There Is No Debate On Global Warming

Except when there is.

The point of posting this article is not to say that everyone should suddenly accept that all the temperature increases of the past few decades are based on ocean patterns. I don't believe that any more than I believe they should suddenly drink the global warming Kool-Aid. The point is just to emphasize the fact that the science is not settled, as Al Gore says. Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson, Ian Plimer, and many other brilliant scientists are not to be dismissed just because the former Veep says so. If the costs of wrongly believing that global warming is occurring are nearly as high as the costs of wrongly denying it, shouldn't we take a deep breath or two before destroying economies and condemning the poor in the third world to a continued life of poverty?

And How Many Terrorists Exactly Have You Met?

”If he’s a terrorist, he’s the nicest terrorist I ever met in my life. I don’t think he is,” said Charles Casale, 46, a neighbor in Willow Spring.

Two Random And Completely Unrelated Incidents

Tonight, as I was walking my dogs, a snake slithered out of a field onto the sidewalk in front of us. I am terrified of snakes. Blind, irrational, fear. I consider myself a fairly brave guy. I've gone rock climbing and rappelling, broken up a dog fight, backed down two guys who got in my face in a parking garage, etc. I'm no John Wayne, but for the most part, I'm confident in my ability to overcome and control my fear. Not so with snakes. It is, to the best of my knowledge, the only irrational fear I have.

After I managed to get around him (by waiting for him to crawl off the sidewalk and into the street), I continued with the walk. As I did, I saw a car coming. It was in the lane currently occupied by the snake. Suddenly, I found myself feeling concern and pity for the snake. I actually stayed to watch what would happen, because I knew that if I didn't, I'd be concerned for the snake all night. Fortunately, the car missed it. (I've never seen an animal about-face and get off the road as quickly as that snake did when the car whizzed by!) I found myself weirdly puzzled by my concern for an animal that scares the living daylights out of me. Had I found the thing in my yard, I would have unhesitatingly beaten it into oblivion with a shovel while screaming like a girl. Life is funny.



The other incident occurred last night. I was watching a History Channel documentary on Hannibal. As with most History Channel documentaries, it had poorly done and unintentionally comical re-enactments to illustrate the various events the show discussed. But here's the problem. The actor playing Hannibal was black. Carthage may be in Africa, but it was a Phoenician colony. The Phoenicians came from the northern part of Palestine. As I understand it, Hannibal would have been Middle Eastern (to the extent that modern ethnic divisions are transferable to that era). Later, the documentary referred to Hasdrubal as Hannibal's older brother. In fact, Hannibal was the eldest son (At least that we know of. The Carthaginians practiced infant sacrifice.).

Neither of these facts are germane to the documentary itself. But they are pretty basic facts. I've never focused much on that historical era, so if I can pick them out it means anyone with any expertise on the subject should be able to do so. It makes me wonder what other historical errors I've picked up from the History Channel.

There's A Surprising Amount Of Wisdom In This

Supplied by Jonah Goldberg.

I'm A Tad Confused

In Massachusetts, asking a black man for ID after someone reports a burglary is obvious profiling, completely unacceptable, and deserving of a rebuke from the president. However, throwing a brick through a white family's window with a note a note saying "Keep Eastside Black" isn't considered worthy of being classified as a "hate crime" by either the police or the NAACP? I'm not in favor of having a "hate crimes" classification in the first place (a discussion for another day), but if we have to have them, shouldn't they protect everyone equally?

Putting Their Mouths Where Their Money Ought To Be

PG&E, the local gas and power people, recently implemented a program called Climate Smart. It allows customers to voluntarily pay a higher rate ($3 or less in most cases). The money is to be directed into projects intended to fight global warming. So far barely more than one half of one percent of PG&E customers have opted to join. This means the program isn't taking in enough money to pay its bills, and may be cancelled. Or, it may just continue supplementing the program with funds taken from regular rate-payers.

California considers itself one of the most climate-conscious states in the country, and yet it can't break 1% participation in a program that costs less than many specialty drinks at Starbucks. Yet again, the green movement is forcing us to make the sacrifices they won't make themselves.

The Gates Arrest

I've been arguing the ins and outs of this case with friends and acquaintances of all races live and via facebook since it first occurred. Let me first stipulate that I think it was probably not a bright idea for the officer to choose to arrest Dr. Gates. When you have a man who is bound and determined to find racism in your actions, arresting him on a dubious charge like disturbing the peace is probably not the smartest move. However, given that we now know that the officer in question has struggled to save the life of a black man in the past, there was at least one black cop on the scene when the arrest took place, that the officer's fellow police of all colors are standing by his actions, and that he LITERALLY teaches the class on racial profiling, maybe some of the people (including Gates) who jumped to the conclusion that any of this was racial should rethink their positions.

On top of that, when I'm being lectured on America's racial intolerance by the black president of a country whose population is only 12.8% black, the black governor of a state whose population is only 7.5% black, and the black mayor of a city whose population is 11.9% black on behalf of a tenured black professor at an Ivy League university whose specialty is sitting around writing about being black in America, I reserve the right to not feel very guilty.

Health Care Rationing And You

They Must Be On The Take From Big Oil

A study published in Nature Geoscience claims that past increases in temperature may be due in large part to factors other than CO2 increases. In fact, only about half of past temperature gains can be explained using current climate models. Of course, we all know that anyone who questions or denies the absolute certainty of global warming is anti-science and probably on the take from industry. Meanwhile, no scientists who support global warming are getting any money at all, and Al Gore hasn't enriched himself many times over by buying and hawking "green". And there's no chance at all that trying to predict something as complicated as THE SIMULTANEOUS INTERACTIONS OF EVERY NATURAL SYSTEM ON THE PLANET FROM WEATHER TO SUNLIGHT TO GEOTHERMAL ACTIVITY might be a little beyond the capacity of our current computer models...

I'm in the same camp as Charles Krauthammer on global warming. Instinctively it seems to make good sense that pumping tons of extra CO2 into our atmosphere is probably not ideal behavior. I'd like to see it reduced as much as is practical. However, remaking our entire economy, giving the government vastly expanded control over our daily lives, denying impoverished 3rd world nations the right to improve their lot, and generally placing people in a subordinate position to the environment, all while castigating any scientist who utters a peep in opposition seems like a bit much based on the evidence we have so far. Climate modeling is inexact because our measurements of historical temperatures and carbon dioxide levels are inexact, our understanding of solar activity is inexact, our understanding of the atmosphere is inexact, our understanding of the ramifications of higher temperatures for land and ocean life are inexact, and our understanding of the interconnections between all of these natural systems are inexact. Why in the world would we commit economic suicide without better evidence?

Useless Words

David Klinghoffer has a post about the word "fundamentalist" up today. He argues that the term is no longer useful as anything but a negative epithet. This is because it is widely used to refer to any conservative religious person one doesn't happen to like, despite having a clear-cut and narrow historical definition.

His post got me thinking along similar lines about another oft-used term. In discussions of theology, people talk about interpreting the Bible "literally". Unlike fundamentalist, "literal" in this context is as likely to be used by a person defending the practice as it is by someone opposed to it. However, it doesn't make it any more accurate.

The problem with this way of describing a more traditional hermeneutical approach to the Bible is that it leads to misconceptions. I can guarantee you that, no matter how conservative your theology, you don't read everything in the Bible literally. If you don't believe me, check out Matthew 18:9. Unless you're reading this post while wearing an eye patch, there are at least some parts of the Bible you acknowledge to be metaphorical. Unfortunately, if you are a self-proclaimed literalist, it becomes pretty easy for the anti-Christian types to caricature you. "Man, this guy believes we should stone people who disrespect their parents!" Perhaps an acceptable alternative would be to tell people you read the Bible in its plain sense wherever possible. It's not quite as catchy, but may be more accurate.

Foreign Aid As Therapy

We send billions to impoverished countries like those in sub-Saharan Africa every year, but how often do we stop to assess how much good our aid does, and at what cost? Are we doing it to help Africans or ourselves?

Is That Still Going On?

Apparently the "Obama isn't a citizen" crowd are still working vigorously to make themselves look silly. A judge ruled in their favor...sort of, by saying that once they refiled their paperwork correctly, he would listen to the merits of their case.

I'm torn. Part of me wants this judge to dismiss the case out of hand, the way other courts have, because that's what should be done with frivolous cases. A judge should feel free to say, "That's so stupid, I'm not going to bother." On the other hand, not getting a hearing allows these people to go on believing that they might have a real argument if they could get someone to listen. Hopefully, having someone listen carefully, and then laugh in their faces, will convince them to give up.

On a side note, I'm sad to see that Alan Keyes (The man I voted for in the 2000 presidential primary. My first vote ever.) has continued his Hamlet-like descent into madness by becoming a plaintiff in this case.

---Update---
*Sighs loudly*

Wow!

A woman beat a fawn to death because it was messing with her garden. That's got to speak to some deeper issues with her, right? I mean, she killed Bambi in brutal fashion over some gardenias. She probably thought The Yearling was intended as a lighthearted comedy.

Which Is More Indicative Of American Decline?

The Michael Jackson Funeral Spectacular, or the fact that Alec Baldwin wants to run for political office? In even more shocking news, Alec Baldwin knows who Alexis de Tocqueville is.

Obama's Russian Love-Fest

Barack Obama has now made kissy noises with both the Russian president, and his boss, Wladimir Putin. Nothing truly useful or beneficial to the US has been agreed to, while Georgia and the Ukraine are still fair game for Russian hegemony. But I'm sure that over time, Barack Obama will win Putin over. After all, he isn't an undiplomatic and insulting cowboy like Bush, who had a terrible first encounter with Putin. Oh wait... But this time will be different, because everyone loves Obama.

What Are They Putting In The Water At The Republican Governor's Association?

Seriously? I'm not sure which is more confusing and unexpected, the Sanford fiasco or the Palin retreat.

First off, Sanford. I haven't posted anything since his bombshell (other than the unfortunately-titled post defending him when we still thought he was off taking a hike). I've always liked the guy as a politician, and it was disappointing to see him and his family so publicly embarrassed. Besides, I'm not of the opinion that every sexual event in a politician's life is our business. While I'd like to believe that there is a direct link between personal ethics and professional fitness for office, it doesn't seem to be universally true. I think we'd be much healthier as a country if we all acknowledged that men who fail in their commitments as a husband should only be required to grovel to their families, not the public.

But then things got weird. Governor Sanford's inability to keep his mouth shut, and seeming determination to humiliate his wife while depicting himself as some sort of tragic figure is weird and mildly unsettling. My only explanation for his conduct is that he is so wrapped up in his feelings for this woman that he truly sees this situation as something out of Romeo and Juliet, and has no clue about the damage he must be doing to his wife and sons. Meanwhile, Mrs Sanford has been nothing short of saintly in her actions and public comments. Here's hoping that the governor of South Carolina will soon remember that he's a man, and more importantly a conservative man. Suck it up, quit baring your muddled soul to anyone with a press pass, tell your girlfriend to take a hike, and stop feeling sorry for yourself!

As for Sarah Palin, I think everyone is at a loss. Of the sane explanations, the choices seem to be: 1. this is some sort of strategy to better launch a senatorial/presidential run, 2. some huge scandalous bombshell is about to drop, 3. the constant ridicule of her family, the spurious ethics complaints, and the frenetic life of a governor are taking their toll.


Number one makes no sense in any way I can imagine. I can see her not running for re-election, but quitting mid-term? Why? Can she really think letting down the people of Alaska is a good strategy for building up the necessary reputation to run for president? As it stands right now, unless she releases more information that sheds a whole lot of light on this decision, I wouldn't vote for her to be my town's dog catcher.

As for number two, I doubt it is the case, but unexpectedly resigning and offering only vague reasons for doing so isn't exactly the best way to quell that sort of talk, is it?

If the reason is number three, my feelings are more mixed. I have tons of sympathy for how hard the last year must have been on her family. Creeps like Letterman who attack her family deserve some alone time in a locked room with the "First Dude". The ethics complaints (all of which have been resolved in her favor) have cost tons and tons of money and time. However, having said all of that, my final thought is still to say, "Suck it up!" Yeah, it stinks to be a polarizing national figure faced with a hostile press. But you chose to be one. It doesn't give you the right to spurn your commitments.

Ok, now that I've got all of that off of my chest, everyone, please join me in a prayer for Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, and Mitch Daniels.

Not A Good Sign

What could be worse than all the ants of the world teaming up against humanity? If they joined forces with the bees. It's a natural alliance, after all. Once the ants remove all rival colonies, and the bees exterminate the wasps, who else could be next on their hitlist?

I guess Kim Jong Il isn't the only one who's no longer afraid of the American president...

Some Entertainment

Want to feel old?

When Care Bears and nightmares mix.

Canadians are good enough, they're smart enough, and darnit, people like them!

Wow. Just wow.

Why do they keep giving his license back?!?!

I'm not sure whether I like the grandpa or the judge more.

And finally, the All Blacks haka.

"I'm No Hero. I'm Actuary of the Year."

This is almost exactly what I've always imagined the actuaries at work do when the rest of us aren't around. Start watching at about 1:30.

Put This In The Same Column As The Last One

President Obama still smokes. Shocking, isn't it, that as his day job has gotten more stressful (state legislator, to Senator, to President) he hasn't kicked the habit? Dennis Prager has an interesting theory. He believes most of us need a little vice in our lives, and if someone can use a minor vice, such as smoking or a glass of scotch, to avoid a major vice, like Dick Cheney's hobo-murdering sprees, we should go ahead and do it. If the president wants to take a few puffs, let him do it, just like Governor Sanford should be able to take a hike.

Mark Sanford, My Hero **Updated**

For those who don't know, Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina, occasionally sneaks off and spends some time alone hiking when the state legislature wraps up its session. This time, he snuck off all the way to Argentina, and some fellow Republicans with axes to grind, along with he state's Democratic party, tried to make a big deal out of the trip.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find it really healthy that a state governor doesn't consider himself indispensable. We need more politicians who know that there is more to life than their office. If he needs solitude to re-charge, let him have it, and be glad you have a governor who knows that the world can go on just fine without him. Had there been an emergency during his absence, the state's laws allow for the Lt. Governor to make decisions. That's actually why they have a Lt. Governor in the first place. Unless his press conference this afternoon turns up something that hasn't been reported yet, I'm at a loss as to why this would hurt him politically.

**Ok, Sanford's press conference puts this story in a completely new light. Suffice it to say that I am far less positively disposed towards the governor's absence now. Still a fan of Obama being allowed to smoke though.

Military To Break Off Engagements If Civilians At Risk

The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan is finalizing a far-reaching change in tactics that will generally require U.S. troops taking fire in populated areas to break contact rather than risk civilian casualties, military officials said.

Hmm...Not to second-guess General McChrystal and his advisors, but something here doesn't compute. Won't this effectively cede cities to the bad guys? If the military's presumption is in favor of protecting civilian life over completing the mission, it seems like this policy will simply encourage the baddies to engage in more military activities in urban areas. Right now, as I understand it, (as as the article seems to corroborate) most of our fighting is done out in the back country. But, if they know the US military is allowed to use whatever means are necessary when in the countryside, where civilians are less concentrated and easier to avoid, what will keep them from shifting their operations into the cities?

Why California Is Broken

In large part it is because you cannot kick the can down the road forever, even in state government. This sort of thing has been going on for years.

Obama Gets Lost Twice In One Press Conference

Obviously, this was just one of those things that happens, and not to belabor the point, but it does bear repeating. Can you imagine if President Bush did this?

Instead, reporters gush about how articulate, athletic, and just plain cool Barack "57 states arugala where's the door remember to duck I don't remember my committees neverending sentence" Obama is.

First Step Back To The Moon

The rocket carrying the Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter and the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LRO/LCROSS) lifted off successfully after several days. Assuming its budget doesn't get cut off (which in almost inevitable will), this is America's first step on a trip back to the moon, and then on to Mars.

Cult of Personality?

What cult of personality?

Iran Roundup

Since I'm no expert, I have nothing very useful to contribute about the travesty "election" in Iran. For those who haven't been following it, imagine a scenario where the FBI is in charge of elections (the innocuous-sounding Ministry of the Interior controls elections and the country's law-enforcement duties), all candidates for Legislative or Executive office must be approved by the Supreme Court prior to running, and despite a 20% illiteracy rate, there are no punch cards or electronic voting. Instead you must write your candidates name. If you cannot do so, a helpful government volunteer will write it for you. In this already dubious system, the charismatic and popular challenger loses to the unpopular incumbent in the largest landslide in the country's history. Not only does the incumbent win in every district, he crushes all opponents even in their own hometowns. Of course, the results are also announced prior to the polls closing. The question is not whether cheating occurred. The only legitimate question is why they didn't even bother to pretend they weren't cheating.

Anyway, protests have been going on for several days now, and some experts think the government may actually be in danger. There has been some violence, although it has actually been fairly minor so far (by totalitarian standards at least). Meanwhile, president Obama has announced that he is "concerned". Way to lead!

Ok, that's about all I have to contribute, here are some people who actually know what they are talking about with more.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election_media_2
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124520170103721579.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124523854750623001.html#mod=djemTMB
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/06/15/iran-election-is-obamas-first-foreign-policy-test--and-hes-failing.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/opinion/17pletka.html?ref=opinion
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/opinion/16iht-edcohen.html

T-Swizzle

I think it's safe to say that Taylor Swift rapping gangsta-style is the greatest moment in CMT history. "I knit sweaters, yo!"

More CMT Shows   More CMT Videos

Britain Produces Anti-Stab Knife

Since I can't think of anything better to say, I'll just echo Frank J. over at IMAO. If your society is contemplating a stab-proof knife (although, not to quibble with Frank, isn't this knife really just stab-resistant), it's actually a lot more dignified to just roll over and die as a civilization. What really saddens me though, is that according to the article, this was due to a recommendation by a group of physicians. It just goes to show that education and wisdom have little to no correlation.

Meanwhile over in Japan, the men are wearing bras and makeup.

Can we have a fundraiser to buy a copy of this book for every man in both nations?

You just know that somewhere up in heaven Winston Churchill and Hideki Tojo are sharing a drink and crying on each other's shoulder.

A Time For Choosing

Because it's a great speech to watch every now and then.

Man Oh Man

The Ultimate Man's Survival Guide is now available online or at fine retailers near you. Divided into seven sections entitled: survivor, provider, athlete, hero, romantic, cultured man, and philosopher; the book teaches you everything from how to set a dislocated joint to picking out a good bottle of wine.

The author, Frank Miniter, was interviewed over at National Review, and made a very thoughtful comment that I wanted to share. When asked by NRO Editor Kathryn Lopez, "Does a man have to run with bulls in Pamplona to be 'manly'?" he responded as follows. "Of course not, but he does have to find a path to manhood. Cultures used to have rites of passage, physical tests of skill and courage boys had to pass to become men. Today we have ages instead of feats — when you’re 18 years old you can smoke, 21 you can drink — which are earned by living, not doing. This is why we have to search for our own hurdles to prove ourselves and thereby learn what we’re capable of and what we’re not. Learning our physical limitations is critical to becoming men, because when a man is faced with a real crisis — a car accident, someone attacking another, an injury — he has to have the skills and understanding of his strengths and weaknesses in order to keep his bearings and be the hero of the moment."

A lot of ink has been spilled about the slow death of masculinity in American culture, and I think that he hits on an important idea here. In the book Wild at Heart, John Eldredge makes the point that manhood is bestowed. Previous cultures had rites of passage, and even in America, you became a man in the eyes of the larger community by taking on certain responsibilities. Marriage, providing for a family, purchasing property, or serving in the military all combined to take the place of more primitive rituals. As these pieces of adulthood have been slowly dismantled (people marry far later because premarital sex and cohabitation obviate the need for marriage, children can be avoided with birth control, and dependants will be cared for by the state), society has no means left by which to determine manhood other than age.

The attack on manliness is undoubtedly in part an active one, as little boys are told to never fight, sit still, ignore their distinct nature, etc and older men are told that they offer nothing special to society while they see their gender ridiculed in the media. However, a big part of the problem is simple neglect. When men don't have manhood bestowed, they look for it in exaggerated caricatures of what they imagine manliness should be. Hence they seek affirmation through reckless sexual behavior, financial success at the expense of all else, drinking, etc. Society, especially among Christians who affirm a Biblical view of manhood and womanhood, needs to begin looking for ways to channel young men back into healthy paths to true manhood. Maybe learning to fight a bear while discussing the Epicurean ideal of the good life isn't such a bad place to start.

Steven Crowder Nails Keith Olbermann

The new high-tech version of Crowder seems to rock pretty hard. All hail his new corporate masters at PJTV.

OK Seriously, DON'T Mess With Chuck Norris

Or his picture. Just in case you missed this story.

Population Growth

In astronomy the Fermi Paradox refers to a question asked by Enrico Fermi with regards to the idea of advanced extra-terrestrial civilizations. Basically, based on the size and age of the universe, Fermi thought that there should be many advanced civilizations out there already. But if there are, why haven't we seen them? This question has been addressed in a multitude of serious and less-than-serious ways. Personally, my suspicion is that we're in the middle of an intergalactic wildlife park. Tourists can only enter if they make sure not to disturb the native wildlife (i.e. us). Ok, maybe not. But for those who search for intelligent extraterrestrial life, it is a serious problem.

This paper seems like a less-than-serious solution. Basically, it boils down to the idea that no civilization can sustain sufficient long-term rapid growth to outstrip humanity on its way to the stars. The authors claim to have examined civilizations here on earth and come to the conclusion that fast-growing societies usually lead to resource degradation and environmental damage. In other words, the faster societies grow, the more likely they are to damage themselves and hamper their long-term prospects.

Let's simply list some obvious objections. First of all, it seems a bit of a stretch to assess extraterrestrial civilizations based on what failings mankind may or may not exhibit. Secondly, why can't we assume that an alien society may have "grown up" on a significantly larger planet, or one with more accessible nearby neighbors capable of sustaining life? In that scenario, any destructive activities could be sustained for a far longer period of time without coming to grips with their ramifications. We also have to wonder why they need to operate with the same technology humanity uses. Perhaps they never had a period of nuclear alarmism like the 1960's and the entire planet is powered by sustainable fission or fusion reactors? Or maybe all of the habitable land mass is located close to the equator and their civilization isn't required to make the huge energy expenditures humanity finds necessary in order to regulate temperature.

Leaving aside all of those for a moment, the most obvious flaw is in the study's main assumption. While Easter Island may be a fun example for the author to cite, it seems like more realistic examples would be Europe and America. Speaking for my own continent, I'd like to point out that fuel efficiency here has progressed by leaps and bounds over the past 50 years, and I see no reason to assume that such advances will not continue. In other words, we are learning to do much more with much less all the time. Meanwhile, America's population has grown at an almost exponential rate during the last century, without America ever slipping from the number-one spot in terms of its quality of life, and the wealth of its citizens. Meanwhile, slow-growing nations see economic stagnation. (Although one can argue about which is cause and which is effect) And lastly, far from poisoning its environment, America and Europe are FAR cleaner now than they were 100 or 200 years ago. While no one would argue that neither continent has had any deleterious effects on its environment, the smog in London 100 years ago KILLED people, while America had far less forest than it does at present. And while we have obviously used up many natural resources, we are both far closer to cost-effective sustainable energy in the form of nuclear and solar power, and far better able to access resources like fossil fuels that would have been inaccessible even 30 years ago.

In short, the premise of this paper seems to be based on the kind of dismal neo-luddism that one sees far too often among environmentalists. Technological progress and the growth of manufacturing and population MUST inevitably be accompanied by increased human misery and damage to the earth in this mindset. In reality though, it is only as we become richer and move further away from subsistence-level living that we have the leisure to worry about things like our environment. There is a reason the US has such stringent pollution controls in place and China doesn't.

California Steps Closer To The Brink

How does the old joke go? "Let's close 'er down and see if anybody notices."

Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Executive Order to Reduce State Spending

Taking immediate action to reduce spending as the state faces a $24.3 billion deficit, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today signed Executive Order S-09-09 to eliminate funding for contracts entered into by state agencies and departments after March 1, 2009 for all goods and services excluding those necessary for public safety and to prohibit entering into any new contracts. Additionally, the order directs all state departments to develop and submit to the Department of Finance plans to reduce their future spending on contracts and purchases by at least 15 percent no later than 30 days after the adoption of the revised 2009-10 budget.

“I am committed to ensuring California lives within its means and runs as efficiently as possible,” said Governor Schwarzenegger. “With today’s action, every state agency and department will scrutinize how every penny is spent on contracts to make sure the state is getting the best deal for every taxpayer dollar.”

In addition to today’s executive order and other measures, the Governor has taken the following actions to cut back on state expenses:
· In conjunction with the furlough order, state employees are taking a 9.3 percent reduction in work hours and pay.
· Issued an executive order in February 2008 to cut back administrative costs by 1.5 percent before June 30, 2008, saving $200 million.
· Issued an executive order in July 2008 targeting administrative savings of $190 million by June 30, 2009, with current savings at $180 million as of April 2009.

Text of executive order:

EXECUTIVE ORDER S-09-09

WHEREAS due to developments in the worldwide and national financial markets, and continuing weak performance in the California economy, the General Fund deficit for the 2009-2010 fiscal year is estimated to grow to $24.3 billion; and

WHEREAS the State Controller projects that as of July 29, 2009, California will not have the cash needed to meet all of its payment obligations; and

WHEREAS the projected budget deficit will require critical cuts to State programs and services, and additional borrowing from local governments; and

WHEREAS immediate action is needed to address the budget and cash crisis facing the State of California; and

WHEREAS immediate action to reduce current spending must be taken to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that the essential services of the State are not jeopardized and the public health and safety is preserved; and

WHEREAS State agencies and departments under my direct executive authority must take all available steps to reduce their expenses to achieve budget and cash savings.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, in accordance with the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the statutes of the State of California, do hereby issue the following orders to become effective immediately:

IT IS ORDERED that except for projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or projects funded by bonds, grants or projects specifically mandated by court orders, or public-private partnerships that require no direct state expenditures, any funds encumbered on or after March 1, 2009, for contracts entered into for which goods or services have not been provided or for contracts proposed to be entered into during the 2008-2009 fiscal year by State agencies and departments, regardless of funding source, are hereby disencumbered and the funds will revert to their original funding source if no legal liability will be incurred by the State. If a legal liability will be incurred by the State, approval to continue encumbering the funds must be obtained from the Agency Secretary and the Director of the Department of Finance.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by 30 days after the passage of a revised budget for fiscal year 2009-2010, all State departments, regardless of funding source, shall submit a plan to their Agency Secretary that provides for a reduction of the amount of the department’s appropriation to be encumbered by new contracts, extended contracts or purchases from statewide master contracts in the 2009-2010 fiscal year by at least 15 percent, whether the reduction results from cancellation, suspension, renegotiation or otherwise.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that effective immediately and until a State department’s plan is approved by the Agency Secretary, a State department is prohibited from entering into any new contracts, amending existing contracts, issuing purchase orders for goods or services, or making purchases from statewide master agreements or leveraged procurement agreements for goods or services.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Director of the Department of Finance shall establish an exemption process regarding all contract cost reduction measures contained in this Order that Agency Secretaries and Cabinet-level Directors shall utilize to determine if an exemption is justified based on an emergent situation to preserve and protect human life and safety; avoiding significant revenue loss; achieving significant net cost savings; maintaining multi-year IT system and service contracts approved by the Office of the Chief Information Officer; or providing critical services and functions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the services and functions of state government directly related to the preservation and protection of human life and safety, including but not limited to emergency and disaster response activities and the provision of 24-hour medical care, shall be deemed critical and exempt from this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all Agency Secretaries and Department Directors shall take immediate action to implement this Order to reduce state expenditures.

IT IS REQUESTED that other entities of State government not under my direct executive authority, including the California Public Utilities Commission, the University of California, the California State University, California Community Colleges, the legislative branch (including the Legislative Counsel Bureau), and judicial branch, implement similar or other mitigation measures to achieve budget and cash savings and additional transparency in state government.

This Order is not intended to create, and does not create, any rights or benefits, whether substantive or procedural, or enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California or its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person.

I FURTHER ORDER that, as soon as hereafter possible, this Order shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given to this Order.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 8th day of June 2009.

________________________________
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
Governor of California


ATTEST:

________________________________
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State

Cheney versus Obama

When an unpopular former VP clashes with a popular, smooth-talking president on national security, bet on the VP.

Two Murders Compared

First of all, let me make sure I'm clear about this. The murder of George Tiller was a disgusting act of evil by an individual who deserves a long prison sentence.

Having said that, I wonder if all of the people who blame the pro-life movement for the actions of this disturbed man would be as quick to blame the anti-war movements for the actions of this one?

Dear Elliot

All life matters.



More here.

Monkeys With Super Powers

It just keeps getting worse and worse. As if their heightened agility, strength, and speed weren't enough, now we're breeding monkeys with super powers! Worse still, they can now pass these abilities on to their offspring, whether we like it or not. When the war comes, we'll have been the ones who armed the enemy.

Judge Sotomayor...The Crassly Political View

-Republicans would be crazy to fight her nomination. Too high a cost, no chance to win, and we're already not doing well with minority voters.
-If Judge Sotomayor actually does turn out to have the independent-minded streak (i.e. doesn't just default to the reflexively liberal position on most issues), how many of the liberal commentators currently applauding that will still be happy with it?
-Does anyone doubt that this is Obama's way of saying, "Here you go Hispanic community. Hope this keeps you too busy to notice that I don't plan to touch amnesty...er comprehensive reform...with a 10 foot pole."

A Cure For Cancer

Well, a treatment at least. It may come from people with Down syndrome, who have significantly less chance of developing cancer. It seems to be related to the way their genes express themselves in the development of blood vessels. Of course, its a long path from knowing how something works to being able to recreate the effect ourselves. Ironic that they might be providing us with a way to immeasurably improve our lives while we're killing them in mass.

Missing Link Found?

So, we've finally found a missing link connecting prosimians to higher primates? Funny, I thought we already had...

What A Ride!

This video is a compilation of the various views of cameras attached to the solid rocket boosters space shuttle Atlantis used as she took off on her mission to repair Hubble. The cameras monitor the exterior in order to make sure there is no damage to the shuttle that might endanger the crew upon re-entry. They fall off with the boosters and are reviewed by NASA before they give the shuttle permission to return to earth.

24

Wow. There's a lot in the show's season finale to digest. I don't usually do TV blogging, but there were a couple of points I wanted to throw out.

First of all, I think I've found the struggle for the soul of Renee Walker to be one of the most interesting plots to watch all season. In season 1 we got Jack Bauer as a fully-formed Promethean terrorist-stopping machine. There must have been an initial moment somewhere when Jack first stepped over the line, but we really never got to see it like we have with Renee. One thing I've always appreciated about 24 was its acknowledgement that fighting the bad guys is messy. Anyone who sees a full-throated endorsement of torture in the show is obviously not paying attention. Jack makes the decisions he makes because he believes they are necessary, but the show never pretends for a moment that they don't come at a price. A wife, a daughter, a grandchild, a friend, etc., Jack is always hurting and losing the people he cares about because of his job and the way he goes about it. Fighting the enemy effectively requires him to become like them in some ways, and shedding your humanity always comes with a price. Renee understands this, and with full knowledge of the consequences, she is still taking a step forward into Jack's world.

I read a good analogy recently over at National Review. Think of civilization as a herd of sheep, while terrorists are the wolves prowling outside the fold. Sheep can't protect themselves. They don't have the tools or temperament. Who does? The sheep dog. He has the muscles, the fangs, the claws, and the temperament to go toe-to-toe with a wolf and win. But, he can never be a sheep. He is with them, but not one of them. They'll never feel as comfortable with him as they do with other sheep. He shares too much in common with the wolves he fights.

It looks like 24 has at least one more season, which most likely means Jack will be surviving the bio-agent currently ravaging him. A less likely, but possible outcome is that 24 has a final season centered on Renee, not as a replacement for Jack, but finishing Jack's final mission. On an emotional level, that's the outcome I want, despite my certainty that it will not happen. Jack will never get to walk off into the sunset. He's tried it too many times, and each time he gets pulled back in. Even if the show ended on such a note, deep down we all know it won't last. Terrorism will be back, the normal rules won't be sufficient, and Jack will again have the weight of the world dropped on his shoulders. The only rest for Jack would be the grave.

On a side note, were I Muslim, I would be offended by that final scene between Jack and the imam. Moralistic therapeutic deism, America's unofficial religion, raises its ugly head, this time covered in a taqiyah, telling Jack to forgive himself, as if God's concern is for our self-image rather than for our holiness. Apparently the producers of 24 think Muslims are a pretty cheap date. After CAIR's incessant objecting to a show about terrorism that might dare to use Muslims in some of its plot lines, 24 started using a bait-and-switch routine. Usually about halfway through the season we would end up finding out that the Muslims were really just a front for evil, corporate white guys. (Which is mildly insulting in itself, isn't it? I mean after all, are we supposed to assume the brown guys are too dumb to mastermind anything without a white guy making all the tough decisions?) Now, we get another ill-conceived sop in which the Muslim imam comforts Jack with the kind of platitudes I'd expect from Oprah, not a spiritual leader.

Lastly, I wanted to point out the parallels between President Taylor and Jack. On the surface they seem so different. She works in the open, using charm, and playing by the rules. Jack works in shadow, often on the wrong side of the law. And yet, both of them have felt the devastating cost of allowing others to depend on your for their safety. Both have lost and alienated those closest to them through no fault of their own, simply because they had to do what was necessary to guarantee the country's survival. And while they work on opposite sides of the law, both are trapped by it.

More On Obama At Notre Dame

Some additonal valuable thoughts can be found here, at Mere Comments. An exerpt:
So it is that President Obama stands on the wrong side of an unbridgeable chasm, separating those who believe that good and evil are independent of what we happen to want at the moment, and those who believe that our wanting determines what is "good for us". It is the very principle of the Culture of Death that the "value" of human life depends upon the valuers, and not upon the God-given nature of the human being in question. What compromise with that principle is possible? "Human life is sacred," say the Christians, and "Human life in the womb is to be valued according to the price list provided by the pregnant woman," says the President. There is no middle position between these principles, exactly as there is no middle god between the God of Israel and Baal or Moloch. Though perhaps I am being unfair to the old Moloch-worshippers. They at least did not sacrifice their children for the sake of mere convenience.

Obama's Notre Dame Speech

The president has a habit of saying very little, but saying it so beautifully that people don't notice. His knack in this regard was on display in his commencement speech at Notre Dame. The full speech can be read here, but I'll stick to the piece addressing abortion, since that is what is relevant to the controversy over the school awarding him an honorary degree.

Now, admittedly, a graduation is no place for a full-on campaign moment. But since one of the excuses Notre Dame's administration used to defend their invitation was the need for "open dialogue", it was entirely proper for President Obama to use part of his speech to address the issue. And address it he did. However, his main point boiled down to a simple statement that we should be nice to each other and realize abortion is a tough issue for people's consciences. Wow, what powerful stuff.

He went on to say that pro-lifers and pro-choices can work together to reduce the number of abortions within the current legal framework. That's fine as far as it goes, but there are a few problems. First of all, even as he says those words, the president has thus far only worked towards goals that lead to an increase in abortion deaths by making the legal framework we must work within ever more restrictive. At the state level he worked to block born-alive infants legislation, despite its explicit statement that the legislation should not be construed to impact the legality of abortion. He openly dodged the question of when life begins, calling it "above my pay grade". One of his first actions as president was to rescind the Mexico City policy, authorizing US funds to be distributed to overseas NGOs that provide abortions. He has also voted against partial-birth abortion bans, against parental notification, and against legislation to ban non-guardians from transporting a minor across state lines to receive an abortion.

Despite explicitly saying, "Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause," his administration has proposed a recension of the current conscience clause allowing medical professionals to refuse to participate in abortions. The administration's claim is that they are looking for ways to "clarify" the law. Does anyone really think it will come back in any meaningful form once its been removed?

Essentially, the only way the president will allow attempts to reduce the number of abortions is if those attempts fall within his pre-existing policy goals. Want to increase entitlement benefits or pass universal health care? Call it pro-life and get on board! How about expanding access to contraceptives and lowering the age at which kids start sex-ed classes? Wow, it's like you're the pope or something!

The bottom line is this. I can respect someone who entertains no thought of real compromise if they admit it. But don't tell me you want to work together as long as it doesn't require you to cede a single inch of territory, and call it a compromise. That isn't bipartisanship or understanding. That's simply telling someone to accept unconditional surrender with a smile and a happy tone.

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.