The Great Divorce

Having to suffer through Dawkins for the good of Christendom was a bit of a burden, and I felt that I owed my soul a bit of C. S. Lewis, so I dug out "The Great Divorce" that I had first read out west in like the late '90s, and had ended up thinking of and quoting rather badly to others at times. It is a very short little fable, 125 not very dense pages, and well worth the time.

It is a Lewis vision of heaven, hell, earth, and maybe purgatory. "Hell or purgatory" are a somewhat "always nearly dark city" that spreads on to what seems like infinity when you are there, but is really only like a little crack in the "ground" when you are in heaven. You can "get on a bus" and go up to the outskirts of heaven, but in order to enter, you have to accept both sovereignty and grace of God. There is just "no other way" ... without it your soul isn't strong enough exist in the light of ultimate truth.

There are a number of little vignettes when the authors character encounters various souls that are "visiting". One is the classic hard-bitten realist that "has seen it all before" and "knows the score".

"Anyway," said the ghost, "who wants to be rescued? What the hell would there be to DO here?"
"Or there?" said I.
"Quite," said the ghost. "They've got you either way".
"What would you like ot do if you had your choice?" I asked.

"There you go!" said the ghost with a certain trimph. "Asking ME to make a plan. It's up to the Management to find something that doesn't bore us, isn't it? It's theri job. Why should we do it for them? That's just where the parsons and the moralists have got the thing upside down. They keep on asking US to alter ourselves. But if the people who run the show are so clever and so powerful, why don't THEY find something to suit their public?".

How well that captures so many. It is always "the folks in charge", "the big shots". They were given the gift of life, but they abdicated the honor of being responsible for living it to some mysterious "them". Few things are sadder, and Lewis captures the sadness of the inability to move to even a positive eternity because of a life lived not wanting to be "anyone's patsy".

This little gem is worth pulling out of context:

"Milton was right," said my Teacher. "The choice of every lost soul can be expressed in the words; "Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven". There is always something they insist on keeping, even at the price of misery. There is always something they prefer to joy-that is to reality. Ye see it easily enough in a spoiled child that would sooner miss its play and its supper than say it was sorry and be friends."

Apparently, he ran into Dawkins making a visit (according to physics, it is possible that everything that happens is happening all the time and always has been).

There were materialistic Ghosts who informed the immortals that they were deluded: there was no life after death, and this whole country was a hallucination."

It is a tiny book, well worth just picking up and reading. Two of the characters that I especially love are the book-ends of one a moralist, who can't enter heaven because a guy that he knew as a drunken murderer is forgiven and there. The other is a liberal minister that just won't accept the ultimate truth and reality of God. He believes that those that "honestly disagree" have to be saved as well.

Were our society just "balanced", rather than a secular cultural wasteland, C. S. Lewis would be one of those names held up very highly. Another name that I realize that Dawkins somehow failed to mention is that of Donald Knuth, who wrote a book "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About" That oddly enough, I seem to have, and read before I started blogging. Perhaps I need to return to this, and of course such things can always be borrowed. For those of you NOT of exactly the computer scientist persuasion, Donald Knuth is the author of The Art Of Computer Programming which is as close as there is to a "Bible" in computer science.

Somehow Dawkins failed to mention him while denigrating the idea that one could really be "scientist" and believe in God.

Explaining Perjury

Yes, yes, I realize that Ann is almost as bad as Dawkins, but she is A LOT funnier! Oh yes, her wit is full of acid, but she is so darned smart, and a tiny bit cute too, in her own overly skinny blond way. Anyway, ann does a great job of explaining perjury here.

I find it hard to imagine how they can seriously go on with the Libby "perjury" trial at this point, she explains if the only way that it would seem that it can be explained. It is always OK to persecute Republicans, there really doesn't need to be "a reason". Her "what is perjury, what is not" descriptions pretty much restore common sense to the issue, which is actually what I think the law intends.

The law is another one of those things that I know almost enough about to realize that I know nothing about it. I work reviewing invention disclosures at my job, so this weekend I buzzed through a number of those, and am also reviewing the patents at our site from last year for potential extra awards, so I'm looking at "100's" of patents and disclosures this month and next. Other than some odd twists of language; "those schooled in the art", "a plurality of ...", etc a lot of it actually does come rather close to "common sense" at times, although always with enough "mystery and judgement" to keep it somewhat interesting.

Anyway, Ann is wishfully thinking that conservatives are EVER going to "protect their own" like Democrats. The core of liberalism is being amoral, which certainly isn't the core of conservatism. Yes, having the order of when you talked to whomever wrong is really NOT perjury, but conservatives tend to be MORE likely to follow the rules and they don't make exceptions for "their own". In fact, usually they ESPECIALLY don't make exceptions for their own since they view it as "a test", and realize that were they to do so, then they would have no more standards and consistency than the left. We all know that conservatives are just as human as everyone else, so they DO fail, and when they do, that is NEWS! The MSM and the left loves the show of "hypocrisy", but of course one has to have some sort of standard to be a hypocrit! At least that is one thing that neither Bill or Hill will ever be accused of!

Biden is a "D"

CNN covered the Biden remark. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

My view is the only reason that this got covered at all was because he made it to the NY Observer, a conservative outlet, and I don't agree with the "Right Wing Media" (RWM?) making something of it. It seems obvious that nothing was intended by this. To the extent that there gets to be more RWM, they will have the opportunity to be just as awful and unfair as the MSM ... unfortunately, probably the best that we can hope for.

HOWEVER, were he an "R", it would be the complete end of his canidacy. It shows how black Americans have veto power when someone states something that can be taken out of context and "construed" to be racist. If Obama, Sharpton and Jackson responded with; "Well, it raises questions, one has to look at it in the context of the canidates overall actions on programs for minorities and other groups that he works with ...", then the piling on begins.

When you are a Republican, even misspelling "potato" is enough cause to end your career. With the MSM, it is important to "get your mind right", and the only way to do that is with a "D".

Conservatism Is A Disease

Hey, it has all been explained. The good folks in academia have figured out that "being conservative" is really just a personality defect tied to "hard times". I'm thinking that would mean that they would be inclined to not hold it against folks with an "R" next to their name because maybe us poor folks were just "born that way" like homosexuals, pedophile or  murderers. All of those folks have "no control", so what they do shouldn't have any "judgment" applied to their acts.

Conservatives though, as we see below are authoritarian, dogmatic, can't tolerate ambiguity, need a lot of control, are anxious over death, not open to new experience, risk averse, fraidy cats, etc. I guess the problem is that conservatives are just "bad to the bone" and probably "not fixable". It is clear that when it comes down to i liberal standards are quite high!

Say a nice pedophile though that rapes 8-10 little kids and kills them in some horrible way. Obviously, they are more "open, willing to tolerate ambiguity, not prone to any fixed standards, not worried about any sort of dying or certainly not judgment" ... basically good liberal folks that anyone would be proud to know. Sure, molesting and killing kids could be seen as a "mistake" (at least by the "rigid and close-minded"), BUT, since the liberal mind is so adaptable and willing to change, a short conversation with say a therapist, and anybody but someone that has that irredeemably horrible "R" next to their name would say "good to go"!

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure,regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r .50); system stability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification
of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

We regard political conservatism as an ideological belief system
that is significantly (but not completely) related to motivational
concerns having to do with the psychological management of
uncertainty and fear. Specifically, the avoidance of uncertainty
(and the striving for certainty) may be particularly tied to one core
dimension of conservative thought, resistance to change (Wilson,
1973c). Similarly, concerns with fear and threat may be linked to
the second core dimension of conservatism, endorsement of inequality
(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Although resistance to change
and support for inequality are conceptually distinguishable, we
have argued that they are psychologically interrelated, in part
because motives pertaining to uncertainty and threat are interrelated
(e.g., Dechesne et al., 2000; McGregor et al., 2001; van den
Bos & Miedema, 2000).

I'm not going to give up hope though. I'm thinking if those brilliant liberals can do this kind of research, then a cure has got to be just around the corner! If we could ALL just be flexible, risk taking, open minded, non-judgmental, easy to get along with, able to handle complexity, etc, then things would be GRAND! Actually, I'm pretty sure that they already have it, they may have just forgot for some strange reason. Something around 6-10oz of Scotch over a fairly short period, and I think almost anyone can think EXACTLY like a liberal!

Edwards House

Do I care that Edwards has a big house? No, not really, but wouldn't one think that the MSM and the Democrats would care? I mean he is one of those "class warfare guys". As long as his "heart is in the right place" it is OK for him to do everything in his power to insure that I remain a tax slave into my 70's while he lives in a 28K sq foot home with millions taken from the medical industry while channeling dead babies in a courtroom?

Let's see, we are supposed to all be up in arms over CEO pay. Why does a guy with great hair making millions off all our medical bills earn the complete respect of the left and the MSM while living like a potentate? I know, I know, consistency isn't an issue. Sometimes it just gets a little glaring though.

Clear Thinking On Iraq

The following is excerpted from Tony Blankley at Real Clear Politics:

Now is a good time for clear thinking and speaking. If we intend to succeed (and it is vital that we do), then we must persist. If the "surge" doesn't work, then more troops and different strategies should be employed.

If we are going to throw in the towel, then we should bring the troops home promptly, lick our wounds and prepare for the inevitable Third Gulf War, which we will have to fight under far worse conditions than currently. Either of those options are at least honest (although the latter is dangerously foolish).

But the current mentality in Washington -- to pretend that there is a third way between victory and defeat -- is morally despicable. Washington politicians of both parties are trying to salve their consciences for the ignominy of accepting defeat by fooling either themselves or the public into believing they are doing otherwise.

Perhaps they can fool their own flaccid minds, but history grades hard and true. And history may enter its ledger with shocking promptness.

The most popular form of current thinking seems to be "wishful thinking". Once we declare defeat in Iraq, then what? We continue to train the world that "we can be beat" ... Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, and if the left has their way, Iraq. The objectives of the other side are very clear, as they were in the days of the USSR. If you want to be an evil empire, the only game in town is world domination, it really doesn't do to have a rich, free, and fun alternative on the globe. Neither gulags or burkas are all that attractive in comparison to living in the US. Be it "decadent capitalist" or "decadent infidels", the proper state that our adversaries approve for us is either dead or obedient, take your pick.

Classic Kerry

Powerline has a great post on Kerry at Davos. Why does anyone ever listen to this guy?

John Kerry disgraced himself yet again earlier today, when he launched a salvo against the Bush administration at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (What is it about Davos that brings out the worst in temporarily expatriate Americans?) This Power Line Forum thread addresses Kerry's latest folly. You could spend a long time taking apart Kerry's attack on President Bush, but let's just focus on one aspect of it:

“When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don’t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,” Kerry said.

Speaking of duplicity and hypocrisy...Kerry himself has actually had the opportunity to vote on the Kyoto carbon emissions treaty. Forum member ironman administers the coup de grace:

this says it all…

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 105th Congress - 1st Session

Vote Date: July 25, 1997, 11:37 AM

Question: On the Resolution (s.res.98 )

Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter which would: (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or (2) result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

YEAs 95
NAYs 0
Not Voting 5

Kerry (D-MA), Yea

Duplicitous and hypocritical: that pretty well sums up John Kerry.

The God Delusion

I finished the subject book by Richard Dawkins this week, it is currently #4 on the NY Times Bestseller list, and has been as high as #2 on the Amazon best seller list. This book talks quite frequently about how the US is very close to a "theocracy", and the "Christian Right" is "the American Taliban".

Yes, the US is so close to all of this that Dawkins can be a best selling author in this awful country with a book that is hostile to religion beyond belief. Lest you think I jest; Page 317: "horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place". Page 318: "I am persuaded that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell."

Make no mistake, Dawkins finds Christianity (and all religion) to be a form of child abuse, and while he doesn't DIRECTLY called for children to be taken from their parents if the parents are going to "indoctrinate" them, he does everything but. Page 339: "Our society, including the non-religious sector, has accepted the preposterous idea that it is normal and right to indoctrinate tiny children in the religion of their parents". Like most liberals, he doesn't say what to DO about this "horror", but it doesn't take much imagination. In the "liberal" world, freedom is never for anyone but those that agree with your point of view.

What Dawkins and Sam Harris have in common is that they see 9-11 as an opportunity to "do in religion". One simply needs to declare all religions the "same" (irrational, delusional, unsupportable, etc) and DANGEROUS. The fault is RELIGION, all religion, and what we need to get rid of is FAITH, and then people will be "rational".

Right off, I'd argue that Dawkins and everyone else has an awful lot of "irrational faith". We have faith we will draw our next breath, clearly a belief that is obviously going to be very wrong in an extremely short period of time on any sort of even a moderate historical scale. We tend to think that the model of the universe running around in our head is "accurate", even though we know it is delayed by an eternity in computer time (what we "see" took at least 13 milliseconds to register in our brain)  and incomplete in the extreme. To the extent that we are "scientists", we have faith that this universe is ordered enough so that measurements and experiments done yesterday or tomorrow can be compared with each other by known principals.

For the believer in random creation, that is a HUGE leap of faith, since all that order "just happened" ... without meaning or purpose. A pure random event.

While on that subject, apparently Dawkins can't even CONCEIVE of anything being "beyond material" or "eternal". God can't be postulated, because he would HAVE to have been formed by something even more complex than the universe we see. Really? It seems very hard to see any basis for that "rule". Why again should there be "something" rather than "nothing"? Since we seem to be agreed that there is "something", then is postulating that there is "something beyond" REALLY that big a leap? Both cosmology with the "inflation theory" and evolution with "punctuated equilibrium" have their "creation spurts", the difference is that they want to be clear that from their POV it "just happens".

1st Corinthians 13:13 "But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.". Page 185, Dawkins "Could irrational religion be a by-product of the irrationality mechanisms that were originally built into the brain by selection for falling in love?". This section of the book makes it clear that Dawkins doesn't find love to to be a good thing either ... a bad piece of evolution that apparently makes us susceptible to religion. How about hope? Well, of course not, that would be "infantile". page 354, ...Jefferson more than once wrote to friends that he faced the approaching end without either hope or fear. This was as much as to say, in the most unmistakable terms, that he was not a Christian.". Yes, Dawkins believes that a better world is a world without faith, hope, or love.

It IS however a world with as much "pleasure" as one can get. The only part of the Catholic church he has sympathy for is the pedophiles. Naturally homosexuality, abortion on demand, and euthanasia are all to be encouraged. He quotes Dr puppy-love Peter Singer of Princeton a couple of times, but doesn't explicitly mention some of Peter's more moral stances (eating meat is immoral, sex with animals is moral, infanticide is moral, killing "unfit elderly" is moral). He views Hitler as more moral than bad guys in history, "Hitler seems especially evil only by the more benign standards of our time". Why even the horror of Donald Rumsfeld is only in comparison to the "enlightened" standards of today; "Donald Rumsfeld, who sounds so callous and odious today, would have sounded like a bleeding-heart liberal if he had said the same things during the Second World War." (p268)

I'm sure that some will ask "why do I put myself though this"? Dawkins sits in a tenured chair at Cambridge. This book is high on the best seller lists and is getting RAVE reviews in the popular culture. The same culture that bleats every day or so about the "American theocracy" that happens to have an openly gay congressman as the chair of the house ways and means committee. Try that in a REAL theocracy (like Iran or Saudi Arabia).

Dawkins won't say it COMPLETELY directly, but it is clear that he is in favor of removal of religious freedom, and the creation of a country without faith, love, or hope as rapidly as he possibly can. Christians need to be aware that the forces that seek to use them as lion food are still afoot.

However, that country WILL have faith -- faith that a "reasonable government" that persecutes Christians (because you have to in order to stamp them out) is "good" ... like the USSR, Communist China, Nazi Germany ... the godless demand that you and your children worship the totalitarian state.

Clipmark of Islam for Peace

As I surf the web, sometimes for just a couple minutes, I run into things that I want to save and maybe blog on later. I installed something called "Clipmarks" into FireFox that allows me to create and save "snippets" or "clips" of the web and to comment and share with others. I've been experimenting with a number of these "Web 2.0 Technogies" over the break and after.

Here is a Clipmark on the subject of "why we fight". It is CNN/MSM, so lefties can trust it. Lots of peaceful sentiments, looks like we we are overreacting in the War On Terror.

At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."

"We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."

"All of the world belongs to Allah, and we will live according to the Sharia wherever we are," said Choudary, a lawyer. "This is a fundamental belief of the Muslims." (Watch a call for Islamic law Video)

Asked if he believes in democracy, he said, "No, I don't at all."

"One day, the Sharia will be implemented in Britain. It's a matter of time."

Clipmarks clip on religion of peace

"Peace" is always easy, just like with the USSR. We could have saved a lot of defense dollars if we just signed up to be members of the Communist Party and did it the Gulag way. Same deal today, oddly the left seems to be OK with Burkas and stoning Gays as long as a group that is anti-American does it.

Church / State Connection "Chilling"?

I've seen and heard a number of references to Evangelicals signing on to "care for the environment", and going to encourage government and politicians to be responsible with "Gods Creation". Here is an article from the NYT in case you have missed it.

So what gives? I thought that the proper term for any mixing of church and state was "chilling"? We just aren't about that here because we are a "secular country", and any time that church leaders try to get involved with the morality of the nation, or science for that matter, we are "basically a theocracy".

What is up? Can it be that the press is so biased that as long as "the church" is doign what they want, it is just FINE, even so far as referring to the earth as "God's Creation"? Wouldn't that smack of the horrors of Intelligent Design?

Guess not, or maybe they are just 100% factually oriented, and it is GREAT that this is "chilling", because what we are talking about here is global warming ;-)

Race Doesn't Exist

It showed up in the paper last week, and I heard a segment on MPR. You may think that there is such a thing as racial difference between humans, but according to the current politically correct view, that would make you a racist. You just have to get your mind right.

The following captured from the MN Science Museum Exhibit Site.

Everyday Experience of Race
Race is embedded in virtually all aspects of American life. Explore social and personal experiences of race in familiar settings such as home and neighborhood, health and medicine, and education and schools. Discover that race and racism is not inside our heads, but in fact is built into our laws, traditions, and institutions.

The Science of Human Variation
Racial and ethnic categories, which have changed over time, are human-made. We now know that human beings are more alike genetically than any other living species. Scientifically, no one gene, or any set of genes, can support the idea of race. This section focuses on what current science knows about human variation and our species' history.

History of the Idea of Race
Race has not always existed. Sorting people by physical differences is a recent invention, only a few hundred years old. Discover how the development of the idea of race is closely linked to the early development of the United States.

There you have it! You probably think that Kevin Garnett looks differently from Brett Favre for reasons of race, but that just shows that you are prone to racist imposed stereotypes! There is no such thing as race in the real world, it is all a "social construct"!

Kevin Garnett is an oppressed minority, forced to live off $15 Million a year do to the oppressive constructs of our racially charged society!

Does the Press Like Obama?

Let's see, is the Pope Catholic? We know very little about Obama, certainly nothing about where he stands on issues, or much at all about his character or personal life. He is good looking, he is young, he is black, he is a good speaker, he tells us that he isn't "partisan". Are there any "partisan Democrats" according to the MSM? I thought that was another of those things that only applies to Republicans.

I happened to hear on the evil Fox news the other day that he is a "closet smoker", and "nobody has a picture of him smoking yet, and there doesn't seem to be much interest in it". Of course, we all know that "Faux News" can't be trusted, so here it is from the Chicago Trib, they are a nice liberal paper, so it MUST be the truth!

One thing he has tried to do for his children--quit smoking--is among his biggest struggles. "The flesh is weak," he said. "It's an ongoing battle. I have my gum, my patches and all that stuff."

The Obamas moved into a $1.6 million house in June, trading their condo near Hyde Park for a historic home nearby. The royalties from his first book and an advance of nearly $2 million for future books allowed the family to pay off debts from law school and past political campaigns.

Part of the package of being a liberal is that you get to make millions of dollars off book deals as a "public servant", live in a 1.6 Million dollar house, and that is A-OK. It is certainly A-OK with me as well, but I live in the odd world where it ought to be INDEPENDENT of what political party you subscribe to. Odd view of "fair" though that may be.

Smells Like Tuna

Welcome to the new non-critical MSM, we have Democrats in power now. Pelosi decides to exempt American Samoa from the minimum wage hike because it helps Star-Kist out, which just HAPPENS to be in her district. Gee, I wonder if there were any campaign contributions there? Not likely that the MSM cares on that front, those are only interesting when they go to Republicans.

The Gulag Begins

Hard to find in the MSM, but starting to show up in the technical media. The Democrats are back in power, and early in their agenda they would like to control speech with the application of the "fairness doctrine". Along with economic growth, the end of the USSR, and a return to Americans thinking that America was actually a pretty great country, Reagan made the biggest impact on ACTUAL free speech since the revolution by getting rid of the "fairness doctrine" that said that some unionized government bureaucrats would be able to decide it your radio station was "balanced". If you put on Rush Limbaugh, you would likely have to put on Dennis Kucinich for "balance". It was under the control of the FCC and Congress to decide what "balanced" was.

NPR is of course "by definition" balanced. It covers the left and the far left. Forget "free speech and letting the people decide with the dial". That kind of thinking is only for porn! If folks don't like that they can just "vote with the dial". In the case of Rush Limbaugh though, we have something too pernicious to allow the sheep to decide on. They are so much more "rational" on porn than on "dangerous political ideas".

So, two weeks starting down the road to the "USSR lite" version of Government, we have Dennis Kucinich going to work to bring back the bad old days of the "fairness doctrine", or as it has sometimes been called "Hush Rush".

Now of course if the government should get a look at your phone bill, that would be "chilling", and it would be all over the NY Times, NPR, and the rest of the MSM. On the other hand, if Dennis Kucinich is going to decide what kind of information you have avaialble at all? Well, that is JUST FINE, and no doubt it will make our country much more "civil".

Things are much more "civil" in the Gulag, no messy arguments, all the "divergent thinkers" have been "taken care of". Say hello to the "new boss", somehow all the MSM folks warning the sheep about the evil Bush seem to be suddenly quiet. Maybe it is only "certain speech" that they think ought to be free?

Class Warfare

The following is excerpted from an article by the Weekly Standard, but what is REALLY interesting is the source for Stephen Rose, a far left Think Tank called
"The Third Way".

"For Rose, the economic story of recent decades is not one of commiseration but one of dramatic gains for both middle and working-class families. His most striking finding: When you average-out family incomes over 15 years and capture only the peak earning years--from age 26 to 59--fully 60 percent of Americans will live in households making over $60,000 a year, with half of these households making over $85,000. This has meant that more and more workers feel like beneficiaries of the changing economy rather than victims of it--and as a result, feel comfortable voting for the GOP."

Even the loonies understand that the Reagan and onward economy in this country as raised by far most boats, and that the opportunity has been HUGE and unprecedented in history. But of course, that doesn't mean that they have any qualms about destroying it. They lament that people that do better have an unfortunate tendency to vote for the party that brung them, but are happy to point out that by "soft pedaling the social issues and being strong against the war", their beloved Democrats have been able to wrest control of the House from the evil Republicans.

As Dinesh D'Souza proclaims; "I want to live in a country where even the poor people are fat". We have hit a new level, we live in a country where even the lefties understand that the economic policies of the free market help the most people, BUT, that doesn't mean at all that they aren't going to do their best to destroy those policies. As I've said before, being liberal is a lot like being a suicide bomber. You are willing to do anything to hurt "the rich", even if it means that you and the majority of people a injured.

Golda Maier said "We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us". I'd modify that to "Liberals will support economic growth when they care more for the common man than they hate the rich".

Gas Prices / Thought

It never ceases to amaze me how vast numbers of people keep thinking the same set of thoughts over and over that turn out to be demonstratively wrong, yet they never change the way they think. Case in point, gas prices.

As they went up, we heard TONs of "explanations" as to why they were ONLY going to go UP!:
- Bush / Cheney / Republican conspiracy
- Big oil companies
- Chinese demand
- Real shortage due to too much demand / instability / Arab control

So, as they go up we see story after story of hand wringing, gloom and doom predictions, discussions about it being a "new era of short supply, change our ways, smaller vehicles, etc, etc". As they go **UP**, Gas prices are a HUGE story, and everyone talks about them!

This week unleaded went below $2 a gallon in MN. Not much of story. Hardly any discussion. All the tons of media and "man on the street" predictions about "they are going to go up after the election" and such are of course completely wrong.

It was HORRIBLE news when they went up, but is it even marginally good news as they go down? No, of course not ... the MSM and most of the sheep simply don't believe in good news.

Some of this is of course just "human nature". It is well understood that we perceive a loss much more acutely than a gain. If asked to take a sure buck or a 50% chance at $2, almost everyone takes the sure $1 because they don't want to risk the "loss" of not getting anything. In the job world, a lay-off or a plant closing is big news, 100's of people being hired every week at good jobs across a lot of companies is harder to pin down.

In a world of "rational reporting" however, we would take some of that into consideration and try to learn from our past mistakes so we didn't sound so foolish the next time around. Apparently, I'll have to live a lot more years to see anything like a wider set of people that learn from their mistakes.

Not A Smiley Smiley

The following is quoted off Wikipedia and written by Jane Smiley about the 2000 election:

"The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry...I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 millions have not...Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states...The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America...The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do - they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable...Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are - they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence."

For "balance", one should take a look at this.

I suppose that the first reaction of folks that haven't heard of her will be to think that I'm just quoting "some crank". That may SEEM obvious, but she is a PHD Nobel prize winner that would certianly fancy herself an intellectual. (I realize that doesn't exempt her from being a crank, but I'll leave summary judgment to others. After reading Jane, one tends to lose their taste for that particular form of arrogance)

She is quite certain of her superiority to millions of Americans, and she doesn't mind bragging about it. Her description of Bush as "an ignorant, dependent, fragile and rigid person" is especially interesting to me. In many ways, it is a pretty good description of the human condition in general. Jane seems to think that one can get OUT of that condition unless they don't desire to be trained? In the immortal words of Clint Eastwood; "A man's got to know his limitations". I suppose Jane would assume that doesn't apply to women. If you are certain you are the biggest, toughest, smartest hombre in the forest, that usually just means that you haven't looked around hard enough. Even if you have, just stand by, you will age.

Why do I waste my time reading such things? Well, there is always that chance that something interesting of a factual nature will be learned, and it is ALWAYS intriguing to see just how "ignorant. dependent, fragile, and rigid" people can really be.

Woot! Motorola

For those of you not familiar, Woot! is the "one day, one deal" site that has a new deal to purchase each day. A couple years back I had noticed the Motorola Homesight system and thought it was pretty cool. However, the base system with the computer hookup and one camera was $250, so a little too rich for my blood. Enter Woot!, for $75 I got the base, two cameras, one remote power control module and a door/window sensor. Just too good to resist, so now I can monitor the kitchen or utility room from my office. Bit-Head heaven!

Wedding at Cana

The scripture at church this AM included the miracle of the water to wine at the wedding at Cana. Since I had happened to be discussing that miracle last night and its special significance to me, and the scripture showed up this AM, I feel led to say a few words.

For those not familiar with the specific text, here is a link. In a nutshell, it is the first miracle performed by Jesus. He is at a wedding with his mother, they run out of wine, she asks him to solve the problem. He is reticent, since it is "not yet time", but she tells the servants that he will take care of it, and he does. Does listening to your mother trump "your fathers plan" even when your father is God? It has to. Christ is FULLY both God and man -- "children obey your parents" in the family of God!

The resulting wine is seen as the "good wine" even though it is late in the evening and everyone had "drunk freely".

The first item of significance to me is that I was raised in a church that proudly called itself "Fundamentalist", and I will be returning to that term a number of times over the next few weeks I suspect. They had "somehow decided" that this "wine" was not alcoholic, because they apparently thought it would be good to extend their definition of being a "Christian" to include required abstinence from alcohol.

I find it VERY hard to imagine how anyone can read this text and not believe that this "wine" indeed contained alcohol. On the spiritual level alone, there is very little "miracle" in turning water into "grape juice"; children do that pretty much all the time with "Kool Aid". The creation of alcohol in the wine is a true miracle, not doable instantly by man even today, but rather one that takes the passage of time and fermentation on the sugars, especially to create "the good wine".

The meaning seems clear enough to me, but I'm not a student of Hebrew and Greek. I thought that this was a good post (other than spelling) on that front for those still doubting.

The miracle is special to me for the following reasons:

1). It gives us a very solid picture that Christ is "fully man and fully God"; he listens to his mother, he helps in a purely social situation that would just be embarrassing, not life-threatening to the people involved. He does something "simple", yet something that is completely beyond the ability of humans. It is "outside of material power". He does "the human thing" but in a way no human can do, AND even though he does it, he has no interest in "credit". It simply looks like the host came up with the good wine to the rest of the people at the party.

2). The question is always Christ. The scripture here is very clear, but it isn't "tidy". A miracle to save embarrassment and provide more wine when it sounds like people may have had plenty already? Much as when Mary the sister of Martha anoints Jesus head with expensive oil that could have been "spent on the poor", and in another case wipes his feet with her hair. Why include such "messy things" in the Bible? Because while Jesus comes to save us, he doesn't have to fit OUR mold of what WE think he should be. His is God, he is Truth. When we make him into the image that we want, we are in danger of missing the message. The Grace of Christ is a SCANDAL. Jesus is not what humans think that God "should be". To those who "live by the rules", Christ is simply shocking!

The essence of fundamentalism, in religion, science, or life seems to be a inability to deal with ambiguity and incomplete knowledge. The human urge for "closure" drives the fundamentalist to "create a model", and then "defend their ground", usually with name calling and judgement against those that don't agree with their model.

For religious fundamentalists, they call what they have "faith", but it is a faith in THEIR model, rather than "true knowledge". Often their position is defended with a lot of emotion and a lot of denigration of those who don't share their model. Something that may seem like a "small issue" ... eg, was it "wine or grape juice", or "was it 6 24 hour days of creation, or does it have to be that precise" become a major stumbling block, and a disagreement is a major breech.

So too for the scientific fundamentalist / atheist. An otherwise intelligent and successful scientist is questioned if they even so much as say something no "worse" than "God does not play dice" on the potential that they have "become weak" and lost the atheist dogma. The fundamentalist atheist materialist scientist can't allow such a statement to go unchallenged, they can't allow any thought that the universe can be other than randomly created to somehow seem to be validated by a person that they thought was a solid atheist.

Our basic models are all "faith based", since we have no proof that we even exist nor that reality is anything even remotely like what we perceive (witness movies like "The Matrix" or the Star Trek "holodeck". We all "live by faith", the issue is only if we have "faith in our perception of the material universe", or "faith in a transcendence beyond matter", we can't "prove" either viewpoint in the scientific sense.

Sandy vs Scooter

In the world of thought and opinion, we have very little in the way of "facts" to objectively test how the various parties in the MSM really think or feel. Our best mechanisms are statistics and comparison. That is what I find so fascinating about the contrast between the MSMs treatment of the story of Scooter Libby, and the story of Sandy Berger. The contrast is even more delectable since Richard Armitage came forward and admitted that the Plame leak was his, not Libbys at all.

The WSJ has an article with a few more details on the strange case of the Berger leak, which is of course of zero interest to most of the MSM. Clearly an ACTUAL case of obviously secret documents being taken for "some purpose" arouses ZERO suspicion if the person stuffing the papers in their pants has a "D" next to their name. Conspriacy theories and finger pointing on "responsibility for 9/11" at the Bush administration who was in office for less than 10 months at the time of the attack have abounded. ANY attempt to ask or conjecture about the Clinton administration that was in office for 8 years prior to the attack (even a fictional one in a TV movie) has been met with howls of protest from the MSM and of course the Democrats.

This is just "partisan MSM politics as usual", but the fact that 9/11 really DID happen, and information as to "why, and how it might be prevented in the future"OUGHT to be something that "rises above politics" makes one wish it were different. We see the effects of the media here. With Republicans, the CHARGE that they did something ("punished" Joe Wilson by outing his CIA wife) is converted into "truth" by constant repetition, even though there was never ANY truth to the entire story. It was completely manufactured. On the Democrat side, the FACT that documents were taken by a very high level Democrat and that while we have tantalizing hints as to "why", no investigation is forthcoming.

The difference in personality types is obvious here as well. Republicans don't really even consider "making up a good story and seeing if they can get it to fly". No doubt that isn't entirely due to "superior morals", since they realize that given the MSM, there is no chance that their fabrication would be successful. Democrats, and indeed the MSM often ASSUME on the other hand that WMD, 9-11 itself, gas prices, off-shoring of jobs, and even the whole Islamic terrorist threat itself at somehow "manufactured by Republicans and the corporate media". Since even in the age of talk radio, blogs, and Fox news, the the "dominant media" is still the NY Times and the major networks, such conspiricy thinking applied to the right still gets some significant creedence.

The Cosmic Landscape

This book by Leonard Susskind is a very well written and very honest account by an accomplished physicist. He subtitles it "string theory and the illusion of intelligent design", but in many ways it is a half-time speech to encourage the weakening physicists to not lose hope, and hold on to their faith that there is no intelligence behind the universe, no matter how grim it may look for the proponents of randomness.

You can tell that there is some bitter disappointment with a few developments of recent years. The worst is that "Einsteins blunder", the cosmological constant, which he added as a "fudge factor" to general relativity since he envisioned the universe as static. When Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding it was assumed that the constant was zero, and Einstein called giving it a value his "greatest mistake".  Unfortunately for the "random crowd", it turns out that it needs to have a value for us to exist, and that value has to be tuned to an accuracy of 10 to the -120. If you believe that would happen randomly, then you are either a regular player of the lottery or a nervous atheist physicist.

It isn't as if this is the only "Goldilocks feature" (not too this, not too that, but JUST right) of our universe. There is the Higgs field, the strong and weak force balances and a host of others. Prior to the late '90s most physicists felt that string theory was going to give them the "grand unified theory of everything" that would allow them to definitively declare that no "watchmaker was needed" (ie. No God or Intelligent Design), but the accuracy of 10 to the -120 was too much for many of them--they either refuse to accept the dead end of string theory as providing the kind of "lack of dependence on special conditions" that would indicate to them that "it just happened", or apparently quietly pray in their closets to prevent guys like Susskind, or worse yet, Dawkins from finding them out.

As Susskind points out on page 355, lest someone think that scientists are "open minded"; "Because as scientists we understand that there is a compelling human need to believe - the need to be comforted - that easily clouds peoples judgment. It is all too easy to fall into the seductive trap of a comforting fairy tale. So we resist, to the death, all explanations of the world based on anything but the Laws of Physics, mathematics, and probability."

Such is the stuff of faith, and indeed, that core decision as to the origin of the universe; intelligent, purposeful, and meaningful? Or random, purposeless and meaningless? is at the core of how humans relate to life, truth and each other. I would argue that a core feature of the human mind, the need for CLOSURE, which drives the need for FUNDAMENTALISM may even be a bigger factor than the random/intelligent divide, one which I intend to go into in the future as I begin to deal with "The God Delusion" by Dawkins.

Susskind's, Dawkins and all atheist positions are fundamentalist ... like the baptists I grew up with, or like the folks that flew into the twin towers. Christ brings freedom if you will have it -- he saves by Grace, allows (even demands!) loving your enemies, and beats up on the fundamentalists of the day -- the Scribes and Pharisees with joyous abandon. Fundamentalists are so fun to argue with since they are so rigid and prone to get unhinged when they find their views questioned in ways they have difficulty defending. Even the religious ones actually have no "higher power", because they fervently believe that "it is all obvious with a FEW easy to understand "facts"" ... just like the scientific or "liberal" fundamentalists. "A small matter of education" and you can be a fundamentalist too!

Susskind pumps up the weakened atheist position by an appeal to the messiness of string theory. He rises to the defense of randomness with the assertion that there are 10 to the 500 UNIVERSES in the "cosmic landscape", so it is really "easy" that we happen to be here. To "strengthen" his position, it looks like such a theory can never be tested, since our universe bubble is expanding near the speed of light, knowledge of the other universes is forever outside our "horizon". Susskind points out that his position is somehow superior to "the God hypothesis", even though apparently not testable, since as he states above, he is beyond that "human need to be comforted".

Apparently he finds the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being, morally perfect, and beyond material understanding as somehow "comforting". I would imagine that his concept of God would not include the potential for such a thing as "judgment" or "sin", even though given the distance between ours and that of a being that may do fine tuning of the cosmological constant to 120 places of accuracy, it would seem that there would be a slight potential for "differences".

Susskind proudly proclaims with Laplace relative to the idea of God; "I have no need of this hypothesis". Much as he fails to explain why he finds himself beyond human need for "comfort", he fails to explain this leap. Apparently he hasn't figured out yet that he is mortal, and in that, Laplace and Einstein have clearly exceeded Lenny's understanding of their position in the universe. (they know the answer to God)

 He DID write an excellent book that I would highly recommend to anyone that seeks to understand physics. He clearly believes that he has produced a work that will be "no comfort to the intelligent design crowd". That may be true in the sense that most of that crowd share Susskind's fundamentalism (just a small "type difference"), which is actually the most comforting of human delusions ... because fundamentalists believe that they know.

TerrorByte

Sometime in the late 80's I was working with dasd recovery software for a computing system that was in the process of being built, and we had an installation in the lab that had a terabyte (trillion) bytes of storage. We joked about it being "a terror byte", since if some of your software took that machine down, there was some degree of scrutiny since it took many hours to get it back up from a crash.

As luck would have it, part of the code I had produced re-allocated bad sectors on a drive, and it had to be "absolutely fail safe". I attempted to accomplish this by having a "save area" on the drive itself so that if anything went wrong during the recovery (power failure, other hardware or software failure), the proper state was always written out on the drive and when they attempted to bring the system up again, the sector reallocation process would complete as part of that process.

Unfortunately, I made an error in part of the code, so if certain events happened my recovery code would take and exception in a very restricted state of the machine on the way up, the boot would not complete, and the machine would never come back up again. Suddenly, I was in very high demand. Under a good deal of stress I managed to figure out what the problem was, make a patch to the machine and "wala", the monster trundled on through it's boot process to eventual completion and my "programmer humility" went up a bit. Part of the magic of being an operating system programmer is that when you screw up it takes the whole machine down. At that point, I was one of those special operating system programmers that if I made a mistake, your machine would never boot again ... unless you completely re-installed it from scratch and lost all your data. "Power" ... but with stress.

So what makes me think of this? Well, the machine I am typing this in on sitting on my desk officially has 1.1 terabyte of storage! I heard a lot of conflicting stories about how much the lab machine I crashed was worth, but it was certainly "millions". The grand total for the cost on this? Something around $400, and that is only because one of the 320GB drives is last years model and I think I paid $150 for it. There is another $99 320GB EIDE drives in there and two 250GB SATA drives that I picked up for under $80 each. Things really do change in twenty years. From a room full of drives worth millions to a machine under my desk worth "hundreds"!

McCain Surge

The following is off PowerLine by John McCain. As I read it, I'm reminded of the Otto Von Bismark quote "Politics is the art of the possible". I have my differences with McCain, and often find him to be pompous and self-serving, but on Iraq he is at least reasonable, and maybe correct. My personal view is that we would likely kill less Americans and less Iraqis, and have a shorter time to a handover WITHOUT a "surge", but one has to "do what they can do". The "possible" likely doesn't include "stay the course" for longer than a few months, so even if more must die for the left to get their way, that is likely the only "possible" option available that gives us a fighting chance to avoid the cut and run that the left is after.

Debate in recent days has focused on the possibility of “surging” U.S. combat forces in Iraq. Security is the precondition for political progress and economic development, and we need more troops on the ground. But to make a real difference, any surge must be substantial and sustained.

During my recent trip to Iraq, commanders spoke of adding as many as five additional brigades in Baghdad, and one or two additional brigades in Anbar Province. This, I believe, is the minimum we should consider. It would be far better to have too many reinforcements in Iraq than to suffer, once again, the tragic results of insufficient force levels.

The mission of these troops would be to implement the thus-far-elusive “hold” element of the military’s “clear, hold, build” strategy: to maintain security in cleared areas, to protect the population, and to impose the government’s authority. Our troops would work in cooperation with Iraqi forces, and stay in place until the completion of their mission.

The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of U.S. forces. We have tried small surges in the past, and they have been ineffective because our commanders lacked the forces necessary to hold territory after it was cleared. A short surge would have all the drawbacks associated with greater deployments without giving our troops the time they need to be effective.

Increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq will expose more brave Americans to danger, and increase the number of American casualties. Extending combat tours and accelerating the deployment of additional brigades is a terrible sacrifice to impose on the best patriots among us, and they will understandably be disappointed. Then they will shoulder their weapons, and do everything duty requires to win this war.

We have made many mistakes since 2003, and these will not be easily reversed. But from everything I witnessed on my most recent visit, I believe that success is still possible. Even greater than the costs incurred thus far and in the future are the catastrophic consequences that would ensue from our failure in Iraq. By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis the best possible chance to succeed. Our national security, and that of our friends and allies, compels us to make our best effort to prevail, and to do it now.

On a personal note, I want to thank John, Paul and Scott for granting me this valuable real estate on Power Line to make the case for victory in Iraq.

iPhone

iPhone blows away expectations by ZDNet's Ed Burnette -- Once in a while, the truth can be wilder than the rumors. Such was the case today at MacWorld 2007, where Steve Jobs unveiled the long awaited iPhone.

Wow, Very cool .. the phone, the iPod, the digital camera, and the PDA all in one beaufiful package complete with WiFi and Bluetooth!

How the West Could Lose

Great little SHORT Daniel Pipes piece
on the obvious. He nets it down to 3 points:
1). Pacifism
2). Self-Hatred
3). Complacency
Well worth the time to read it!

Spinning

Somehow taking vacation always seems to get me too much into a "stream on consciousness" where I fall into reading a number of books that I like at the "same time" (currently "Five Frigates" and "The Cosmic Landscape", as well as trying to find the time to make it through my Sons Science Fiction book on the web), as well as a "set" of other things ... trying new technologies on Firefox for bookmarking, blogging, rss feeds ... installing a bunch of new Spyware detection, registry cleaning and virus scanning to see if I can't clean up my XP installation so Windows Update works ... installing Linux on a 2nd machine in the office ... plus getting in over my head on a number of new projects at work right off the bat. Of course, I'm behind the e-mail daemon due to taking a few days off over the holidays. I enjoy it, I know I need to get it under better control, but a new year always makes me realize how short last year really was and I guess that drives me to over-reach. I have a lot of "great ideas" ... for the blog and other places. We shall see if any of them actually get implemented.

2007

Eleven days off work have sped by like a couple of days of work time and today was back to the grind. Time with family and friends, a small amount of travel, too much food, nice gifts, lots of working out, and a reasonable amount of reading, computing of one sort or another, watching movies, and simply enjoying life. It does make one wonder how we are supposed to find time for work, I guess that is why we need to be compensated for that.

As I reflect more on blogging / writing, I realize it is something that I happily do for free, and don't really even care about readership. I'd LIKE if there were lots of readers, but I don't NEED readers, nor am I willing to do much to get more. I could easily spend long days reading books of one sort or another and writing in some form. At some point it would be nice to be able to "make a living" doing that, but it is also nice to just do something that is enjoyed for enjoyments sake. In the "over 50 world", that kind of thinking seems to get more important all the time.

The lovely computer I am writing on seems to have acquired some sort of "spyware / virues / etc" that SEEMS to have ended up with the only "permanent problem" being that I can't do Windows Update or install IE7. Neither of these are "huge" since I have other computers, but it irks me to be a "professional" and not be able to "easily fix it". I realize intellectually that being in the field only means that I have SOME more comprehension of what is going on than the "average person". It would likely take a good long while to get to the "right expert" out of the thousands of folks at MS to get me going ... I've gone through all the forums, searches, etc, and no dice so far. It looks like a clean re-install may be in the offing. Technology is fun, but like anything it can also be frustrating.

My resolutions for this year are pretty much "be positive and keep getting in shape". It would be "nice" if 2007 was "uneventful" in our family, but somehow we don't get to pick that, so being thankful for what God has in store for us seems like the best approach. I had shed 35lbs prior to Christmas, but managed to pile 5 back on even with massive working out and lower consumption than "normal". So, I have 25lbs to go to get to my goal. Life always has some challenges.

I find myself with way more things to do than I have time to do them in, but I've always considered that "managing the right problem". One of my maxims is that "you will always have problems, the best you can hope for is to be able to have some say in which problems you have". Most of the left likes to "have other peoples problems" ... they like to point out how this and that has really "messed them up", or is "so unfair", or "needs to be fixed". They enjoy the fact that somebody else got to pick their problems. It is true that some problems get picked for us. A tendency to put on weight, a broken elbow, challenging business climate, etc ... but we certainly have a "say" in all of those as well.

We don't HAVE to be the "victim" of things that are "out of our control", or "water over the dam". The temptation is ALWAYS there as we face reduced eating, going back to work, lack of snow for snowmobiling, or some other "issue" to believe that it is "unfair / others have it better / insurmountable / depressing" or some other thought that takes us out of control and absolves us responsibility. That usually feels good for a tiny amount of time, but the end result of that kind of thought is that you can end up blaming others and thinking like a liberal. Stick with the mental toughness, it CAN be a Happy New Year!

Saddam

The news is out tonight that Saddam has been executed. I've not read any articles yet, but a few thoughts.

You won't hear any Republicans say "Well, Bush Sr is still alive, but Saddam is dead", although I'm sure a few others will realize it. Why does this strike me? Well, because after '92, one fairly REGULARLY heard Democrats and MSM folks say with some glee; "Bush is out of power, but Saddam is still there". Even though most of them had been TOTALLY against marching to Baghdad and solving the problem at that point, they really enjoyed the fact that Bush had lost the election but Saddam remained in office. Little things like Bush being the leader in a Democracy and Saddam being a dictator were apparently lost on them.

The "Bush lost, Saddam won" kind of thinking and enjoyment gives a glimpse into the soul of the left. They LIKED Saddam, Saddam "stood up to the US", and they LOVE to see the US "put in it's place". They may live here, but they don't like "authority" ... Castro, Hugo Chavez, Saddam, even Osama are folks that don't "show respect for the authority of the US", and they like that. One might think that it would give them pause to be on the same side as bloodthirsty dictators and petty tyrants, all of which would torture, rape, kill, or otherwise ruin the day of the "laughing liberal" at a moments notice if given the chance, but remember, consistency is NOT an issue for a liberal.

The streak typically goes deeper. As I've mentioned before, there is no limit to what they would like to see happen to a white collar criminal, but for Saddam? They are going to question the morality of putting a butcher that has killed 100's of thousands to the awful death penalty. There are tapes of him having people thrown off roofs, put through plastic shredders, and documentation of him having air hoses inserted in peoples rectums and blowing them up from the inside out. The lefty's hearts are full of sadness at the loss of Saddam, they saw him as a great guy. Bush, they would take glee if somehow he could be abused as the worst of Saddam's victims.

It is likely hard to fully plumb the depths of the lefty brain to really comprehend this, but I believe the core is simply "hatred for authority". They see the US as "authority", and Saddam as one who "stood against authority". They want to see the US and it's "symobols" (flag, president, military, etc) "brought down". Ideally, they would see God "brought down", but in this earthly realm, the US is a good stand-in, so they revel in that when they can.

Oh well, "the little guy" didn't do so well against authority this time. Pity.

Kerry In Iraq

For those that only follow the MSM and missed the picture posted above, it is worth a glance. It has been linked from a lot of places, but it appears that it originated from the blog of a soldier in Iraq Kerry Visits
I'm sure many of the "free speech loving left" will wonder why soldiers are allowed to do such things, post to blogs, and say anything negative about great guys like Kerry that just happen to call them ignorant slackers (all in a joke, of course!).

On the other hand, when they can find one or two soldiers to say something negative about Bush or Rumsfeld, such comments are covered with glee, and there are no concerns about such criticism of the President or Secretary of Defense, positions that are in their actual chain of command, rather than just a Senator.

As I've said before, the MSM covers the statements made against Republicans CORRECTLY, they ought to cover the statements made against Democrats as well. If it is factual that Kerry's chopper was "Weasel 61", and Hillary was "Broomstick 11", then that is a HOOT for anybody that is even "moderately unbiased". Based on a lot of polls, well over 50% of Americans would agree that Kerry and Hillary are both very unappealing folks with high negatives. While it is true that were we ACTUALLY going to try to "improve our civility", then we should refrain from such "cheap shots", however the situation we have now is that there is no blow that is too low to be leveled against Bush in the continual attempt to destroy him by the left and the MSM, but people that are every bit as unappealing to a wide range of Americans (Hillary and Kerry) get ignored, even when some focus would obviously "sell papers".

Ignoring stuff like this gives the lie to the "they aren't biased, they just report what will sell papers". Seeing a pompous imbecile like Kerry shunned by the people who likes to insult and then attempt to weasel out of it is the stuff that Americans always enjoy. The media doesn't find it entertaining TO THEMSELVES when one of the folks that they like is put in a bad light, so they simply don't report it.

MSM Remembers Ford / Inflation

The passing of Gerald Ford gives the MSM a good chance to re-write history some more to give the impression that the economy was in deep trouble before Jimmuh Carter, and he "fixed it", with that result happening in the early 80's when some "un-named lucky president" was in the office. Clearly Nixon/Ford were the cause of inflation, and Carter was the cure. It is a tidy lefty world to folks like CNN from which this "respectful" eulogy comes.

WIN proved to be an ineffective step, "both from the public relations aspect and an economic one," said Daniel Mitchell, professor of management and public policy at UCLA.

"Buttons on lapels weren't going to deal with this sort of thing," Mitchell said.

"Up to that time, we'd never had inflation and higher unemployment," Ratkus explained. "It created a stagnant economy and a term that has since entered into textbooks: 'stagflation.'"

President Ford, who inherited many of the nation's economic problems from the previous administration, was defeated in the following presidential election.

Jimmy Carter was sworn in as president in 1976.

Inflation remained a problem throughout the 1970s, finally peaking at an annual rate of 13.5 percent in 1980.

It wasn't until the early 1980s that inflation was brought fully under control.

Many credit the Federal Reserve led by Carter-appointed chairman Paul Volcker with his "tough monetary policy."

Volcker limited the growth of the money supply which resulted in a recession and high lending rates.

Volcker "wrung inflationary psychology out of the economy," said Ratkus, who explained that until then people expected a certain amount of inflation in prices.

The expectation of inflation set the stage for sharp rises in costs and "helped create a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts," said Ratkus.

Since then interest rates and inflation have remained relatively low.

The real world is of course a lot less tidy, and a lot less complimentary of the left. Inflation was the result of a whole long list of things including the US moving off the gold standard, rising competition as the global markets came fully back online with more modern methods/equipment as the devastation of WWII faded, the baby boomers coming of age with a giant demand spike, the US Government policy of using inflation as a "stealth tax increase" (which causes more inflation), and etc etc.

Yes, WIN was equally as ineffective as sitting in a darkened room in the White House and telling people to put on a sweater and shut off their Christmas lights as Jimmuh did, but when he dies I suspect that the MSM won't spend anytime discussing that. They will likely focus on the "historic" Camp David Accords, but without the finish "and Israel and her Arab neighbors continue to live in peace".

The MSM never wants to give Reagan any credit, but even in their silence we get "Since then interest rates and inflation have remained relatively low", and they are forced to admit "early 80's". They attempt to remain quiet, but truth has a way of crying out.

Gerald Ford took office in a now win situation where the MSM and the left in this country were in their historic peak. America had been defeated in Vietnam and Nixon had been removed from office at home. In their minds, things were going very well, but of course in reality they were headed for the disaster that was Jimmuh Carter. Ford was an honorable man that was one of the last of the "me too Republicans". The kind that were "fiscally responsible Democrats", the ones that the media liked in their bumbling role. The Democrats got to be Santa, and the Republicans got to be Dad ... they got to harp about deficits and restraint and the Democrats got to do new programs and buy votes. It was a "great day" for the left and the MSM, and the MSM had a joyous monopoly on the information going out to the waiting public sheep.

From the POV of the MSM, Ford served in "the good old days", and their treatment of him is just right. He was the kind of "opposition" that they liked ... not enough to respect him and give him any credit, but as a President that was in the "proper role for a Republican".

Thanks Jimmuh

I've blogged before that Jimmy Carter was the catalyst that convinced me I couldn't be a Democrat, he continues to show why I made the right choice 30 years ago.


The following is off Powerline:

And Speaking of Free Speech...

One of its most principled defenders and most effective practitioners is Alan Dershowitz. Over the years, I have disagreed with Dershowitz about most things, but his unwavering commitment to free speech--even in an academic environment--and his tireless unraveling of the endlies calumnies thrown at the state of Israel are far more important than those disagreements. Currently, he is taking on the execrable Jimmy Carter, and it is, as you would expect, a mismatch. Dershowitz writes in the Boston Globe:

The next week Carter wrote a series of op-eds bemoaning the reception his book had received. He wrote that his "most troubling experience" had been "the rejection of [his] offers to speak" at "university campuses with high Jewish enrollment." The fact is that Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz had invited Carter to come to Brandeis to debate me, and Carter refused. The reason Carter gave was this: "There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."

As Carter knows, I've been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times -- certainly more times than Carter has been there -- and I've written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won't debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It's not that I know too little; it's that I know too much.

Carter's refusal to debate wouldn't be so strange if it weren't for the fact that he claims that he wrote the book precisely so as to start debate over the issue of the Israel-Palestine peace process. If that were really true, Carter would be thrilled to have the opportunity to debate. Authors should be accountable for their ideas and their facts. Books shouldn't be like chapel, delivered from on high and believed on faith.

***

Jimmy Carter isn't brave for beating up on Israel. He's a bully. And like all school-yard bullies, underneath the tough talk and bravado, there's a nagging insecurity and a fear that one day he'll have to answer for himself in a fair fight.

When Jimmy Carter's ready to speak at Brandeis, or anywhere else, I'll be there. If he refuses to debate, I will still be there -- ready and willing to answer falsity with truth in the court of public opinion.

No doubt it will never happen, but if it does, I want a front-row seat.

The left and MSM like to make old Jimmuh into some kind of a hero because he works on Habitat for Humanity. So does George Bush Sr and a WHOLE lot of other people left and right, but they don't get nearly as much credit. Carter ALSO makes completely idiotic deals with madmen in N Korea with absolutely no authority to do it, and writes a bunch of drivel claiming it is somehow "intellectual", refuses to defend it like an intellectual, then lies about it. Carter did way more damage to this country than Nixon ever did, he is certainly the worst President of my lifetime, but I continue to thank him for being bad enough to show me the error of my ways and allow me to wake up from the spell of the MSM and popular culture.

Sandy is a Great Guy

The MSM at least reports a bit here that Sandy Berger took classified documents out of an archive that he was not supposed to during the 9-11 investigation. There is of course no concern about this in the MSM, or curiosity as to "why"? No less an honorable and trustworthy authority than "I didn't have sex with that ..." Slick Willie has stated, laughing; "Oh that is just Sandy, he was always doing something like that". It is enough to warm the cockles of the heart. Just a folksy removal of classified documents, a little "storage" under a construction trailer.

There is no need for curiosity here on the part of the MSM, and of course there isn't any. There is no way that the Clinton administration could POSSIBLY be to blame for anything relative to 9-11, and of course they are all WAY too honorable people to try to do anything like steal some documents that pointed to something embarrassing on their part. It "just wouldn't be done". Only evil Republicans would consider something like that, and the fact that rotten bloggers are out their suggesting that this was anything other than innocent just shows how "corrupt" the conservatives are, and how much they want to create problems for honorable Democrats.

Meanwhile, we know that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield have the worst of motives and the highest level of incompetence possible, and will stop at NOTHING in order to hide, cover, mislead and constantly LIE about their many and nefarious plans and misdeeds. When it comes to light that a scummy operative like "Scooter" who was CERTAINLY trying to "strong arm" poor Valerie Plame has somehow managed to get Richard Armitage to indicate that he was the ACTUAL source of the leak claiming it was "inadvertent", you know that there is something rotten afoot. Most likely Armitage has been paid off by Chaney / Halliburton to cover the tracks.

We see a number of "slight differences" in the press on these kinds of issues. The "real truth" is most likely somewhere in between, with each of our biases taking us to the side that we most align with as to where the truth is at. At least it is easy to see where the MSM is at, when something like Sandy arouses very close to zero suspicion, but old "Scooter" is just evil incarnate, until it is at least as proven as our legal system can do that the whole idea of him "outing" Plame was a pure fabrication by Wilson and the MSM. Then they simply pretend that the "new news" that proved their previous conjectures utterly false just never happened.

First Man

Reading has been a little lacking with the level of activity of late, but it started to pick up this past weekend and I suspect that it will be a major activity for the next 2=3 weeks. I just finished "First Man", the life of Neil Armstrong. It was an excellent somewhat scholarly book on the man that said "One small step for (a) man ... one giant leap for mankind". To those of us who lived through it, it is one of those times that you remember, and this is really THE one of national/world significance that is precisely remembered as good. (Kennedy being shot, Challenger disaster, 9-11, those go into the bad bucket)

Armstrong is a hero cut in the Lucky Lindy mode; not flashy, plain spoken, humble and appreciative of all the people that had a hand in the achievement of the the moon landing, very private and very unemotional. Much like the "strong silent type" American male of yore, you get the impression that he didn't "work to be calm and unemotional", he just was. Like all things, this provides upside and downside. In 1962, the Armstrongs lost their 2-year old daughter Karen to an inoperable brain tumor. It appears that Neil may have dealt with the pre and post death tradegy by throwing himself into his work, and it may even be that the event was the catalyst for him making the decision to be an astronaut.

The "mistakes" of the Armstrong flying career are clustered around the death, and it may well be that he was adversely affected (who could blame him?). He had an X-15 incident where the craft "skipped" on the atmosphere causing him to be hundreds of miles off course, and he narrowly made it back to the opposite end of the Edwards dry lake bed from where he was supposed to land. Supposedly he came over the last ridge under 100' above ground, but that may well be legend. Getting stuck on a "dry" lake bed that was wet with Chuck Yaeger in the back seat is more humorous than anything, and the "Nellis debacle" where Neil had a gear failure doing simulated X-15 landings in another plane certainly COULD have been serious, but turned out to be again more humorous than anything. If one is going to be adversely affected by a horrific life experience that destroys many who have to live through it, continuing to be a test pilot flying the highest performance craft of the day with only "incidents" to show as "failures" during the core of it it is the kind of makeup that one expects from the guy that did the first moon landing.

Armstrong was also the first astronaut to dock in space with Gemini VIII. I had never realized how close to disaster that flight came as a thruster on the Gemini became stuck and put the craft into a spin where the crew was on the edge of losing concousness at the point they were able to remedy the situation. Had they blacked out, there would have been the loss of a crew in space, and likely the moon landing would have been long delayed.

The book is highly detailed, early on with geneology that I wasn't particularly interested in, later with issues of simulation and crew dynamics that were more to my liking. I never saw a mountain until I was 20 years old, although I read a lot about them, heard people talk about them, and of course saw plenty of pictures. The experience is radically different. Much in the same way, it is clear that all the astronauts that went to the moon were changed by the experience of seeing the earth as a tiny blue marble in the blackness of space, and apparently even more so the onces that stood on the surface of that desolate world and saw their home hanging in the sky. For a number of years we had the wallpaper picture of "earthrise over the moon" in our family room in a previous home. It is an arresting scene, and I'm sure the effect of being there changes people for the rest of their lives.

For me it was a book well worth reading. It is so hard to believe that we are fast coming up on FORTY years since that landing, and except for the immediate missions in the very early 70's, we have never gone back. Space travel is one of those areas lik e "flying cars" where technology has fallen far short of what those of us alive in the 60's thought. Armstrong predicted that man would go to Mars in his lifetime, and to me, "2001 A Space Oddessy" looked almost "conservative", right down the the smart computer. I never imagined the Internet though. The future has a way of not being exactly what we expect.

Cool With Popular Culture

The home theatre system is finally starting to get a bit of use, and the other night we screened the '67 classic "Cool Hand Luke" with Paul Newman. The film is entertaining, well acted, and well filmed. As a younger person seeing it, I was less oriented to thinking of "message" than today.

The simple story for the very rare individual who as never seen it is that Luke (Paul Newman) is caught drunk, cutting the heads off parking meters for no apparent reason ends up on a "chain-gang" southern prison detail working on the roads. Luke can't accept "the system" or "rules". He is presented as "basically good", but the evil system wears him down.

Luke is "punished for being an atheist", he REALLY "wants to believe in God", but God just won't show himself and deal Luke a good hand. In as much as there is a hero, Luke is it, but not really. The message is pretty much that we have a choice to either "give into the corrupt system and be corrupted, but at least on the surface have a marginally better life, or "be true to ourselves", and be hounded, chewed up, and destroyed by "the system".

Interestingly, the "high point" of the movie is where Luke spurs the prison work crew to work like demons to complete the tarring of the road ahead of schedule so they have a few hours of daylight with "nothing to do". Ah yes, the pinnacle of human existence, idleness.

The bottom line message, like a lot of Hollywood is "futility", you "can't win". They do it well though, with a lot of emotional appeal, and it is all rolled out so easily. That is one of keys of the modern world. Music, movies, day to day TV, mass media news and modern education. You are told what to think at so many levels, and given a ton of little opportunities to be a "rebel". Get a tattoo, piercing, grow your hair any way you want, etc etc. The odd part is that there aren't any real sanctions anymore for any of it. **BUT** you are TOLD that there are ... Luke was killed after all, "Bush locks up dissenters", "our rights are under assault". Of course, none of it is true, but it SEEMS that way, it especially FEELS that way if we give into enough media control.

The Lonely Leader

Tony Blankley has an excellent little column entitled The Lonely President that points to even greater truths. His topic is how lonely the job of the American President is, and how especially lonely and difficult the current situation is for Bush. Criticism is always easy, solutions almost never are. Some quotes from the article:

For rarely has a president stood more alone at a moment of high crisis than does our president now as he makes his crucial policy decisions on the Iraq War. His political opponents stand triumphant, yet barren of useful guidance. Many -- if not most -- of his fellow party men and women in Washington are rapidly joining his opponents in a desperate effort to save their political skins in 2008. Commentators who urged the president on in 2002-03, having fallen out of love with their ideas, are quick to quibble with and defame the president.

James Baker, being called out of his business dealings by Congress to advise the president, has delivered a cynical document intended to build a political consensus for "honorable" surrender. Richard Haas (head of the Council on Foreign Relations) spoke approvingly of the Baker report on "Meet the Press," saying: " It's incredibly important ... that the principle lesson [of our intervention in Iraq] not be that the United States is unreliable or we lacked staying power ... to me it is essentially important for the future of this country that Iraq be seen, if you will, as Iraq's failure, not as America's failure."

That such transparent sophism from the leader of the American foreign policy establishment is dignified with the title of realism only further exemplifies the loneliness of the president in his quest for a workable solution to the current danger.

The person that recognizes how little they know is rare. The natural human tendency, independent of ability, temperament, or training is to think think ourselves wiser than those in leadership. Note that we typically don't want to step IN to any of those leadership posts, but we LOVE to point out what we see as flaws in leaders, especially those with whom we have an ideological difference. The harder the problem and the more real the danger, the greater the desire of people to avoid facing and dealing with the situation. We like to feel good. Facing and dealing with hard problems always makes us feel "bad", at least in the short run. Avoidance seems much nicer.

I've commented before on the fecklessness of something like half the people or more, whom at the time we went into Iraq supported the action with something like an 80% approval, which is now down to something below 30%, and in some polls nearing 20%. The veneer of an excuse is "we were lied to", but I happened to hear a part of the Robert Gates Senate confirmation hearings, where he CLEARLY stated that he and all the Senators there were privy to the information on the WMD as was every intelligence agency in the world. Given the information that everyone had at the time, there was no choice but to take the action taken. The Senate voted to confirm a NEW Secretary of Defense that said in his CURRENT judgment, he would DO IT AGAIN by a vote of 95-2, with the only 2 dissenters being Republicans. Teddy KENNEDY voted FOR him! (I know that the vote of a man that kills his secretary and is an embarrassment to drunkards everywhere is meaningless, but the effect after all his bluster on the topic is at least more testament to his complete lack of character)

From Moses to Lincoln, to Reagan, to Bush, leadership is always lonely. Having sex in the oval office with an employee is a lot less lonely. You have the employee with you, and at least 50%+ of the population will defend your right to sex at work and lying under oath, even though they don't share that right. Do what even lefty drunken murderer Senators know is the right thing, and find out that "right" is not identical to "easy", and and 50% or more of even the people that supported you will abandon you and often sanctimoniously claim that "leadership has failed", while not having a wisp of an idea of how to deal with the problem.

Leadership does fail, but the rank and file fails way more often, and usually with a whole lot less understanding of "why", and therefore progress in learning. The "nice" thing about the real world is that if often comes back to bite and show that the costs of "the easy way" are very much higher than it looks at the point where that fork in the road is taken. Those that follow the path that looks easy somehow aways see the world as having WAY more problems than those that face the truth and often take the harder road. At some point, it always becomes "random / hopeless / unfair / rigged against / impossible". After making enough choices that were effectively "cut and run" at one level or another, that really becomes the only choice available.

Sadly, not taking the easy choices never becomes easy. Like working out every day, at best it becomes a "habit". A habit that just means that when you follow the natural tendencies that always remain, you realize it, and with the grace of God and forgiveness, hopefully one can return to the path that is more difficult, but toward improvement of ones self and the step by step, the rest of the world.

A Force For Peace

James Baker's new ally for peace seems to think that the way to peace is to "wipe out Israel". Interestingly, he compares that with the USSR, which was not "wiped out" (in fact, the Russian Prime Minister is still happlily poisoning adversaries with pelonium the last I heard). The USSR imploded after it was challenged by Ronald Reagan. Israel shows very few signs of implosion, but one would suspect that when a nutcase holocaust denyer that has already indicated that he is bent on creating nukes to destroy says "wipe out", he doesn't mean "implode".

The MSM and apparently a whole bunch of the US wool bearing population think that this guy is going to "help us fix Iraq". I suppose "wipe out" and "fix" could be the same in some quarters.

Oh, Bold prediction. This was up on CNN at 11PM EST, don't expect it to get a lot of coverage. Such things could confuse the sheep ... is denying the holocaust and talking about wiping out Israel a good thing now?

ISG / Holocaust Denial?

The vaunted Iraq Study Group (ISG) thinks that the way to "peace" in Iraq is to bring Iran and Syria in to "help" the US, and to link peace in Iraq with Israel making concessions. The ISG is of course being hailed as "genius", while the MSM wonders if the idiot Bush will be able to take advice.

NPR reported tonight (so it MUST be true), and it is also reported here that one of our prospective "allies" in this diplomatic process is having a major conference sponsored by their President on the subject of "Did the Holocaust Actually Happen?"

I imagine that if the ISG finds Iran to be a credible ally, then this must be considered a credible question that needs to be looked into? Anyone that thinks that the way forward on improving a conflict is to link it with a 4,000 year old conflict would seem to prone to a whole lot of odd thinking, no doubt including holocaust denial. James Baker, your ride is waiting just on the other side of a comet, drink some poison and they will beam you up right away.

Does anyone actually believe that anyone in the MSM, left, Democrat party, Iran, Al Quaeda, Hamas or any other group in favor of "cut and run" has any other objective other than "get US troops out of Iraq NO MATTER WHAT"? When people believe that something is worth "any cost" it is a pretty good indication that the reasoning part of the brain has stopped completely.

North Dakota

This past week was spent traveling to and from North Dakota. The trip on the weekend had been planned for months, a trip to watch the Fighting Sioux play in the Ralph Englestad Arena in Grand Forks North Dakota. That trip came off with only two of us attending rather than three as had been planned due to the events of earlier in the week.

"The Ralph" as they call it was impressive beyond belief. The fact that the little counters where you put the mustard on your hot dog are made of marble was what really impressed me. It is of course full of Fighting Sioux symbols, including inlaid in marble in the floor. The "symbols" are a great example of the liberal doctrine of "consistency is not an issue". PETA has taken action against the Green Bay "Packers" because they feel that the Packer name HONORS the idea of killing animals and the job of meat "Packer". Of course with Indian names, the use of the name is DEROGATORY, and OFFENSIVE! There you have it, on one hand a team name is a point of honor, and on the other side, it is a point of offense. As a true liberal would say, "it is all in how you feel about it", and that is just fine. Individually, we can be "right" all the time even with conflicting internal views, but as a society, we better learn to just number our teams.

The early part of the week was filled with 22 hours of driving in a 42 hour period to attend the funeral of a friends father in Williston ND. The road was long, but once the decision was made to go, it seemed like the right way all the way through. It is just fine to use "emotional reasoning" to decide what funerals to go to, just not to tell everyone else what funerals they ought to go to, what their team ought to be named, or how high their taxes ought to be. "The Peace Garden State" isn't the most scenic in the union by my standards, but at least you can see a lot of many parts of it all at once, and there is certainly not much to get in the way of the wind.

So bogging continues to suffer even though the blogging environment is the best that it as ever been. Hopefully I will be able to make up for lost time soon.