-Hubble is being repaired by the shuttle crew this week. Sometimes I don't think people understand how much courage that must take. Have you ever been working on an engine and caught your arm on a sharp edge, or snagged a sleeve? Now, imagine working on unfamiliar equipment in a bulky space suit and gloves, knowing that one snagged sleeve means a suit rupture that will kill you. That's if all of the space debris doesn't punch a hole in you or the shuttle first.

-Given President Obama's track record in nominations so far, how many potential justices do you think will have to withdraw over unpaid taxes? I'm guessing two.

-Did anyone ever wonder how Scrooge McDuck got so rich? He obviously has pretty shaky business sense, given that he spends most of his time on crazy treasure-hunting schemes rather than his many profitable businesses. Besides that, think of all the interest he never earned on the money locked up in his money bin.

Taking An Obsession With Gender Equality To Its Logical Conclusion

"Legislation outlawing gender rating by health insurers took another step forward Monday when the Assembly voted overwhelmingly to prohibit insurers from using a person's sex as the basis for charging different premiums for similar policies."

Why in the world would insurers have the audacity to think that they have any right to price health care according to gender? Simply because men and women are biologically distinct, suffer from different diseases, have different ailments and weaknesses as they age, etc. is surely no reason to think that they should be charged different rates for insurance. It would be like a mechanic charging more when working on a Ferrari than a Toyota, simply because it requires different parts and more training. How much sense would that make?!?! Oh...wait...

More seriously though, this is a perfect example of Thomas Sowell's criticism that the left doesn't "think beyond the basics". Charging women more money is bad. End of thought processes. The idea that women may have higher costs for the system (Anyone heard of pregnancy? How many men require a monthly pill throughout much of their sexual prime?) isn't even a factor. The net result of pricing restrictions will be that it becomes less profitable to insure women. Companies will need to make up the difference, probably by paying doctors less for female-specific procedures. This in turn will make specialties like gynecology less profitable than male specialties, chasing the most qualified doctors to other fields. When women see a scarcity of doctors focusing on their ailments, the cry of "gender discrimination" will ring out, necessitating further government "solutions".

Pigs, Feel Our Wrath!

Sweet swine flu revenge!

This Tastes Terrible, It Must Be The Pâté

Apparently, people cannot distinguish pâté from their dogs' Alpo. They did successfully identify the dog food as being the worst-tasting offering, but somehow this didn't lead to the conclusion that it was, in fact, dog food. As someone who can personally attest that dog food is, well, really bad, it makes one wonder why people bother eating pâté. Isn't cheese whiz cheaper? At least it can't be mistaken for dog food.

**Hat tip, The Corner**

Truth In Advertising

I have no idea whether the police in this story acted correctly. They may have reacted too quickly, and with too much force. However, can we all agree that the headline reporting that a "boy" was shot by police for playing with a toy gun is a little deceptive and inflammatory? The article reports that the "boy" in question was 15. While not technically inaccurate (the term boy can refer to anyone from an infant up to adulthood), it seems to me that the word "teen" would conjure up fewer images of some pre-pubescent child with a cap pistol.

It's an unfortunate fact that by 15, many kids are involved in violence and gang activity that could reasonably cause an officer to fear for his life when confronting a teen with what appears to be a weapon. Why not use a more accurate, less loaded term that can accurately reflect this?

In Honor Of All Mothers Everywhere

Ashton Lundeby

In what, on it's face, seems like a ridiculous overreaction, a sixteen year-old North Carolina boy has been held without charge since March 5th over accusations that he made a bomb threat. Does anyone know anything further about this story? For example, the story blames the Patriot Act for the boy's prolonged detention, but doesn't cite any particular article being used. I know the Patriot Act is a useful boogeyman to throw around when you want to accuse the government of overstepping its bounds, but I'm not aware of any section dealing with detention of US citizens. The article also mentions national security letters, the use of which was expanded by the Patriot Act, but NSL's are essentially an administrative warrant. They get you information, not people.

The story sounds horrific, but the sheer ridiculousness of the reaction, coupled with the lack of much factual detail/blaming the evil Patriot Act, makes me wonder what information is missing here. Is anyone aware of what legal authority would allow the government to hold a citizen without habeas corpus rights? Is anyone aware of any reason why ANYONE for ANY reason would be held for two months over an accusation of a bomb threat when no bomb-making materials were found, nor any reason to believe the boy actually made such a threat?

Specter Lost His Seniority

Apparently Reid promised he could keep it, then caved under pushback from his caucus. Specter still seems to think he'll get it back after the 2010 elections. (Seriously? What possible benefit could there be to the Dem Caucus to give it back to you once you're safely re-elected.) Despite my previous defense of Specter, after his classy comments about the death of Jack Kemp, this news makes me very happy.

School Choice

Which do you think is more helpful to black students: Knowing that president Obama shares 50% of their racial makeup, or giving them an opportunity to participate in a safe, successful school despite the objections of teacher's unions.


Remember this. President Clinton's daughter went to private school. President Bush's two daughters went to public school, and his wife was a public school teacher. President Obama's daughters go to private school. Who do you think cares more about school results, and who cares more about being on the right side of the big donors?

Yeah, They're All Sweetness And Light

Until one tries to eat your face in your sleep! NEVER trust a monkey or any of its primate buddies!

Why Your Kids Should Never Watch TV

Personally, I'm a big fan of the Disney channel and other kids programming, much to the chagrin of the wife. But if you think about it a little, some of their shows really do send the wrong messages.

Hannah Montana: Keeping secrets allows you to have the best of both worlds.
Phineas and Ferb: Unsupervised use of power tools and electricity=fun
Tru Jackson/Sonny with a Chance: Child labor laws? What child labor laws?
The Suite Life of Zach and Cody: Running around a hotel unsupervised leads to fun adventures. Oh, and make friends with the weird guy living in the boiler room.
The Suite Life on Deck: See above, plus the addition of shipboard dangers.
That's So Raven: If you start seeing things no one else sees, don't see a neurologist. It's probably just cool psychic powers.
The Replacements: If you don't like someone, just get rid of them.
iCarly: Pretty young girl+webcam+minimal adult supervision. What could possibly go wrong?

The Jonas Brothers

Did anyone else know that they are all committed Christians who wear promise rings and have been vocal about the importance of abstinence? Man, now I'm gonna have to stop making fun of them...

Arlen Specter

I've got a little bit to say on Specter, but nothing profound, so I'll try to just say it briefly. Two things jump out at me. The first is that all of the GOP types rejoicing at Specter's departure are simply being classless. Yes, Specter has been an unreliable vote, and yes his decision to jump parties was a nakedly self-interested attempt to keep his seat, rather than some principled decision based on the GOP's direction. However he's been a Republican for the last 40 years, and a Republican Senator for longer than I've been alive. He deserves a respectful exit if nothing else.
Secondly, we need a reminder that my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy. Reagan built his grand coalition by including plenty of people who were conservative on some issues but not others. Yes, his ability to articulate what conservatism stood for made some ideological converts, but he also united a lot of disparate interests. Unfortunately, the Republicans are on a kick to "purify" the party, rather than to get as many people into it as possible.

Conservatives feel that it was Bush's (and Congress') spending and compromises that got us where we are, coupled with McCain's lackluster centrism fetish. Therefore, they see the answer as kicking out the riffraff. The real problem though, is a lack of strong leadership. A good leader makes deals, minimizes internecine battles, and keeps people on board. George Bush tried to do this, but in his second term, he managed to make the compromises that angered conservatives while still losing pieces of his coalition. Until a strong leader or leadership emerges in the GOP that understands the need to build alliances with the middle without compromising core principles, the party won't make any progress.

I share the frustration other conservatives feel with the party's moderate wing. I'm as conservative in my politics as any purist could ask for, and I'd love 60 Republican senators who shared my views. But the problem is, we aren't going to get that in the near future, and an ideologically pure rump of 30% of the voters is still a rump. Does anyone really think, for example, that the country would have been better off if Rudy Giuliani hadn't won in New York? Will New Jersey be better off if we force a movement conservative to lose what may be a very winnable governorship in 2010?

I don't think anything could have been done to save Specter specifically. If Toomey or some other conservative had not run, Pennsylvania Republicans were so fed up they would have stayed home on election day anyway, and Specter was never going to go gracefully into the night. But the way we handle his exit may determine what happens to people like Snowe, Ridge, and the rest of the moderate crew. And sadly, we need them in order to remain meaningful as a party.

One last note. This thing might have a couple of silver linings. The Democratic party has been moving leftward over the past 8 years because they were able to be a crazy opposition with little responsibility to make things happen. Even after the election, they could afford to ignore the Blue Dogs and claim that their legislation was failing because of Republican opposition. Now, with 60 votes in the Senate, they will have to keep the Blue Dogs happy in order to govern. If the net effect is to shift the caucus back a little closer to the center and away from the brink, it may be worth it after all.

Silver lining number two is that I see little reason for aspiring Democrats to lie down for a former Republican who, to be completely crass about it, may not live through his next term, and has a tenuous grip on his seat at the best of times. If there is a bruising primary fight on their side, we may still regain the seat in 2010 with a more reliable Senator.

John Wayne Is Dead

Behold, the "Axe Detailer Shower Tool". It's a loofah dude. Throwing plastic on it and pretending it's designed to wax a car or something doesn't change that. Man up and admit you're using a girly product. At least there's some dignity in admitting to a wuss move. There's no dignity in being a wuss while lying to yourself about it. It just makes you a pathetic wuss.

**In the interest of full disclosure, I use a loofah and shower gel. I told Shannon she could pick out what soap I used, and I stick to my promises.**

Posted Just Because

This is from C.S. Lewis' book, The Four Loves:

"...the higher and domesticated animal is, so to speak, a 'bridge' between us and the rest of nature. We all at times feel somewhat painfully our human isolation from the subhuman world--the atrophy of instinct which our intelligence entails, our excessive self-consciousness, the innumerable complexities of our situation, our inability to live in the present. If only we could shuffle it all off! We must not--and incidentally we can't--become beasts. But we can be with a beast. It is personal enough to give the word with a real meaning; yet it remains very largely a little bundle of biological impulses. It has three legs in nature's world, and one in ours. It is a link, an ambassador. Who would not wish, as Bosanquet put it, 'to have a representative at the court of Pan'? Man with dog closes a gap in the universe."

Moral Ecology

This post seems to tie rather nicely into my last question.

Miss California And Christian Witness

Too much has already been said about Miss California, Carrie Prejean, and her controversy with Perez Hilton. Given the legendary profundity of her opponent, I'm sure Miss Prejean is more than capable of handling that controversy herself. Besides, so much has been said about so little, that there really isn't more original commentary I could deliver. So, as far as it goes, I'll just say good job by her for sticking up for her Christian values in a polite and respectful way during her answer.

On to a more interesting topic. Does anyone find it at all troubling, or at least interesting, that such a conservative Christian woman, currently attending a Bible college, was in the Miss America pageant in the first place? I ask because I imagine that a decade or two ago, there would have been at least some notice taken of a very conservative Christian girl parading around a pageant stage like this?

It's not an isolated incident. Much has been made of the fact that Evangeline Lilly, the comely Kate Austen on the show Lost, was raised in a devout Evangelical family, and even spent some time as a missionary in the Philippines. She has also appeared in some "spicier" photo shoots in magazines like Maxim (a magazine once described to me as "porn for guys without the guts to go buy porn). Now admittedly, she has stated that she would never appear nude or in sex scenes that go beyond a certain level of gratuity, but it still seems an odd standard for a Christian woman to take. Either modesty counts or it doesn't.

My goal here isn't to critique either of these women for the decisions they've made. I don't know their reasons, their relationship with God, or any of the other information I'd need to do so. What I'm curious about is why other Christians don't even seem to take notice. Have we entirely lost our sense of modesty in a sex-drenched society? Do Christian women not understand the fact that we men need them to help us out a little when it comes to controlling our desires? And, more importantly, if one assumes that such compromises to modesty are required for an attractive woman to advance in the entertainment industry, is the potential to have a Christian in a high-profile spot where they can articulate Christian values to a secular culture worth such a level of compromise?

**Update**
Ok, so maybe I spoke too soon about there being no more room for original commentary.

We're Stuck In A Hole. Let's Dig Our Way Out!

And so the circular firing squad inside the California Republican Party continues.

The Real Question Concerning the Miss America Pageant

Why is a gay man judging a beauty pageant in the first place? Isn't that like me being asked to judge a Chippendale's dance-off?

Susan Boyle

By now, everyone has seen Susan Boyle's performance on Britain's Got Talent. If you haven't, here it is. Unlike most everyone else, I don't really see much of a deeper meaning in it. She's had a rough life, and had she sung badly, or even done an average job, her life would be a little rougher. She'd be one of those many unfortunate souls we all (justifiably in my book) love to mock during the opening episodes of American Idol (or, I would assume BGT for those in the UK). She did sing well, so instead she is an inspiration who challenges us to follow our dreams, no matter how unlikely they are. Ok, fine. Just remember that for every Susan Boyle, there are 50 talentless morons who think they are the next Carrie Underwood. That's how life works. We use the words "average" and "exceptional" for a reason. Most people are average, and for every exceptionally good person, there's a naughty end of the bell curve too.

I did have one thought, however. While not profound, I find it mildly entertaining. Most professional singers, especially those of the female variety, are impossibly pretty. Unless there is some correlation between above-average physical appearance and above-average vocal talents (and singers worldwide prior to the advent of the music video would argue against such a conclusion), this is obviously a marketing strategy. You want to squeeze every bit of advantage you can out of each investment, so why dump money into the ugly girl if you can instead invest in an up-and-coming Taylor Swift? Her songs may all be about matters of vital importance only to 15 year-old girls, but some percentage of guys will come along for the ride just because of her looks.

Ok, none of that is really earth-shattering info. But, here's the rub. What happens if Susan Boyle becomes a financial success as well as a Youtube sensation? Being a "common man" can translate into marketing success if you hit the right chord (see Ricky Hatton's ticket sales as proof). Since marketing types tend to follow the crowd, isn't it possible that a financially successful Susan Boyle will cause other record labels to look for their own common man? I think it would be kind of fun to see the hotties frozen out in favor of the notties for a while. Although honestly, I think sex is a far more powerful force in our world than human kindness, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Dog Swims 6 Miles With Sharks

Meanwhile, mine won't go in water deeper than his chest...

Somali Pirates

Is it just me, or is the US military getting more forceful with acts of piracy off of the African coast? I don't know whether this is due to an explicit directive from the president, or if he's simply let it be known that he'll back the decisions of the naval commanders in the area, but either way, good job President Obama! It may not rid the area of pirates, but a cost-benefit analysis that involves potentially getting personal attention from a SEAL team just might convince a few more Somalis to take up farming.

Sigh...

I just watched a TV fight scene in which an armored man (complete with visored helmet) was punched in the face by another man with bare knuckles. The armored man went down like a sack of bricks, while his attacker (a normal TV tough guy, not even the star of the show) continued completely unfazed.

Now, I can imagine that a metal helmet, if not fitted properly, could conceivably do a lot of damage to a wearer from a punch that forced it back into the owner's face. But, anyone who has ever landed a blow to someone's face knows that, even with padding, it isn't fun for the guy landing the punch either. With all the time and money shows spend on consultants, stunt coordinators, and effects, you'd think they would have at least one guy who'd say, "What? With his bare fist? Come on guys."

Sorry, just had to get that off of my chest.

Sadly Appropriate

Sometimes the truest satire is the least funny.

Wait, What?

Last Thursday the Washington Post contained this paean to the triumph of the Obamessiah and his Attorney General over the incompetence of the Bush reign of terror. The article is all about how Attorney General Holder is going to "remove the taint of politics" from the office's hiring practices. As one of his first moves towards that goal, he appointed Mary Patrice Brown, a career prosecutor, to head the Office of Professional Responsibility. Given the laudatory tone of the article, the loaded criticisms of the department under President Bush, and the fact that the subtitle is, "Personnel Moves Opt for Experience Over Political Ties", one would think that the previous head was a monkey with a degree from New Delhi Community College and an automatic deposit to the RNC every month. So imagine my surprise at the fact that rather than firing the old office-holder, the AG is keeping him on as head of the executive office of US attorneys. A little more research turned up the fact that the previous officeholder, H. Marshall Jarrett, was a Clinton appointee, and a former assistant US attorney with over 20 years of experience in the department. How did Bush ever get away with appointing such political hacks!

As for the appointment of Jarrett to this new office, it is meant to shake up the US attorneys, indicating that there is a "new sheriff in town", again according to the article. So, who is this new sheriff replacing? Kenneth E Melson, "a career prosecutor in Alexandria for nearly 25 years", who also happens to be a former Chair for the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, a Board Member for the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board, a former President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and a member of its Ethics Committee, who graduated with honors from George Washington Law school, where he currently serves as a professor. Oh, and Holder is making him head of the ATF. Who was he replacing? Michael Sullivan, a Bush appointee who was blocked from confirmation by REPUBLICAN senators and the NRA because they felt he was hostile to small gun dealers.

So, would someone please tell me, where is the big Holder shakeup/change in direction from the Bush years? He seems to be shuffling the career Justice Department employees around, making few serious changes, and yet the article could as easily be a campaign press release. Heck, a press release would probably be less effusive, because no one would take it seriously otherwise.

A Prediction

I can't say that it's a terribly profound one, but I'll make it anyway. Assuming Barack Obama doesn't make any dramatic changes to the way he handles foreign policy (i.e. speak apologetically and lament that the US has a big stick, as he has done on his magical mystery tour of Europe), I think we'll see two things. First of all, I think we will see a dramatic improvement in public opinion polling about America. Secondly, I think that in terms of substantive policy, we'll see very little change. Europe will commit as few troops as possible to any endeavor, no matter how abject we are at the UN, bad actors like North Korea will continue to pursue nuclear technology (They may sign a treaty or two in exchange for aid, but remember that they signed a treaty with Bill Clinton too. How long did that last?), and Muslim countries worldwide will continue to tolerate the violent and oppressive forms of Salafism and Wahabism practiced by people like Bin Laden while continuing their persecution of religious minorities. Don't expect "secular" Turkey to stop harassing the Ecumenical Patriarch any time soon! In short, I think Obama will conclusively prove just how valuable "world opinion" is.

Any Obama fans care to place a wager on my predictions?

Norm Coleman

He's been out-hustled from the start, and the latest results in his legal battle make it almost impossible to see how he can pull out a win. He's always seemed like a decent guy, whereas Al Franken will be a disgrace to the US Senate, so it hurts me to say this, but I think Coleman needs to hang up the gloves. He's still got a chance to leave with his dignity intact, and possibly make a comeback later on down the road. Extending the fight at this point can only hurt his future.

Obama's Turkey Speech

I can't muster more than an "eh". How is it any different than the 10 million speeches George Bush gave using the exact same rhetoric? Oh...right...Barack Obama has a funny middle name.

As for the issue of the Armenian genocide, I love the fact that the AP writer characterizes Obama as having "stood by" his assertion that what happened to the Armenians was, in fact, a genocide, simply because he refused to take it back when asked about it at a press conference. Let's look at exactly what he said on the campaign trail. "America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that President." Oh yeah, that's exactly the same as carefully avoiding explicit references in your speech (he talked about countries having problems in their pasts that must be dealt with, but his only specific example was American and its treatment of blacks), and only dealing with it indirectly when asked at a press conference. Couldn't this just as easily (and more accurately) have been described as Obama "backing off" from his previously agressive statements on the topic?

**For the record, I'm agnostic on the Armenian genocide. I simply don't know enough about that facet of Turkey's history to comment intelligently, nor do I think an explicit acknowledgement of it today by the Turkish government would actually cause anything meaningful to occur in terms of policy.

***One more point that annoys me. Can we PLEASE stop referring to the Muslim world? If I was Muslim, that term would annoy the heck out of me. The idea infers that Muslim countries can be treated as some monolithic block. I'm familiar with the concept of the Ummah and all of that, but does anyone really think that Turkey, Indonesia, and the Sudan are similar enough for politicians to get away with the phrase?

Shed A Tear For The Concept of Normalcy

A mother wants to save her dead son's sperm, in order to someday create the grandchildren he always wanted. Two thoughts. 1. Most screwed-up kids ever? 2. If your son dies in a bar fight, are you sure those are genes you really want to live on?

The View From Inside A Black Hole

Scientists with too much time on their hands have created a video of what they believe it would look like to fall into a black hole. You know, if you were to ignore the crushingly horrible instant death part.

Crud...

and I repeat yet again, CRUD! None of these actors has been remotely funny in years. Good choice guys.

Porn In Colleges

UC Davis, that noble institution of higher learning, will be showing a porno in one of it's lecture halls. There's probably an interesting object lesson in comparing the concern you'll see on college campuses for not offending some groups (see the previous post), with their absolute delight in flaunting their disregard for the standards of other groups. "You'd better not use a word I consider offensive!" shouts the college student as he heads to his campus-sponsored hardcore pornographic movie viewing (right after he gets his mandatory freshman lecture sexual harassment, of course). No mixed messages in any of it, though.

Personally, I've always just assumed that the left is so obsessed with sex primarily because they aren't getting any. (Or perhaps, those that are aren't doing it right.) It reminds me of that guy in high school/college who always bragged about how he was beating women off with a stick precisely because he couldn't actually get a girl's number if he paid for it.

Language Is A Fluid Thing

Students at Chapman are campaigning to end the use of the word "retard" in everyday speech. There's also a campaign to stop using "gay" as a derogatory term (as in "That's so gay").

It's all fine and good to want to stop using mean-spirited language, but I think people need to understand that this is nothing more than a gesture. The word "retarded" may have a negative connotation now, but in the past, it was the enlightened word. Terms like "idiot" used to be commonplace, and "retarded" became the coin of the realm among people who wanted a gentler word to replace it.

This isn't the first time a similar shift has taken place. What does NAACP stand for? National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The only person who I've heard use the term "colored" in the last decade was my ninety year-old grandmother. Coming out of my mouth, it would sound either off-putting or downright rude. Same with Negro, although when the United Negro College Fund was founded, it was obviously not. Shift a little further eastward on the globe and you'll encounter the term "Oriental". Not really in vogue much any more is it? And yet, 50 years ago, college professors studying Asia and its cultures were "orientalists". Try calling a Middle-Eastern studies professor that today, and see what happens...

I could go on, but some of the terms that used to be in vogue for various groups are now so inappropriate that I really don't want to recount them here. The point is that you cannot ever ban all of the mean words, because new words will be appropriated and made mean. The meanness is in the people, not the language. Campaigns like this are, at best, misdirected.

Mmm...Bacon doughnuts...

Now if they could just figure out a way to add chili.

Daniel Hannan, My New Favorite Brit

Here's the speech that went viral,

and here is his first interview in the aftermath.


I am constantly in awe at the public speakers that the British are able to produce. There must be something in the water at Oxford...

Hat Tip: The Corner

Poor Geithner

The expressions on his face as Maxine Waters asks her black helicopter questions are priceless.

Geithner's Bank Plan

Timothy Geithner announced his big banking rescue plan. I'm nowhere near qualified to make pronouncements on it, but that's never stopped me before has it? Believe it or not, I really want to like this plan. In fact, I DO like many of it's features. I think there are problems too, and I'm not sure it will work, but I'm definitely rooting for it.

So, what do I like and dislike about it? First of all, I like the free market elements. One of the biggest issues with TARP as it was originally proposed, was the ridiculous idea that the government was capable of intelligently pricing these housing assets, especially with their obviously conflicting priorities. The combination of private investors and government incentives might just allow the assets to be priced in a more meaningful way that would allow banks to salvage some of their investment while not propping up prices in too artificial a manner.

Secondly, this is the first Obama administration proposal that feels like it was created by grownups. The administration's first reaction to the crisis was a ridiculous stimulus bill that degenerated into a free-for-all spendathon with little thought to whether the spending was really stimulative. It was followed up by requesting the rest of the TARP money with, as far as I can tell, little to no consideration about whether the first half was used effectively. And of course, last week, the government decided to turn the printing presses up to maximum, a strategy that any 6 year old could tell you won't work without causing bigger problems down the road. Unlike these prior efforts, this one feels like adults sat down calmly and thought it through. That's obviously no guarantee that it is the right strategy, but it is reassuring nonetheless.

Lastly of course, one is known by their enemies, and Paul Krugman hates it.

On the other side of the ledger, I think Geithner has passed up on one of the most cost-effective things he could do to help banks out, suspending mark-to-market rules, which require banks to value their toxic assets at a big, fat, zero. Doing so would help free up their cash, while acknowledging the reality that these assets are illiquid, not truly worthless. I'm also obviously worried about the price tag. Obama's previous silliness combined with his budget has already put us several trillion deeper into the hole. How much longer is he going to insist that we dig our way out? I'd be much happier with this proposal if it wasn't stacked on top of too much spending already. And finally, I'm worried that Geithner doesn't have the manpower to handle this program. All the reporting says that Treasury is basically a big empty building that Tim is rattling around in all by himself. Would it hurt to get a few undersecretaries confirmed before we get going?

On a note completely unrelated to anything else, earlier today I had to Google Tim Geithner's name in order to get the link to his Wall Street Journal article. When I started to type it into the Google search engine, the auto complete feature suggested "Timothy Geithner Jewish" as the term I might be typing. Does that strike you as odd? What a random thing. I mean, if I started typing "Mitt Romney" and got "Mitt Romney Mormon" I could understand it. After all, there have been about a thousand articles written about how we crazy Bible-thumpers will never vote for a Mormon. But I've never heard word one about Geithner's religion. In fact, I went to Wikipedia, and their article lists no religious affiliation. The only mention religion gets in the article at all is that Geithner was married at his parents' home by a minister in the United Church of Christ. Is this one of those weird, "Jews control the world's money" things? Since he's in charge of the Treasury, he must be Jewish? Or did I miss a story?

It's A Moot Point

I keep hearing people say "mute" point, pronounced like the word meaning inaudible, when they mean to say "moot", a word meaning irrelevant. Today I saw it in written form. The person (a lawyer) in question clearly meant "moot", given the context of the sentence, but typed "mute". Why is this? These words don't sound alike when pronounced properly, and their meanings aren't similar, yet it's a fairly commonplace mistake. Further confusing the issue, no one ever makes the opposite mistake, saying "moot" when they mean "mute". When did they start getting confused, and why?

Holy Cow!

Did you know the ocean was full of giant rock-eating worms with numbness-inducing spines? 'Cuz that's info I'd have liked to have prior to swimming in the freakin' thing!

Flipping The Omlette

No, that's not some crazy new slang the kids are using these days. It's a celebration of personal success. This morning, for the first time, I successfully kept my omelet intact from the moment the egg went into the pan to the moment it arrived on the plate. In case you are unaware of the proper manner for preparing an omelet, it must be turned over to make sure that the egg is cooked thoroughly. Most of the time, I either destroy the omelet in this process, or at best, manage to use the spatula to maneuver it in a pathetic, halfhearted flopping manner. I've always aspired to master the genuine flip, in which one carelessly lobs the omelet in the air and catches it back in the pan, unscathed and glorious in its rotated splendor.

Now, I know there are people out there for whom this is effortless, almost instinctive behavior. They go about flipping omelets, pancakes, and even spinning pizza dough on their knuckles as if it were the easiest thing in the world. For those of us limited to the mortal plane however, such challenges are often beyond our dexterity. Attempts to replicate these carefree folk leave us with spills and empty stomaches more often than not. Not today however! With a confident snap of the wrist, end over end it went! If I die tomorrow, it is enough!

Heckuva Job Timmy

"In the face of criticism of the Treasury secretary from Republican lawmakers, Obama said Geithner has been making 'all the right moves' in dealing with the financial crisis and the situation surrounding insurer AIG."

Huh?

Is this a seriously BAD effort at defending the president, or am I missing some clever satirical point? Cafferty is a liberal, so I can't imagine that he's down on President Obama this early in the new administration, but does he seriously think that the image of Obama throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks is a reassuring one?

Purportedly Peaceful Pluto Planetary Politics

The debate continues. I wonder how much of the debate is motivated by a clear difficulty in defining "planet" and how much of it is motivated by Pluto partisanship. Astronomers used to get along fine without a clear-cut definition of what constituted a planet using an "I'll know it when I see it" attitude. I don't really see why that cannot continue. Definitions are meant to provide clarity and precision, not to intensify disputes. Therefore, if having a definition serves no clarifying purpose because the body of items you are trying to define is too diverse, why attempt to create one?

They cite the existence of "brown dwarfs" as an example of another hard to define case. (Brown dwarfs are essentially large objects that started the star formation process, but didn't have enough mass to jump-start fusion reactions in their core, so the formation stalled. They emit heat and light through other mechanisms, but significantly less of both than a star would.) But I don't see why this is a problem, except maybe for the writers of high school textbooks. Anyone dealing with astronomy at anything beyond a very basic level can understand "brown dwarf" as a self-defining category without recourse to whether it falls within the broader definition of a planet or not. And when dealing with wider data sets (for example if I'm doing an estimation of the number of planetary objects in a particular galaxy cluster), it doesn't seem like it would be all that difficult to simply define your terms for that particular endeavour. A sentence saying, "For the purposes of this study, planetary objects will mean all bodies greater than .005 earth masses and less than 60 Jupiter masses with a fixed orbit around a star" would provide clarity without any need to come up with labels that apply universally throughout...well...the universe.

Defending Hillary Clinton

I know, I know, I threw up in my mouth just a little while typing that title. But, while this post is a little past due, let it never be said that I don't defend those I disagree with on the rare occasions when they actually stumble across an accurate fact. Hillary got the Euro-weenies all tied up in knots when she said that, "It is hard enough with two parties to come to any resolution, and I say this very respectfully, because I feel the same way about our own democracy, which has been around a lot longer than European democracy."

Of course, Europe likes to trace the origins of it's democratic institutions back to ancient Athens. Fair enough, but lets remember, Athens was a single Greek city-state, and it had democracy for roughly 170 years, ending with the conquest of Alexander the Great. That's 170 years out of the last 2,500 or so (not counting the modern state of Greece, which we'll get to later). Ok Europe, I'll give you Athens, but what have you done for democracy lately?

To keep this simple, all countries with 200+ years of continuous, stable, and democratic political institutions marked by frequent and peaceful transitions of power raise your hand. I see America, England, and the Netherlands. And in all fairness, you two have monarchs, so technically speaking...

Well, maybe I made this too hard. Who can boast of 70 years of uninterrupted democracy? France? No. Germany? Less said there, the better... Spain? No. Italy? Bupkiss between the glory that was Rome and the end of Il Duce? Ouch. Portugal? Only since 1974? Really? What about Greece, the home of Athenian democracy? What? You guys had your last dictatorship end 35 years ago?

I might have missed a few, (But really, who cares about Norway? I mean, have you SEEN their display at EPCOT Center?) but overall, that's not really an impressive record. All of the major European countries together would be hard-pressed to summon up as many years of continuous democracy as America. And frankly, half of the democracies that do exist were set up by America after Germany broke the whole freakin' continent. So how about you cut Hillary a little slack? After all, at the rate you guys are going, she'll be Secretary of State longer than some of your governments will be around.

Dick Cheney's Crack Assasins

Keith Olbermann descended further into his own fantasy world on March 12th, alleging that Vice President Cheney ran an assassination ring out of his office. Admittedly, that would be pretty freakin' cool, but let's face facts. If Dick Cheney decided it was time for someone to die, why would he bother calling in a team? The whole point of hiring Cheney was so that the president HAD someone on staff for this sort of thing in the first place!

I wonder if someone on Olbermann's team bothered to look into why no one else was running this story, or even to pull up the Wikipedia page on the Joint Special Operations Command, where their chain of command is clearly detailed.

Too Bad Youtube Wasn't Around In The 90's

Bill Clinton repeatedly assures Dr. Sanjay Gupta (who I would note never bothered to challenge his patently bad information) that none of the embryos that will be used in embryonic stem cell research are fertilized. But you know who’s dumb? George W. Bush! Because saying fundamentally and stupidly wrong things about the basic biology involved in an issue you claim to have thought about as president is far less devastating than poor syntax and the occasional malapropism.

Michael Steele's GQ Interview

All of the commentary on the interview has been focused on whether or not Chairman Steele admitted that he's pro-choice. Reading the article, he seems to be. Listening to his post-facto defense, and then re-reading it, I can see a case to be made that he simply failed to make the point he was trying to make, that "choice" cuts both ways, and that, as a man who was put up for adoption, he owes his life to the choice of his birth mother.

What's unfortunate though, is that a lengthy and interesting interview has been obscured over one or two sentences. I'd encourage anyone who hasn't done so yet to read the whole thing. Steele is an interesting and thoughtful guy. I sometimes wonder however, if he was the right choice for the position. He's charming and winsome, as the interview clearly illustrates, but that only gets you so far. Remember, he's not selling himself, he's selling the GOP's ideas. Especially disturbing is the fact that he seems to be at his best verbally when critiquing president Obama's clothing choices or discussing hip-hop, and at his weakest when discussing policy. Not all of it was bad. Much of what he had to say was very good and very necessary. The real test will be to see how he carries his ideas out in the real world, and how well he puts together the GOP's ground game.

A few people have pointed to the special election in New York as the first test of the Steele reign. I think that's a bad call, whether the Republican candidate wins or loses. A single election can hinge on so many things. The personalities involved, candidate debate flubs, reputations built up over years, etc. Many of these are things an RNC Chair has no control over, especially an RNC Chair who is still hiring staff and unpacking his boxes. All he can do right now is throw money at the race, and while helpful, money is only one piece of a winning formula. We really won't know what Steele is made if until the next real election cycle in 2010, when the aggregate results should give us a picture untainted by the vagaries of any individual race.

Until then, I can't shake the feeling that we may have elected the anti-Dean. Howard Dean was an angry little man who couldn't open his mouth without saying something ugly (not that the media reported it). But, he was GOOD. He rebuilt the Democratic Party's ground game, put money into hot political prospects, and capitalized on the discontent of a party out of power. His role wasn't the only one that led to Democratic victories in the last two cycles, but he made sure that the party was prepared to capitalize on everything else that was going on.

Steele on the other hand, seems chaotic. He got caught by the Limbaugh questions because he didn't prepare beforehand with a press agent. He got hammered over this interview because he didn't sit down and decide how to correctly express what he wanted to say about his birth mother beforehand (or worse, he didn't think through what would happen if a Republican Party chair admitted he was pro-choice for the first time in a GQ interview). Given a choice between a man who sounds angry, but gets the groundwork done, or a man who sounds charming, but seems chaotic, I'd choose the former every time. I hope I'm wrong. The only thing worse than the Republican Party's first black chairman being bad at his job would be the Republican Party FIRING it's first black chairman for being bad at his job.

Jindal Tells Peta To Stop Squawking

I grow to love Bobby Jindal more and more every time I hear about him. He even managed to work in a cheesy chicken pun.

Shoe-Thrower Gets 3 Years

Some people are complaining it's unfair. Really? He attempted to physically assault a foreign head of state. Despite my disgust with the Prime Minister of China (who the article notes recieved similar treatment at Cambridge) and his regime's human rights violations, I think his assaulter should be jailed too. You don't commit assault and call it "free speech". My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins and all that. Otherwise, where does it end? Was turning fire hoses on civil rights marchers in the South protected speech just because those who did it disagreed? Obviously not.

Fleischer vs Chris Mattews

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

They went at it in this interview. Personally, I think Fleischer got the better of the discussion, ("I'm just wondering, do you ever let your guests answer without interrupting Chris?" "What's really troublesome is why you would twist my words. When I said we were 'wrong' you said that I acknowledged we were 'dishonest'. Chris, that reveals a lot about you.") because Chris Matthews was so eager to score points that he misstated Ari's positions in obvious ways, but feel free to judge for yourselves.

One point that I do wish Ari had hit on (not that I could have done any better in a live interview) about Iran is that Iran has no buffer RIGHT NOW (other than 100,000+ American troops, of course), but that's only a short-term situation. The Iraqi military currently numbers about 250,000, with another 340,000 police. Not only are they improving in quality rapidly, but they now have access to modern arms (as opposed to the surplus eastern-bloc crap they had under Saddam). They already got 280 M1 tanks ordered. (For those non-military types, the M1A1 is the world's premier main battle tank. During the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion, we didn't lose a single M1 to Saddam's Soviet-surplus tanks. Their rounds literally BOUNCED OFF in some cases.) Does anyone really believe that over the next couple of years the Iraqi army won't be every bit the match for Iran that they were under Saddam and then some?

The Epidemic Continues

Simian on human violence is one of the least discussed tragedies of our time. The evil little buggers will keep on murdering until we start to take precautions.

Chimp Plans Ahead

As terrifying as I find it to learn that chimps are far more organized than I'd previously feared, can you really blame him? I don't like it when people laugh at my dancing either...

60 Minutes Interview With Bobby Jindal

Watch CBS Videos Online
One bad speech aside, he's still pretty freakin' awesome. I like him so much that I almost hope he never runs for president.

Rush Steele Dustup

It seems that the new RNC Chair decided to tangle with the Maha Rushi on CNN.

Those who consider Rush to be a plague on the Republican Party were delighted...until Steele apologized for his remarks. Of course, that wasn't before Rush milked it for all it was worth by hitting the man of Steele with all of his considerable rhetorical weight. As a fan of both men, I figure, why not throw my two cents in on top of all the other commentary?

I was born, raised, and currently live in Sacramento. This was Rush's home base before going national. He's the reason my dad (who used to be a socialist and voted TWICE for Carter) now calls himself a conservative. I grew up listening to him, constantly amazed by the innovative responses he had to political issues. It used to fascinate me to hear everyone talk about a political problem using the exact same approaches, then turn over to Rush and hear him go off at a completely new and fresh angle. He alternates between insightful and deliberately absurd because THAT'S HOW HE ROLLS and he likes it that way. Most of the people who feel so comfortable criticizing him have never actually sat and listened to a full show. Instead they feel comfortable making judgements based on clips and partial quotes.

Steele on the other hand, is a much more serious man. He's bright, thoughtful, and charismatic in a completely different way than Rush is. He's the kind of person a party needs running it. Rush is no more built to run a national party than William Perry was built to perform ballet. But, by the same token, Steele couldn't do what Rush does. Both men are healthy for the party, as long as they stay in their respective wheelhouses.

The reason I posted the clip is because most news reports only play Steele's more incendiary language, calling Rush an "entertainer" and his comments "ugly". They don't record the earlier defense of Rush's comments, or the fact that Hughley was telling Steele that Rush was the leader of the party (imply that Steele is simply playing second fiddle). First of all, despite what Hughley says, I have never heard ANY Republican leader, INCLUDING RUSH (in his more serious moments) claim that the "harmless, lovable fuzzball" with "talents on loan from God" is or has ever been the leader of the party. Does Rush have a wider audience than most party leaders? Of course. Is he a bright, articulate popularizer of conservative ideas. Yes. But he's no party leader, nor does he seriously think he is. I can guarantee that he loves this attention though. I wonder what the ratings spike over this little flap will be...

Steele knows that, but he also knows that the position of RNC chair is only as big as the man who fills it. Without a Republican president, the leader of the party is the man who takes up that mantle. It could be a Republican governor, the House and Senate Minority leadership, or the RNC Chair. It could even be someone who holds no elected office. Look at the influence Bill Buckley had without ever holding an official position within the party. Steele needs to assert himself in order to fill that vacuum, he cannot just assume the position asserts it's own authority. That's what he was trying to do here. I think he did it poorly, and I think Rush deserved an apology for being called "ugly", but I don't think Steele was wrong to make the point that he did, even if it was somewhat ham-fisted.

Obama's Showing Some Backbone On Foreign Policy

Obama has finally realized that the Durbin conference is really just an exercise in Jew-bashing and pulled out. How unilateral of him... I'm sure George Bush is saying, "I told you so" somewhere right now, but better late than never. After hanging a "kick me" sign around America's neck since his inauguration, it's nice to know that it may have dawned on him that not everyone wants to be his friend.

Why In The World Do I Deserve An Apology?

It sometimes seems as if every new days finds us discovering new ways to become more sensitive and easily offended. Recently, Kim Kardashian (for those who don't know about her, think Paris Hilton, but with less money and talent) posted pictures of her new pet monkey on her blog. Because we all know that celebrity blogs are written by the actual celebrity, right? Well, unfortunately she had the bad timing to post these pictures around the same time as the chimp attack. You can read all about it here, at the LA Times' blog. What really caught me though, was this question. "Is Kardashian's apology good enough for you?"

Excuse me? Why do I, or any other reader of the Times get any say? The only one who has any right to this apology is the critically injured woman. In order to deserve an apology from someone, you must be WRONGED in some way. Now, if I actually had to watch Kim's reality TV show for some reason, an apology might be in order, but not for posting pictures that may be insensitive to someone else.

The Anti-Bono

This is an interesting read. Are we doing more harm than good in the third world?

--Updated--Thanks For Clearing That Up...

SCIENCE!!! says that men like looking at women in bikinis. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure you probably didn't need to be told, but the study was conducted by a woman. It probably shocked her to learn that men and women might actually have innate differences, something the average college campus tries to deny as often as possible. I also appreciated her definition of what she called "benevolent sexism", which is basically the idea that gender roles matter. That's more legendary university tolerance at work.

Read the whole thing for other stunning advances in our understanding of gender, such as: men who see half-nekkid photos are more likely to be thinking about sex when they converse with live women later, and men who see half-nekkid female bodies remember those bodies really well. Then there's the crown jewel of the article, from another professor. "Many men make foolish choices because of sexual attraction." The word "duh" readily springs to mind. One wonders what financial backer thought that such conclusions were really in need of a more solid scientific foundation.

Next week, the professor who ran the experiment will announce the shocking results of her, "do women like chocolate" study.

--Update--
I just noticed the conclusion. "Another avenue to explore would be showing images of men's wives and girlfriends in bikinis, Raison said. He predicts the objectifying effect would not happen in this context." I have two thoughts. 1. Saying, "Hey, as an experiment, how would you like to look at pictures I took of your girlfriend in a bikini?" sounds like a good way to do some firsthand research on how black eyes form. 2. How sad must this guy's own relationship be if he thinks seeing one's wife in a bikini is LESS likely to induce all of these icky male behaviors?

The Face Of The Enemy

Don't let the unnatural cuteness fool you. Just keep reminding yourself where it leads.

To Expand

I've had some time to mull it over and I'd like to expand on what I wrote Thursday. I think the point I was trying to get across in the last post is that the fact that most of us don't get into discussions of racial issues with our friends and peers on a daily basis is not emblematic of racial cowardice, but rather of widespread racial acceptance. I'm Irish, but when I hang out with someone of British ethnicity I don't feel the need to discuss Cromwell's repression of the Irish with them (or even the status of Northern Ireland) because it DOESN'T MATTER to either of us. I'd like to believe that, while this country's racial wounds are not entirely healed, and racism does still exist in isolated pockets of American society, most of us are simply OK with each other. I hope my black friends don't primarily see me as their "white friend", but rather as simply their friend, because that is honestly how I view them.

Of course, to say that to someone like Eric Holder is to be labelled either "naive", "willfully blind", or worse, unaware of my own deep racism. But I think it's the Eric Holders who are willfully blind. Racial grievance and ethnic politics are key pieces of American politics, and people like Holder refuse to accept how the vast majority of Americans feel because their own lives are hopelessly caught up in grievance-mongering and racial identity. Think about it. Whatever your views are on American society at large, how do you PERSONALLY feel about friends of another ethnicity or race? How do you think they feel about you? In my (admittedly limited) experience, most people see their friends as "the good guys" while holding on to the idea that society at large has widespread and severe racial problems. Well, maybe it's not true. Maybe your friends are the rule, and the bigots are the exception.

A Country Of Cowards

So, if I don't think Eric Holder's speech is worth commenting on, does that make me a coward? I would respectfully submit to Mr. Holder that much of his cynical view of American racial integration probably stems from living in the vast intellectual and cultural ghetto that is New York, followed by a stay in the cesspool of Washington, DC. People in the rest of the country don't have the luxury of living in such a bubble. If he would like to come to my family's next gathering, I'm sure he will find a crowd that is far more diverse both politically and ethnically than anything he has the opportunity to experience in Queens or DC.

The Chimp Cartoon

There's been a bit of a controversy over a cartoon in the New York Post that seemingly implies the stimulus bill was written by a rabid chimp. Of course, thoughtful and sensitive types like Al Sharpton are arguing that it is, in effect, calling the president a rabid chimp while implying violence, and is therefore racist. A couple of points immediately come to mind. First of all, the stimulus bill was not written by the president. Congress wrote it. And if we can't call a body whose current 31% approval rating is considered HIGH a bunch of chimps, well, I just don't know who we can mock anymore. Secondly, which has greater racial undertones, implying the a wasteful spending bill was written by a chimp, or calling a black man "childlike" and "unthreatening" as Chris Matthews did to Michael Steele?

I do agree though, that comparing a president to a chimp is wrong. We know it would never be done to a white president. Nor should political cartoons ever dabble in racism. And don't even get me started on how inappropriate it would be for someone to toy with the idea of assassinating a sitting president. The only thing that might be worse would be to portray a US president as Hitler.

I don't think this cartoon meant what people are reading into it. If it did, it's inexcusable. But I would just like people to get some perspective. The left has been engaging in full-throated anti-Bush nuttery for the past 8 years. If they're in for some of the same, I think it's regrettable, dishonorable on the part of those on the right who engage in it, and a sad sign of the times. But it is hardly new or uniquely based on Obama's race.

I've Said It Before And I'll Say It Again

For a reprehensible dirt-bag, Christopher Hitchens keeps finding ways to make me love him!

Seeker-Sensitive Ministry

I'm generally ok if churches want to experiment with a little bit of the seeker-sensitive strategies suggested by some of the Emergent Church crowd, but never at the expense of any watering down of the Gospel message. Use "Christ-follower" if you want rather than "Christian", as long as you emphasize the need to adopt Christ and leave your former world behind. Come up with new and different ways to explain the cross in order to make it easier to understand, but never leave it out of the picture in order to make "Christ-following" easier to market. If you do, what exactly is it you're marketing? What is Christ-following without the Christ? As Paul put it, "When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (I Corinthians 2:1-2) Paul says this despite knowing that, "Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (I Corinthians 1:22-24)

Paul preached a doctrine that was foreign and offensive, not in spite of those facts, but BECAUSE of them. If this world and everyone in it is fallen, then why would we expect the greatest and most elevated fact of human history to be palatable to a fallen world? Why would we WANT to make it palatable to a fallen world? Stooping down into the mud rather than washing off the muddy isn't loving, it's just silly. Christ came to shake sinful people up and offend them out of their sloth and self-love. Isn't He the God who chased moneylenders out of His temple and called the Pharisees "vipers"? Did He approach the Samaritan woman with seeker-sensitive strategies or did he remind her that she was shacking up with her boyfriend? When he talked to Nicodemus, he purposefully confused the man in order to shake him out of his confident complacency.

The McLaren approach (not to pick on just one emergent guy) goes like this. "I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts … rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on … To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are), to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love as mine has been entered by the Lord." (A Generous Orthodoxy, 260, 262, 264)

The traditional Christian approach is something a little closer to St. Boniface. When trying to evangelize among Germanic pagans, he found that they feared conversion because they were afraid of reprisal from their own god, Thor. In one community, there was a sacred oak at which the worship of Thor took place. Boniface cut down the tree, saying in essence, "Thor isn't striking me dead for chopping up his sacred tree, so what are you afraid of? It's either the god of the tree, or the God of The Tree."

Boniface was facing a crowd who saw Christianity as something foreign, just like any unchurched person in the world today. In fact, they were probably more alien to it than today's non-Christians, because even many foreign societies today have been influenced by, or at least exposed to, western christian values. His challenges were far greater than anything McLaren is worried about having to overcome, and yet he was concerned with content, not delivery or audience comfort. Honestly, which approach do you think is most pleasing to this guy?

What's The Deal With Darwin?

Yesterday was the 200th birthday of two very famous men. Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. Now, I'm guessing it's not necessary to give biographical sketches of either man. If you aren't familiar with one or the other, please stop reading my blog, go to the door of your bomb shelter, and let in some sunlight.

Who did Google choose to honor? Chuck Darwin. Who got more time at Little Green Footballs? Darwin again (Although in all fairness, based on recent posting, Charles Johnson seems to consider creationists and jihadis to be equal threats to American liberty. Maybe it's their shared given name.) Newsweek seems to feel a tad guilty over calling Lincoln the more important figure. Even Pepperdine got in on the act. My question is...why?

First off, THIS IS NOT a creation versus evolution debate. For the purposes of this post, let's all assume that Darwinian evolution is the soundest, least-controversial scientific theory since the fire=hot days. I still can't figure out why, based on his scientific achievements, Darwin is held in such high esteem. He didn't even come up with the idea of evolution per se, just the process by which it occurred (i.e. natural selection through competition). Evolution as a concept has been around since the days of the Greek philosophers.

I've heard many people just blandly assert that evolution underpins all of modern biology. Really? All of it? Even the genetic stuff, which seems like it is MORE fundamental than evolution, since evolution only operates BECAUSE of genetics, rather than vice versa? Doesn't that mean genetics is fundamental for properly understanding evolution, not the other way around?

In physics one can realistically argue that the foundations of the discipline rest on the shoulders of Isaac Newton. While classical mechanics has been modified and complemented in the modern age by ideas like relativity theory and quantum mechanics, for several centuries physics MEANT classical Newtonian mechanics. It really was all there was on the topic. Evolution, on the other hand, is just a tool for understanding how species differentiate over time. Does it really shed substantial useful light on a doctor's study of heart disease, or chemical reactions within a cell?

If someone can give me an intelligent answer as to just how Darwin is as fundamental to modern biology as Newton is to physics, I may re-think the topic, but until then, I'm going to have to assume that ending slavery in the US while guiding us through the bloodiest war in our history scores a little higher on the charts than figuring out that if two blue birds get busy, their offspring are more likely to be blue as well. My own personal theory is that Darwin's value to modern society is as a representative of a concept, not his actual value as a naturalist. Darwin represents the triumph of secular reason over backward religious superstition. He's the reason guys like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris feel superior to backwards rubes like C.S. Lewis or Francis Collins (yes, I know both of them believe in evolution, but they're on the SAME TEAM as the crazies, which makes them no better).

If anyone has a better explanation, I'd love to hear it.

Double Standards?

Las Vegas' mayor is complaining that President Obama is hurting his city with comments he made this week at a town hall event in Indiana. The president made it clear that he expected companies receiving bailout funds not to spend them on entertainment events in places like Vegas. "You can't get corporate jets, you can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime."

So let me get this straight. President Hurry-Up-And-Authorize-Us-To-Spend-Money-On-Anything-We-Can-Throw-It-At is lecturing someone on how they throw around taxpayer money? The man who claims that any delay in authorizing his government to spend over $800 billion in largely unaccountable ways is tantamount to a vote for lengthening the economic crisis is suddenly choosy about what is stimulative spending and what isn't? Lets apply the standard of respecting taxpayer money to your own pet projects first Mr. President, shall we?

AUUGGGHHH!

"As a state delegate from 1996 until last year representing Alexandria and a tiny corner of Fairfax County, he has lived quite literally in Jim's shadow."

NO! NO HE HASN'T!!! A SHADOW IS A SMALL AREA IN WHICH THERE ARE FEWER PHOTONS DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF A SOLID OBJECT WHICH BLOCKS THEIR DIRECT PATH FROM THE LIGHT SOURCE. SHADOWS ARE INSUBSTANTIAL, VARYING IN SIZE AND LOCATION (AND EVEN EXISTENCE) BASED ON LIGHTING CONDITIONS. YOU CANNOT "LITERALLY" LIVE IN A SHADOW, YOU HAVE TO "FIGURATIVELY" LIVE IN A SHADOW!!!!!!

Sometimes Good Theology Is Not Enough

It's one of the ironies of human life that the sight of the death of a puppy in the street is more likely to evoke tears in the average person than the news that ten thousand died of starvation in a foreign country. None of us want to admit it, but it takes a personal touch to really get us in the gut. It's a survival mechanism, one designed to protect us from completely shutting down as we would if we felt every human heartache in this vale of tears.

I've recently had a spate of sad events that were far enough removed from my life to leave me unaffected, yet close enough to leave me saddened and thoughtful. A man at church died of cancer, leaving his wife and son behind. A friend is being professionally and personally imperilled by the foolish actions of a co-worker. Worst of all, a child of six just died unexpectedly, of a disease that displayed only cold-like symptoms.

All of this adds up to remind me that, though proper theology can help to put such events in perspective, and give a believer the necessary strength to move beyond them, sometimes it simply isn't sufficient for the needs of the moment. In Job 1:20, Job has learned that his family are dead, and all his wealth has been carried off by raiders. His response? "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." His theology was spot on. He is then physically afflicted with painful ailments. His response in chapter 2, verse 10 is again, correct. "Shall we accept good from God and not trouble?" And yet, his actions are those of despair. He gives up, sits on an ash heap, and curses the day he was born. Job never loses his faith in God or his wisdom, despite his wife and friends, but he also cannot deal with what has happened to him until God himself comes down to rectify matters.

Sometimes, one of the worst things a Christian can do is give the correct theological answer to the wrong person at the wrong time. A person has to be willing to listen before the answer can be given. Think of it this way. If I leave a space heater running and it burns down my home, the time for a lecture on fire safety is not as I'm sifting through the ashes looking for my photo albums. At times, the best thing a Christian can do is love on someone, and wait for them to start asking the questions.

Obama Bumps Head

It's news. Seriously. Do a Google News search. You can even find video of it. CARE PEOPLE, OUR RATINGS ARE IN THE TOILET!!!!

Stimulus Roundup

Anyone who has been paying attention has probably seen a lot of this elsewhere, but I thought that I'd round up some of the various objections to the stimulus package in one posting. First, a quick note though. These are primarily practical objections to the stimulus package currently being debated. Obviously there is also the overarching and more general philosophical debate about the proper place of government in assuring prosperity, but that's for a different time and place.

-How about this as a place to begin? The current economic conditions were caused by too much risk-taking, high debt, and easy money (in the form of low interest rates). The government's proposed solution? Protecting companies from the consequences of their risky activities by giving away borrowed money. How could it possibly fail?

-According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus package is harmful in the long-term because it will crowd out private enterprise.

-Oh, and did I forget to mention that the CBO estimates that only 20% of the stimulus will actually be distributed this year, and only 65% will be distributed before the economy is projected to recover on it's own?

-The noted right-wingers at Popular Mechanics examine the problems with the idea of "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects.

-What if the bill banned religious activities (including secular departments of religious studies) at local universities from using campus facilities constructed with stimulus money?

-K-Hammer brings the pain.

-The return of pre-reform welfare.

-Cry "havoc" and let slip the libertarians!

Fair And Balanced

Of course reporters are completely objective in covering Obama. Why do you ask?

Here's something to consider. When Sarah Palin was running on the Republican ticket, many ignored all the practical benefits for McCain, (drawing tens of thousands to rallies, millions in new donations, her gender, her reputation as a reformer, her youth, her charisma, etc.) and darkly implied that McCain chose her as some sort of dirty old man's fantasy fulfillment. The argument went on to imply that male voters supported her for many of the same reasons. As "proof" we were supplied with silly evidence like Rich Lowry's comment that Sarah Palin "winked at me" (which was in support of his observation that some politicians can project into your living room, not in support of the observation that she's super-hot), that McCain knew little of her before deciding to pursue her as VP, and the fact that her popularity was far higher among men (it's called the partisan gender gap geniuses...look it up). It was stupid and silly then, but now it looks even more ridiculous, because now we have people at the New York Times openly discussing Obama sexual fantasies, how the Obamas look like they "love sex", etc. Of course, it's perfectly natural and acceptable...healthy even, when it's the Obamessiah who is the recipient of adulatory fantasy.

The President Goes On The Offensive

Aside from the obvious straw man arguments (who has ever said that "we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures"), I think this may be a mistake by the president on a strategic level. Everyone, including G.W. Bush, talks about being "bipartisan" in the beginning. It's one of those meaningless words that everyone throws out because it sounds better than saying, "I'm gonna shove this #%$*%!@ bill down your throat because I have the votes to do it!" The reason it never actually OCCURS is because "bipartisan" has come to mean, "you need to cross the aisle and agree with my policies". No conservative ever says, "I'm going to vote to increase government in order to be bipartisan" and no liberal ever says, "I'm going to vote to cancel this social giveaway in order to be bipartisan". It's always code for the other guy compromising HIS values, not you compromising yours.

Anyway, the president had a golden opportunity here to look like a true bipartisan, and I think he may be blowing it. The Republicans have been arguing against the Democratic CONGRESS and their bill, not the president. This is largely because he seems to have kept himself out of the details of the bill. He should have come out and publicly said something along the lines of, "The Republicans in Congress have made some very valid criticisms of the bill, and I would ask Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to do their best to accommodate their concerns. At the same time, I ask the Congressional Republicans to be open to listening to new ideas." At this point, Reid and Pelosi would have had cover to make cosmetic changes to the most unpopular parts of the bill very publicly. Had they done so, the Republicans would have been left with two choices. Either they could have continued to oppose the bill and looked petty in the face of "compromise" by the majority party, or enough of them would have broken ranks to give the bill bipartisan cover.

As it is, the president and the Democrats in Congress now own this thing. By making it about Republican obstructionism, rather than legitimate concerns about the content of the bill, the president is choosing the same course as every partisan chief executive before him...making bipartisan noises while taking a partisan course of action. The Republicans have effectively been completely locked out of this bill. If the economy doesn't seem particularly affected by the bill, this could have a major impact on the 2010 congressional elections (assuming nothing else shiny distracts people in the meantime). An even worse case scenario would be if the unmodified bill fails to pass in the Senate. With the majority needed to shove it through (assuming no filibuster), the Democrats can only look ineffective in the face of crisis if they can't even rally the members of their own party to vote it through.

Obviously, this is all ignoring the actual content of the bill and just focusing on the politics of it. The bill itself sucks, and could be easily and vastly improved without much in the way of ideological compromise by the Dems. Is it really that hard to throw in a few tax cuts with expiration dates, keep the giveaways to real infrastructure projects rather than lawn maintenance, and try to fast-track a specific and limited set of projects past current regulatory roadblocks while keeping those regulations in place for non-stimulus projects?

What Deluded Fools

Can you say "onanistic symbolism"?

Obama Keeps Rendition Intact

So apparently all that stuff about not torturing really just meant, "I won't let Americans torture, but I'll sure as heck aid others in doing it."

Despite my posts of the last few days, I'm really not a fan of waterboarding, secret prisons, etc. I just feel that trying to weigh the lives of Americans versus one's moral obligations is a difficult, nasty position to be in. Therefore, it can really only be made by the person sitting in the big chair, once he has all the information we don't have access to, and once he has felt the weight of his obligation to protect the nation's safety resting on his shoulders. Perhaps now that president Obama feels that weight, he's thinking twice about his campaign rhetoric. If so, good for him. It's just too bad it has to come with a certain amount of moral preening and deceptiveness.

--Update--
First of all, for a counter-point to the LA Times piece, go here. This author seems to think that the writer of the Times piece is conflating "rendition" and "extraordinary rendition". It seems to me that he might be right, or the rules outlined in the piece might be the administration's way of covering itself. After all, "substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture" is a subjective call. What if a state like Egypt, with a less-than-sterling human rights record crossed their fingers and promised very hard NOT to torture someone? Does that provide enough cover to hand them off? We won't really know for sure until we see how the rules are actually applied.

My other thought was this. Assuming the LA Times article is the more accurate view, for someone who is on the anti-torture side of the argument, isn't this the worse scenario? If you have a choice between the US working it's coercive magic on people or Egypt/Pakistan/Iraq doing so, and if your main concern is the dignity and safety of the individual in question, isn't it better to have the US working the bad guy over? After all, the worst reports seem to limited to techniques like stress positions, extreme temperatures, and waterboarding. I'm relatively sure that Pakistani officials are willing to go much further than that in pursuit of their interests.