Last night I elected to take one an online survey, as I often enjoy doing. This one came via MyPoints, a pretty nifty service that "pays" you points to read advertisements, buy or sign up for things, and, occasionally, take a survey. The survey was prepared by OTX, from whom I have taken surveys before; I'll never know what the topic was, though, because clicking on the entry button brought up the following message:
WARNING: You are using a web browser that is not supported for this survey
Please read carefully...
Although we attempt to make our surveys compatible with as many web browsers and operating systems as possible, this survey currently requires functionality only available in Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher (on Windows 98 or higher). If you are using Mozilla, Firefox, Netscape, Opera, another alternative browser, or an operating system other than Windows 98 or higher, you will not be able to continue with this particular survey
It then gave me a URL that I could paste into IE in order to take the survey. But I did not and will not do that, for a variety of reasons:
First, I don't like IE. That's why I use Firefox.
Second, I don't like their message. Read it again: "Although we attempt to make our surveys compatible with as many web browsers and operating systems as possible, this survey currently requires functionality only available in Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher (on Windows 98 or higher)." Huhn?? You "attempt" to make surveys "compatible" with "as many web browsers" as possible…but the survey will work only with this particular (and annoyingly inferior) browser? What the hell kind of sense does that make??
Better they had simply said, "Sorry, this survey is compatible only with the woefully inadequate Internet Exploder web browser, and believe us we're just as torqued off about it as you are. Here's the URL to paste into IE if you think you're up to it."
Spare me all that we-make-every-attempt blather when, obviously, you have not!
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Problem with Prayer
Jokes aside (see "The Power of Prayer," March 13), I actually do believe in prayer and pray pretty often--not "constantly," as Paul exhorts, but pretty often. Granted, such prayer is often of the "Get me outta this, God!" variety, but still.
But I have some problems with prayer.
First, I get annoyed with myself for always asking God for something. I know there us a widespread belief in the religious community that God wants us to lay our problems, needs, and concerns before him, and I will grant you there is some logic in that. However, it also seems to me that, inasmuch as God has given me so much throughout my life, to be constantly asking for this or that thing, or outcome, or circumstance seems downright churlish. I mean, look at all I've gotten without asking...seems a bit ungrateful to be clamoring for more, more, more.
Second, I sometimes feel that it's a little bit disrespectful to God to be always petitioning. Do I not think that God already knows what I'm telling him? Do I honestly think that God will not, say, help my ailing relative to get better unless I specifically ask God to do so? Doesn't that bespeak a rather poor opinion of the Creator of the Universe and the Ground of All Being. ("Oh, you say your uncle is sick? What was his name again? Denny? Oh--Lenny. Okay, I'll see what I can do. What did you say your name was, kid? Sorry, but I got a lot on my mind.")
Third, what am I to make of it if my prayer goes (from my perspective) unfulfilled? Let's say I pray like crazy that my Uncle Lenny or Denny or whatever his name was gets better, and he doesn't. He dies. Am I to conclude that God didn't listen to me? Or that I didn't pray "right"? I have a couple of Evangelical acquaintances who would conclude the latter--that my faith wasn't strong enough and/or I was being punished for that or for some transgression...although it seems to me that in that case it's really Uncle Lenny who's getting the short end--which also doesn't say very much about one's opinion of the Almighty.
And what about competing prayers? Say I'm in the stands at my daughter's marching-band competition. Naturally I want her band to win. So I'm sitting there thinking, "Please, please, please, God, let my band win." Meanwhile one of the other dads is sitting down the way making exactly the same plea for his kid's band. And someone's mom is on the other side of the stadium doing likewise. What is it we expect God to do? They can't all win. So we run into much the same problem as above in re God playing favorites and what it means if God doesn't grant my prayer when I prayed it really really nice.
So what to do? Conclude that God knows what we need and/or want but, rather perversely, likes to sit back until we ask him for it? That God doesn't know what we need/want until we ask him? Or that it's all a big cosmic crap-shoot?
At various intervals I have tried to refocus my prayers into prayers of gratitude rather than prayers for stuff. A priest acquaintance once opined in my earshot that grateful people are peaceful people, and I think there's a lot of truth in that. Plus there's just a great satisfaction in expressing gratitude on occasion instead of always asking for something (even something noble, like wanting Uncle Lenny to get better).
And yet there's a problem with that too, a very similar problem to that expressed above. Let's say I express my gratitude to God for, say, delivering my family safely home after a road trip. On the surface, this would seem at least benign and possibly even, you know, nice. But what about the people who don't make it safely home? The old questions arise: Are they being punished for something? Am I being rewarded for something? Is my faith "better" than theirs?
And so the problem with prayer: What is it to be, what is my expectation and intention? How to form prayer without either aggrandizing myself or belittling God?
I come back to another priest acquaintance, a professor and residence-hall director back at Creighton University in bygone times, who asserted that prayer involves shutting up and listening to what God is trying to tell us. That makes sense to me--and it's very hard for me to do, if only because I am so caught up in the traditional asking/thanking mode. Especially during Lent, when I strive to be more reflective on spiritual matters (and not a lot of luck with that, I must confess, this year, when I feel a lot like George Jetson caught on the runaway treadmill at the end of The Jetsons cartoon show of my childhood), I generally make an effort to direct prayer to contemplation, to listening to what God may be saying.
And what about my getting or not getting what I ask for? What about other people who ask but do not receive? What does that say about us? About God? Well, as should be painfully obvious by now, I categorically reject the notion that God plays favorites, or that people who "pray right" or belong to the "right" religion or tithe or whatever have some kind of inside track to the Almighty's favor. In the main, I believe that the universe runs as the universe runs, and things happen. Good things, bad things, neutral things. I would never say God plays no direct role in these things (was it Descartes who posited the idea of God as the great watchmaker who winds up Creation and lets it run?), but I will say that it raineth on the just and the unjust alike, and that's just how it goes.
So I ask God for things, and maybe I get them and maybe I don't. And I thank God for things, and maybe it's self-serving and maybe it isn't. And I try to shut up and sit still long enough to listen to what God may have to say. And in the long run, it probably matters more that the conversation is happening than what the conversation contains.
But I have some problems with prayer.
First, I get annoyed with myself for always asking God for something. I know there us a widespread belief in the religious community that God wants us to lay our problems, needs, and concerns before him, and I will grant you there is some logic in that. However, it also seems to me that, inasmuch as God has given me so much throughout my life, to be constantly asking for this or that thing, or outcome, or circumstance seems downright churlish. I mean, look at all I've gotten without asking...seems a bit ungrateful to be clamoring for more, more, more.
Second, I sometimes feel that it's a little bit disrespectful to God to be always petitioning. Do I not think that God already knows what I'm telling him? Do I honestly think that God will not, say, help my ailing relative to get better unless I specifically ask God to do so? Doesn't that bespeak a rather poor opinion of the Creator of the Universe and the Ground of All Being. ("Oh, you say your uncle is sick? What was his name again? Denny? Oh--Lenny. Okay, I'll see what I can do. What did you say your name was, kid? Sorry, but I got a lot on my mind.")
Third, what am I to make of it if my prayer goes (from my perspective) unfulfilled? Let's say I pray like crazy that my Uncle Lenny or Denny or whatever his name was gets better, and he doesn't. He dies. Am I to conclude that God didn't listen to me? Or that I didn't pray "right"? I have a couple of Evangelical acquaintances who would conclude the latter--that my faith wasn't strong enough and/or I was being punished for that or for some transgression...although it seems to me that in that case it's really Uncle Lenny who's getting the short end--which also doesn't say very much about one's opinion of the Almighty.
And what about competing prayers? Say I'm in the stands at my daughter's marching-band competition. Naturally I want her band to win. So I'm sitting there thinking, "Please, please, please, God, let my band win." Meanwhile one of the other dads is sitting down the way making exactly the same plea for his kid's band. And someone's mom is on the other side of the stadium doing likewise. What is it we expect God to do? They can't all win. So we run into much the same problem as above in re God playing favorites and what it means if God doesn't grant my prayer when I prayed it really really nice.
So what to do? Conclude that God knows what we need and/or want but, rather perversely, likes to sit back until we ask him for it? That God doesn't know what we need/want until we ask him? Or that it's all a big cosmic crap-shoot?
At various intervals I have tried to refocus my prayers into prayers of gratitude rather than prayers for stuff. A priest acquaintance once opined in my earshot that grateful people are peaceful people, and I think there's a lot of truth in that. Plus there's just a great satisfaction in expressing gratitude on occasion instead of always asking for something (even something noble, like wanting Uncle Lenny to get better).
And yet there's a problem with that too, a very similar problem to that expressed above. Let's say I express my gratitude to God for, say, delivering my family safely home after a road trip. On the surface, this would seem at least benign and possibly even, you know, nice. But what about the people who don't make it safely home? The old questions arise: Are they being punished for something? Am I being rewarded for something? Is my faith "better" than theirs?
And so the problem with prayer: What is it to be, what is my expectation and intention? How to form prayer without either aggrandizing myself or belittling God?
I come back to another priest acquaintance, a professor and residence-hall director back at Creighton University in bygone times, who asserted that prayer involves shutting up and listening to what God is trying to tell us. That makes sense to me--and it's very hard for me to do, if only because I am so caught up in the traditional asking/thanking mode. Especially during Lent, when I strive to be more reflective on spiritual matters (and not a lot of luck with that, I must confess, this year, when I feel a lot like George Jetson caught on the runaway treadmill at the end of The Jetsons cartoon show of my childhood), I generally make an effort to direct prayer to contemplation, to listening to what God may be saying.
And what about my getting or not getting what I ask for? What about other people who ask but do not receive? What does that say about us? About God? Well, as should be painfully obvious by now, I categorically reject the notion that God plays favorites, or that people who "pray right" or belong to the "right" religion or tithe or whatever have some kind of inside track to the Almighty's favor. In the main, I believe that the universe runs as the universe runs, and things happen. Good things, bad things, neutral things. I would never say God plays no direct role in these things (was it Descartes who posited the idea of God as the great watchmaker who winds up Creation and lets it run?), but I will say that it raineth on the just and the unjust alike, and that's just how it goes.
So I ask God for things, and maybe I get them and maybe I don't. And I thank God for things, and maybe it's self-serving and maybe it isn't. And I try to shut up and sit still long enough to listen to what God may have to say. And in the long run, it probably matters more that the conversation is happening than what the conversation contains.
Making Sense of Senses
Except for Daredevil, with his Radar Sense, and Spider-Man, with his Spider-Sense, most people come equipped with five senses, each of which as a specific function. Thus my surprise at receiving the following, which appeared in a daily update I receive from the City of Sioux Falls:
Parks and Recreation News...
Sensory Class for the Senses
Use your five senses to smell, taste, touch, and feel. This class is for children ages 4 to 6 years old...
I forwarded the above to my friend Paul, with whom I served as a magazine editor back in the day, with the subject line Why Editors Weep. I'll tell you why:
First off, I'd be interested in knowing what besides the senses a "sensory class" could be for.
Second, I have been under the impression that, aside from the above-noted exceptions, human beings generally have five senses. And it appears that the Parks and Recreation Department agrees with me on that. Which makes it puzzling that only four senses are listed.
Third, of the four senses listed, two of them are the same: what, sensorially speaking, would be the difference between "touch" and "feel" ? The five senses are commonly accepted as sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. I can therefore do naught but conclude that these poor 4-to-6-year-olds will be blindfolded with cotton stuffed in their little ears as they are sent out to explore their sense of touch by bumping into things, unless they smell the danger first, after which they will use their sense of taste while they lick their wounds.
Try making any sense of that!
Parks and Recreation News...
Sensory Class for the Senses
Use your five senses to smell, taste, touch, and feel. This class is for children ages 4 to 6 years old...
I forwarded the above to my friend Paul, with whom I served as a magazine editor back in the day, with the subject line Why Editors Weep. I'll tell you why:
First off, I'd be interested in knowing what besides the senses a "sensory class" could be for.
Second, I have been under the impression that, aside from the above-noted exceptions, human beings generally have five senses. And it appears that the Parks and Recreation Department agrees with me on that. Which makes it puzzling that only four senses are listed.
Third, of the four senses listed, two of them are the same: what, sensorially speaking, would be the difference between "touch" and "feel" ? The five senses are commonly accepted as sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. I can therefore do naught but conclude that these poor 4-to-6-year-olds will be blindfolded with cotton stuffed in their little ears as they are sent out to explore their sense of touch by bumping into things, unless they smell the danger first, after which they will use their sense of taste while they lick their wounds.
Try making any sense of that!
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Power of Prayer
Collected somewhere on my travels:
A tale is told about a small town that had historically been "dry," but then a local businessman decided to build a tavern.
The owner of the bar sued the church, claiming the prayers of the congregation were responsible, but the church hired a lawyer to argue in court that they were certainly not to blame.
The presiding judge, a man wiser than most, after his initial review of the case, stated that "No matter how this case comes out, one thing is obvious--it is evident that the tavern owner believes in prayer and the churchgoers do not."
Sunday, March 11, 2007
"A ________ Conservative"
Simultaneously amusing and intriguing are reports that Fred Dalton Thompson--former US Senator and currently District Attorney of New York County on Law and Order--is contemplating a run for the Republican nomination for president in 2008.
Setting aside for the moment any discussion of his viability as a candidate, I was struck by a quotation in The Politico in re Thompson:
A friend who’s close to Thompson from his Senate days called an ’08 campaign “a distinct possibility,” and said the lawyer-turned-actor would run as “a likable conservative” and “a consensus conservative.”
Not entirely sure what a "consensus conservative" might be, but I was more intrigued by "likable conservative." I was reminded of George W. Bush characterizing himself as a "compassionate conservative" back when he was pursuing the GOP nomination in 2000. It seemed to me then, and does still, that he stuck the adjective in there as a tacit acknowledgment of what I have always believed to be the fact that conservative are not, in the main, compassionate. Indeed, if conservative were noted for being compassionate people, there would have been no reason for Bush to have gone out of his way to paint himself a compassionate conservative.
It is much the same as my describing myself as a liberal Catholic. Were I not a liberal, it would hardly be worth the trouble to put an adjective in front of "Catholic," since I think it a fair assumption these days to say that the majority of us are conservatives.
And so I give some thought to Thompson's "friend" making some effort to assure us that Thompson would be a "likable" conservative. It seems an admission that conservative, in general, are not likable, so we have to distinguish Thompson as a member of the minority of "likable" ones.
Perhaps, for all I know, he is "compassionate" as well. Time, I suppose, will tell.
Setting aside for the moment any discussion of his viability as a candidate, I was struck by a quotation in The Politico in re Thompson:
A friend who’s close to Thompson from his Senate days called an ’08 campaign “a distinct possibility,” and said the lawyer-turned-actor would run as “a likable conservative” and “a consensus conservative.”
Not entirely sure what a "consensus conservative" might be, but I was more intrigued by "likable conservative." I was reminded of George W. Bush characterizing himself as a "compassionate conservative" back when he was pursuing the GOP nomination in 2000. It seemed to me then, and does still, that he stuck the adjective in there as a tacit acknowledgment of what I have always believed to be the fact that conservative are not, in the main, compassionate. Indeed, if conservative were noted for being compassionate people, there would have been no reason for Bush to have gone out of his way to paint himself a compassionate conservative.
It is much the same as my describing myself as a liberal Catholic. Were I not a liberal, it would hardly be worth the trouble to put an adjective in front of "Catholic," since I think it a fair assumption these days to say that the majority of us are conservatives.
And so I give some thought to Thompson's "friend" making some effort to assure us that Thompson would be a "likable" conservative. It seems an admission that conservative, in general, are not likable, so we have to distinguish Thompson as a member of the minority of "likable" ones.
Perhaps, for all I know, he is "compassionate" as well. Time, I suppose, will tell.
Hat Tricks
So last night we decamp at a franchise "family" restaurant that we have enjoyed in the past (although, considering that 50% didn't feel well later and my lasagna tasted like it had been in the freezer to long and then in the microwave too long, we may not be frequenting it so much in the future), and as I glance around the room I count no fewer than seven men sitting their with their idiotic caps glued to their heads. (The smoking section was behind me, and I didn't bother to run around and take a head count--or hat count--but I imagine there were a couple there as well.)
At the risk of revealing my Stone Age roots, I was always taught that a gentleman removes his hat or cap in a building, certainly in a restaurant, and particularly when dining.
Of course, my putting the word "gentleman" in the above sentence may serve to put the whole thing to rest.
Three of the offending caps were all to be found at one long table whose occupants appeared to be family, so perhaps it's hereditary. One of the men, who looked to be in his twenties, not only wore his stupid cap all through dinner, but also wore it backward. This I could not fathom. He wasn't wearing a catcher's mask, so why he turned his hat around is a mystery. And if he wants that "beanie look," why doesn't he go out and buy a beanie?
I was reminded of the scene in The Sopranos in which, annoyed by a doofus wearing his cap in a "nice" restaurant, Tony Soprano "inspires" the clod to remove it. Alas, I am no Tony Soprano.
I was reminded also of a student I had several years ago who was never to be seen without his painter's-style cap. Most peculiar. I did happen to see his graduation picture, so I know there was nothing wrong with his hair. I also know he didn't work as a painter. He did work for a vinyl-sign company, so maybe that was close enough. Nice enough fellow, but because of the cap he always put me in mind of Sylvester P. Smythe, the mascot of the Mad magazine imitator Cracked:
But of course all etiquette is arbitrary and subjective, and a lot of it downright strange. In Christian churches, men remove their hats as a sign of respect.* But in Muslim and some Jewish worship settings, men cover their heads as a sign of respect.
In that context, then, perhaps my fellow diners were mentally chiding me for not wearing a hat during dinner.
_____
*Some years ago my son was invited to attend a Vacation Bible School at a friend's church. At the introductory night for parents, I was mentally tsk-tsking in one dipstick who not only failed to remove his stupid cap in the building, but kept it on even when we entered the Sanctuary for the "family worship" part of the evening. Imagine my surprise upon learning that the dipstick was one of the pastors.
At the risk of revealing my Stone Age roots, I was always taught that a gentleman removes his hat or cap in a building, certainly in a restaurant, and particularly when dining.
Of course, my putting the word "gentleman" in the above sentence may serve to put the whole thing to rest.
Three of the offending caps were all to be found at one long table whose occupants appeared to be family, so perhaps it's hereditary. One of the men, who looked to be in his twenties, not only wore his stupid cap all through dinner, but also wore it backward. This I could not fathom. He wasn't wearing a catcher's mask, so why he turned his hat around is a mystery. And if he wants that "beanie look," why doesn't he go out and buy a beanie?
I was reminded of the scene in The Sopranos in which, annoyed by a doofus wearing his cap in a "nice" restaurant, Tony Soprano "inspires" the clod to remove it. Alas, I am no Tony Soprano.
I was reminded also of a student I had several years ago who was never to be seen without his painter's-style cap. Most peculiar. I did happen to see his graduation picture, so I know there was nothing wrong with his hair. I also know he didn't work as a painter. He did work for a vinyl-sign company, so maybe that was close enough. Nice enough fellow, but because of the cap he always put me in mind of Sylvester P. Smythe, the mascot of the Mad magazine imitator Cracked:
But of course all etiquette is arbitrary and subjective, and a lot of it downright strange. In Christian churches, men remove their hats as a sign of respect.* But in Muslim and some Jewish worship settings, men cover their heads as a sign of respect.
In that context, then, perhaps my fellow diners were mentally chiding me for not wearing a hat during dinner.
_____
*Some years ago my son was invited to attend a Vacation Bible School at a friend's church. At the introductory night for parents, I was mentally tsk-tsking in one dipstick who not only failed to remove his stupid cap in the building, but kept it on even when we entered the Sanctuary for the "family worship" part of the evening. Imagine my surprise upon learning that the dipstick was one of the pastors.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Mistaken Identity
I by no means want to jump on the bandwagon full of people making jokes at Britney Spears's expense--it's obvious to me that the poor woman is falling apart, and I sincerely hope she's getting the help she needs--but sometimes I can't help the way my mind works, and in that context I had a thought upon reports that allege she wrote the number 666 on her shaved head and was screaming "I am the Antichrist!" and "I'm a fake! I'm a fake!"
The poor kid thinks she's Ann Coulter.
The poor kid thinks she's Ann Coulter.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Repudiation
Fasten your seatbelts...we're flying into the 2008 presidential elections, and it's going to be bumpy.
So, naturally, that darling of right-wingnuts, Ann Coulter, is already astride her broomstick doing what she does best--snarling, smearing, slandering slavering, and spewing her poisonous brew of hatred, lies, and venom.
By now we've all heard of her latest public vomiting escapade--at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past Friday, Coulter said, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
What is this, junior high? You can't actually think of anything intelligent to say about--or against--someone, so, like any good schoolyard bully, you move straight to name-calling. Calling someone a "faggot" is especially good.
Funny, is it not, how conservatives keep insisting that they're such swell Christians?
Of course, the GOP candidates were quick to "repudiate" Coulter, to use the word that the news media have been employing...though it's a curiously watery type of "repudiation":
McCain (who was not there): "'The comments were wildly inappropriate,' said his spokesman, Brian Jones."
Giuliani: "The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate."
Romney: "Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: 'It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.'"
Yow! One wonders how Coulter even survived such blistering "repudiation" from members of her own party! I mean, "inappropriate"..."offensive"...these guys are pulling no punches!
Note to the GOP contenders: What you meant to say, what you would have said if you had any sort of integrity, what someone with sufficient spine to risk offending the good "Christian" conservatives who suck up Coulter's putrescence like it was mother's milk would have said is this: "Ann Coulter is a reprehensible, hatemongering harpy whose childish, slanderous, foul-mouthed mud-slinging represents neither me nor the party with which I choose to identify."
See? That's repudiation. Not so tough, was it?
In the absence of such repudiation, the GOP candidates--and the other leaders of their party--are simply winking at Coulter's "naughtiness," and tacitly agreeing with her smear tactics.
And the witch herself? "Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: 'C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.'"
Ha ha ha. Did I say "junior high" up above? Turns out I meant "grade school."
###
The quoted material above is from today's New York Times article, "G.O.P. Candidates Criticize Slur by Conservative Author."
The clip of Coulter's slur is all over the internet, of course, especially YouTube.
Hal Boedeker, "The TV Guy," wrote this oh-so-accurate piece in the Orlando Sentinel, "Ann Coulter: Forget soul-searching with her.
In the California Majority Report, Jason Kinney opines "Ann Coulter isn't Funny Anymore." I would quibble with the "anymore" part.
And finally, over in Australia, The Age hits the nail on the head: "Short on heroes, US conservatives start slurring."
So, naturally, that darling of right-wingnuts, Ann Coulter, is already astride her broomstick doing what she does best--snarling, smearing, slandering slavering, and spewing her poisonous brew of hatred, lies, and venom.
By now we've all heard of her latest public vomiting escapade--at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past Friday, Coulter said, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
What is this, junior high? You can't actually think of anything intelligent to say about--or against--someone, so, like any good schoolyard bully, you move straight to name-calling. Calling someone a "faggot" is especially good.
Funny, is it not, how conservatives keep insisting that they're such swell Christians?
Of course, the GOP candidates were quick to "repudiate" Coulter, to use the word that the news media have been employing...though it's a curiously watery type of "repudiation":
McCain (who was not there): "'The comments were wildly inappropriate,' said his spokesman, Brian Jones."
Giuliani: "The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate."
Romney: "Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: 'It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.'"
Yow! One wonders how Coulter even survived such blistering "repudiation" from members of her own party! I mean, "inappropriate"..."offensive"...these guys are pulling no punches!
Note to the GOP contenders: What you meant to say, what you would have said if you had any sort of integrity, what someone with sufficient spine to risk offending the good "Christian" conservatives who suck up Coulter's putrescence like it was mother's milk would have said is this: "Ann Coulter is a reprehensible, hatemongering harpy whose childish, slanderous, foul-mouthed mud-slinging represents neither me nor the party with which I choose to identify."
See? That's repudiation. Not so tough, was it?
In the absence of such repudiation, the GOP candidates--and the other leaders of their party--are simply winking at Coulter's "naughtiness," and tacitly agreeing with her smear tactics.
And the witch herself? "Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: 'C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.'"
Ha ha ha. Did I say "junior high" up above? Turns out I meant "grade school."
###
The quoted material above is from today's New York Times article, "G.O.P. Candidates Criticize Slur by Conservative Author."
The clip of Coulter's slur is all over the internet, of course, especially YouTube.
Hal Boedeker, "The TV Guy," wrote this oh-so-accurate piece in the Orlando Sentinel, "Ann Coulter: Forget soul-searching with her.
In the California Majority Report, Jason Kinney opines "Ann Coulter isn't Funny Anymore." I would quibble with the "anymore" part.
And finally, over in Australia, The Age hits the nail on the head: "Short on heroes, US conservatives start slurring."
Friday, March 02, 2007
Or So He Said
Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal that has the true religion -- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. -Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910)
And with that we begin another round--a long one, I'm afraid--of quotations that have been piling up for the past three months or so. Yikes! As usual, most--indeed, I think all, this time--are culled from the wonderful e-mail newsletter A Word a Day. You should subscribe. But then you probably wouldn't read these quotations...
Well, be that as it may, continuing for a moment on the theme of religion, here's another interesting little quotation:
Imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendants murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Windows 98. Could anything -- anything -- be more ridiculous? And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in. -Sam Harris, author (1967- )
The above is all the more interesting to me because I have seen Harris quoted by pastors of my acquaintance, and to make wholly different points. Reminds me of a book we had floating around the room back in my high-school debate days: How to Lie with Statistics.
Here's more--no particular order, no particular subject...though it seems I do cant rather toward the ironic:
I believe I found the missing link between animal and civilized man. It is us. -Konrad Lorenz, ethologist, Nobel laureate (1903-1989)
This is my living faith, an active faith, a faith of verbs: to question, explore, experiment, experience, walk, run, dance, play, eat, love, learn, dare, taste, touch, smell, listen, argue, speak, write, read, draw, provoke, emote, scream, sin, repent, cry, kneel, pray, bow, rise, stand, look, laugh, cajole, create, confront, confound, walk back, walk forward, circle, hide, and seek. To seek: to embrace the questions, be wary of answers. -Terry Tempest Williams, naturalist and author (1955- )
People like to imagine that because all our mechanical equipment moves so much faster, that we are thinking faster, too. -Christopher Morley, writer (1890-1957)
Only enemies speak the truth; friends and lovers lie endlessly, caught in the web of duty. -Stephen King, novelist (1947- )
A wise man will make haste to forgive, because he knows the true value of time, and will not suffer it to pass away in unnecessary pain. -Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)
Some people walk in the rain, others just get wet. -Roger Miller, musician (1936-1992)
Too often I would hear men boast of the miles covered that day, rarely of what they had seen. -Louis L'Amour, novelist (1908-1988)
It is an ironic habit of human beings to run faster when we have lost our way. -Rollo May, psychologist (1909-1994)
The world is a skirt I want to lift up. -Hanif Kureishi, author (1954- )
All kids are gifted; some just open their packages earlier than others. -Michael Carr
It is better to have loafed and lost than never to have loafed at all. -James Thurber, writer and cartoonist (1894-1961)
The whole art of teaching is only the art of awakening the natural curiosity of young minds for the purpose of satisfying it afterwards. -Anatole France, novelist, essayist, Nobel laureate (1844-1924)
If you have the same ideas as everybody else but have them one week earlier than everyone else then you will be hailed as a visionary. But if you have them five years earlier you will be named a lunatic. -Barry Jones, politician, author (1932- )
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. -William Arthur Ward, college administrator, writer (1921-1994)
We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)
The world is round and the place which may seem like the end may also be only the beginning. -George Baker (1877-1965)
Some people change when they see the light, others when they feel the heat. -Caroline Schoeder
Society prepares the crime; the criminal commits it. -Henry Thomas Buckle, historian (1821-1862)
A good end cannot sanctify evil means; nor must we ever do evil, that good may come of it. -William Penn, Quaker, founder of Pennsylvania (1644-1718)
Your neighbor's vision is as true for him as your own vision is true for you. -Miguel de Unamuno, writer and philosopher (1864-1936)
To find a person who will love you for no reason, and to shower that person with reasons, that is the ultimate happiness. -Robert Brault, software developer, writer (1938- )
Silent gratitude isn't much use to anyone. -Gladys Browyn Stern, writer (1890-1973)
I have a great deal of company in my house; especially in the morning, when nobody calls. -Henry David Thoreau, naturalist and author (1817-1862)
Profits, like sausages... are esteemed most by those who know least about what goes into them. -Alvin Toffler, futurist and author (1928- )
Extended empires are like expanded gold, exchanging solid strength for feeble splendor. -Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)
One of the indictments of civilizations is that happiness and intelligence are so rarely found in the same person. -William Feather, author, editor and publisher (1889-1981)
Without books the development of civilization would have been impossible. They are the engines of change, windows on the world, "Lighthouses" as the poet said "erected in the sea of time." They are companions, teachers, magicians, bankers of the treasures of the mind, Books are humanity in print. -Arthur Schopenhauer , philosopher (1788-1860)
A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics". All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. -George Orwell, writer (1903-1950)
Kindness is loving people more than they deserve. -Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
People never lie so much as before an election, during a war, or after a hunt. -Otto von Bismarck, statesman (1815-1898)
O Liberty! how many crimes are committed in thy name! -Jeanne-Marie Roland, revolutionary (1754-1793)
Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking. -John Maynard Keynes, economist (1883-1946)
There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration. -Andrew Carnegie, industrialist (1835-1919)
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. -Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, and author (1872-1970)
My two favorite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything. The perfect day: riding a bike to the library. -Peter Golkin, museum spokesman (1966- )
We lie the loudest when we lie to ourselves. -Eric Hoffer, philosopher and author (1902-1983)
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked for forgiveness. -Emo Philips, comedian (1956- )
The successful revolutionary is a statesman, the unsuccessful one a criminal. -Erich Fromm, psychoanalyst and author (1900-1980)
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. -George Washington, 1st US president (1732-1799)
As long as a man stands in his own way, everything seems to be in his way. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, American writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
The only gift is a portion of thyself. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
He who would be a leader must be a bridge. -Welsh proverb
Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm but the harm does not interest them. -T.S. Eliot, poet (1888-1965)
Evil is like a shadow - it has no real substance of its own, it is simply a lack of light. You cannot cause a shadow to disappear by trying to fight it, stamp on it, by railing against it, or any other form of emotional or physical resistance. In order to cause a shadow to disappear, you must shine light on it. -Shakti Gawain, teacher and author (1948- )
We are healed of a suffering only by expressing it to the full. -Marcel Proust, novelist (1871-1922)
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. -Thomas Paine, philosopher and writer (1737-1809)
I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day; I'd rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way. -Edgar Guest, poet (1881-1959)
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not. -Dr. Seuss, author and illustrator (1904-1991)
Politeness is to human nature what warmth is to wax. -Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher (1788-1860)
As far as I'm concerned, 'whom' is a word that was invented to make everyone sound like a butler. -Calvin Trillin, writer (1935- )
At times it may be necessary to temporarily accept a lesser evil, but one must never label a necessary evil as good. -Margaret Mead, anthropologist (1901-1978)
Humor may be defined as the kindly contemplation of the incongruities of life, and the artistic expression thereof. -Stephen Leacock, economist and humorist (1869-1944)
It takes two to speak the truth: one to speak, and another to hear. -Henry David Thoreau, naturalist and author (1817-1862)
Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law. -Louis D. Brandeis, lawyer, judge, and writer (1856-1941)
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. -Richard Feynman, physicist, Nobel laureate (1918-1988)
Kindness is in our power, even when fondness is not. -Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)
Hunting is not a sport. In a sport, both sides should know they're in the game. -Paul Rodriguez
Discontent is the first step in the progress of a man or a nation. -Oscar Wilde, writer (1854-1900)
And with that we begin another round--a long one, I'm afraid--of quotations that have been piling up for the past three months or so. Yikes! As usual, most--indeed, I think all, this time--are culled from the wonderful e-mail newsletter A Word a Day. You should subscribe. But then you probably wouldn't read these quotations...
Well, be that as it may, continuing for a moment on the theme of religion, here's another interesting little quotation:
Imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendants murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Windows 98. Could anything -- anything -- be more ridiculous? And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in. -Sam Harris, author (1967- )
The above is all the more interesting to me because I have seen Harris quoted by pastors of my acquaintance, and to make wholly different points. Reminds me of a book we had floating around the room back in my high-school debate days: How to Lie with Statistics.
Here's more--no particular order, no particular subject...though it seems I do cant rather toward the ironic:
I believe I found the missing link between animal and civilized man. It is us. -Konrad Lorenz, ethologist, Nobel laureate (1903-1989)
This is my living faith, an active faith, a faith of verbs: to question, explore, experiment, experience, walk, run, dance, play, eat, love, learn, dare, taste, touch, smell, listen, argue, speak, write, read, draw, provoke, emote, scream, sin, repent, cry, kneel, pray, bow, rise, stand, look, laugh, cajole, create, confront, confound, walk back, walk forward, circle, hide, and seek. To seek: to embrace the questions, be wary of answers. -Terry Tempest Williams, naturalist and author (1955- )
People like to imagine that because all our mechanical equipment moves so much faster, that we are thinking faster, too. -Christopher Morley, writer (1890-1957)
Only enemies speak the truth; friends and lovers lie endlessly, caught in the web of duty. -Stephen King, novelist (1947- )
A wise man will make haste to forgive, because he knows the true value of time, and will not suffer it to pass away in unnecessary pain. -Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)
Some people walk in the rain, others just get wet. -Roger Miller, musician (1936-1992)
Too often I would hear men boast of the miles covered that day, rarely of what they had seen. -Louis L'Amour, novelist (1908-1988)
It is an ironic habit of human beings to run faster when we have lost our way. -Rollo May, psychologist (1909-1994)
The world is a skirt I want to lift up. -Hanif Kureishi, author (1954- )
All kids are gifted; some just open their packages earlier than others. -Michael Carr
It is better to have loafed and lost than never to have loafed at all. -James Thurber, writer and cartoonist (1894-1961)
The whole art of teaching is only the art of awakening the natural curiosity of young minds for the purpose of satisfying it afterwards. -Anatole France, novelist, essayist, Nobel laureate (1844-1924)
If you have the same ideas as everybody else but have them one week earlier than everyone else then you will be hailed as a visionary. But if you have them five years earlier you will be named a lunatic. -Barry Jones, politician, author (1932- )
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. -William Arthur Ward, college administrator, writer (1921-1994)
We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)
The world is round and the place which may seem like the end may also be only the beginning. -George Baker (1877-1965)
Some people change when they see the light, others when they feel the heat. -Caroline Schoeder
Society prepares the crime; the criminal commits it. -Henry Thomas Buckle, historian (1821-1862)
A good end cannot sanctify evil means; nor must we ever do evil, that good may come of it. -William Penn, Quaker, founder of Pennsylvania (1644-1718)
Your neighbor's vision is as true for him as your own vision is true for you. -Miguel de Unamuno, writer and philosopher (1864-1936)
To find a person who will love you for no reason, and to shower that person with reasons, that is the ultimate happiness. -Robert Brault, software developer, writer (1938- )
Silent gratitude isn't much use to anyone. -Gladys Browyn Stern, writer (1890-1973)
I have a great deal of company in my house; especially in the morning, when nobody calls. -Henry David Thoreau, naturalist and author (1817-1862)
Profits, like sausages... are esteemed most by those who know least about what goes into them. -Alvin Toffler, futurist and author (1928- )
Extended empires are like expanded gold, exchanging solid strength for feeble splendor. -Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)
One of the indictments of civilizations is that happiness and intelligence are so rarely found in the same person. -William Feather, author, editor and publisher (1889-1981)
Without books the development of civilization would have been impossible. They are the engines of change, windows on the world, "Lighthouses" as the poet said "erected in the sea of time." They are companions, teachers, magicians, bankers of the treasures of the mind, Books are humanity in print. -Arthur Schopenhauer , philosopher (1788-1860)
A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics". All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. -George Orwell, writer (1903-1950)
Kindness is loving people more than they deserve. -Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
People never lie so much as before an election, during a war, or after a hunt. -Otto von Bismarck, statesman (1815-1898)
O Liberty! how many crimes are committed in thy name! -Jeanne-Marie Roland, revolutionary (1754-1793)
Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking. -John Maynard Keynes, economist (1883-1946)
There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration. -Andrew Carnegie, industrialist (1835-1919)
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. -Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, and author (1872-1970)
My two favorite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything. The perfect day: riding a bike to the library. -Peter Golkin, museum spokesman (1966- )
We lie the loudest when we lie to ourselves. -Eric Hoffer, philosopher and author (1902-1983)
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked for forgiveness. -Emo Philips, comedian (1956- )
The successful revolutionary is a statesman, the unsuccessful one a criminal. -Erich Fromm, psychoanalyst and author (1900-1980)
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. -George Washington, 1st US president (1732-1799)
As long as a man stands in his own way, everything seems to be in his way. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, American writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
The only gift is a portion of thyself. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
He who would be a leader must be a bridge. -Welsh proverb
Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm but the harm does not interest them. -T.S. Eliot, poet (1888-1965)
Evil is like a shadow - it has no real substance of its own, it is simply a lack of light. You cannot cause a shadow to disappear by trying to fight it, stamp on it, by railing against it, or any other form of emotional or physical resistance. In order to cause a shadow to disappear, you must shine light on it. -Shakti Gawain, teacher and author (1948- )
We are healed of a suffering only by expressing it to the full. -Marcel Proust, novelist (1871-1922)
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. -Thomas Paine, philosopher and writer (1737-1809)
I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day; I'd rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way. -Edgar Guest, poet (1881-1959)
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not. -Dr. Seuss, author and illustrator (1904-1991)
Politeness is to human nature what warmth is to wax. -Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher (1788-1860)
As far as I'm concerned, 'whom' is a word that was invented to make everyone sound like a butler. -Calvin Trillin, writer (1935- )
At times it may be necessary to temporarily accept a lesser evil, but one must never label a necessary evil as good. -Margaret Mead, anthropologist (1901-1978)
Humor may be defined as the kindly contemplation of the incongruities of life, and the artistic expression thereof. -Stephen Leacock, economist and humorist (1869-1944)
It takes two to speak the truth: one to speak, and another to hear. -Henry David Thoreau, naturalist and author (1817-1862)
Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law. -Louis D. Brandeis, lawyer, judge, and writer (1856-1941)
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. -Richard Feynman, physicist, Nobel laureate (1918-1988)
Kindness is in our power, even when fondness is not. -Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)
Hunting is not a sport. In a sport, both sides should know they're in the game. -Paul Rodriguez
Discontent is the first step in the progress of a man or a nation. -Oscar Wilde, writer (1854-1900)
This Could Be Serious
Those who know me know that one of the cornerstones of my existence is peanut butter. I can do without a lot of things in the cupboard, but peanut butter is not one of them. As Bill Cosby said, "Man does not live by bread alone. He must have peanut butter."
So you can imagine how shaken up I've been these past couple of weeks about ongoing reports of salmonella found in ConAgra peanut butter products.
First it was merely Peter Pan and some store brand--Great Value, Good Luck, whatever it might have been--neither of which is usually to be found in my pantry. But now it seems to be spreading. Ice cream products. Questions about Reese's Peanut Butter Cups (Hershey's makes its own peanut butter, so, whew). And now comes the news that a kid in North Dakota has been sickened...after most of the previous cases have been confined to the South, especially Virginia. (The ConAgra plant that seems to have been the culprit is in Georgia.)
None of this has prompted me to take the pledge peanut-butter-wise. But it does give sober men pause: As more and more food production and processing seems to be controlled by a mere handful of conglomeroids, how long before a truly disastrous occurrence?
Having grown up in the Cold War, I've always assumed that the end would come in some great conflagration between nations. Now it might come from my grocer's case.
***
Relatedly, but lighter: Yesterday was National Peanut Butter Day, so I hope you're recovered from your revelry. One of the many things I've learned about peanut butter is that is is apparently very difficult to photograph. All of the NPBD e-cards that I contemplated sending to friends and other innocent bystanders displayed the most putrid, gray-looking photos of peanut butter than I couldn't bring myself to send a single one. Likewise, most of the news photos I've seen during the recent salmonella scare have had serious color-balance issues--or so I assume: If the peanut butter actually was of the color indicated in most of the photos I've seen, I can't imagine anyone eating it--not even me!
So you can imagine how shaken up I've been these past couple of weeks about ongoing reports of salmonella found in ConAgra peanut butter products.
First it was merely Peter Pan and some store brand--Great Value, Good Luck, whatever it might have been--neither of which is usually to be found in my pantry. But now it seems to be spreading. Ice cream products. Questions about Reese's Peanut Butter Cups (Hershey's makes its own peanut butter, so, whew). And now comes the news that a kid in North Dakota has been sickened...after most of the previous cases have been confined to the South, especially Virginia. (The ConAgra plant that seems to have been the culprit is in Georgia.)
None of this has prompted me to take the pledge peanut-butter-wise. But it does give sober men pause: As more and more food production and processing seems to be controlled by a mere handful of conglomeroids, how long before a truly disastrous occurrence?
Having grown up in the Cold War, I've always assumed that the end would come in some great conflagration between nations. Now it might come from my grocer's case.
***
Relatedly, but lighter: Yesterday was National Peanut Butter Day, so I hope you're recovered from your revelry. One of the many things I've learned about peanut butter is that is is apparently very difficult to photograph. All of the NPBD e-cards that I contemplated sending to friends and other innocent bystanders displayed the most putrid, gray-looking photos of peanut butter than I couldn't bring myself to send a single one. Likewise, most of the news photos I've seen during the recent salmonella scare have had serious color-balance issues--or so I assume: If the peanut butter actually was of the color indicated in most of the photos I've seen, I can't imagine anyone eating it--not even me!
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Bumper Stickers
A far-flung correspondent sent the following list of "Bush Bumper Stickers." Many of them have been around for awhile; a few are new to me:
Bush Bumper Stickers
1. Bush: End of an Error
2. That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
3. Let's Fix Democracy in this Country First
4. If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
5. Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
6. If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President
7. Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant
8. Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
9. George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
10. Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blow Jobs Anymore
11. America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
12. They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
13. Whose God Do You Kill For?
14. Jail to the Chief
15. No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
16. Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap
17. Bad President! No Banana.
18. We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
19. We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
20. Is It Vietnam Yet?
21. Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either
22. Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
23. You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
24. Dubya, Your Dad Shoulda Pulled Out, Too
25. When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
26. Pray For Impeachment
27. The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
28. What Part of "Bush Lied" Don't You Understand?
29. One Nation Under Clod
30. 2004: Embarrassed 2005: Horrified 2006: Terrified
31. Bush Never Exhaled
32. At Least Nixon Resigned
Bush Bumper Stickers
1. Bush: End of an Error
2. That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
3. Let's Fix Democracy in this Country First
4. If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
5. Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
6. If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President
7. Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant
8. Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
9. George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
10. Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blow Jobs Anymore
11. America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
12. They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
13. Whose God Do You Kill For?
14. Jail to the Chief
15. No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
16. Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap
17. Bad President! No Banana.
18. We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
19. We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
20. Is It Vietnam Yet?
21. Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either
22. Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
23. You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
24. Dubya, Your Dad Shoulda Pulled Out, Too
25. When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
26. Pray For Impeachment
27. The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
28. What Part of "Bush Lied" Don't You Understand?
29. One Nation Under Clod
30. 2004: Embarrassed 2005: Horrified 2006: Terrified
31. Bush Never Exhaled
32. At Least Nixon Resigned
Ingenious, but...
Now this took some ingenuity
Congratulations
You are entitled to a prize sum of Four Million Five Hundred Thousand British Pounds; Reference number for your prize is PILS/SA/UK/69-810278, ticket number A/04-3919.
As a category A winner, you have been selected from a total number of Twenty Five Thousand names drawn from Asia, Africa, Europe, Middle East and
After the computer ballot of our International Promotions Program, only six winners emerged in the category and therefore both are to receive payouts of Four Million Five Hundred Thousand British Pounds from the total Twenty Seven Million British Pounds for second category winners.
This is part of the Country's Programme to fund for the Olympic Games in 2012 The £1.5bn Olympic lottery puzzle (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4719851.stm)
The Lottery must raise £1.5bn over the next seven years to pay its share of the
public money going into the Olympics.
A further £650m will be raised from council tax in
Please note that your lucky winning number falls within our European booklet representative office in
To immediately collect your prize, please contact our Category "A" financial handlers with information below:
Mr. Richard Spencer
Premium Finance & Trust Ltd
Tel:
Provide prize reference number-PILS/SA/UK/69-810278 and winning ticket number-A/04-3919 for confirmation.
In your best interests, you must initiate contact within one week of receipt of this correspondence. You are also advised to send a copy of this Email, either by fax or email, to your financial handler Mr. Richard Spencer when contacting him.
You are to keep all lottery information from the public as we will not entertain cases of multiple claims processing or compromise the privacy and security for all winners.
We congratulate you once again and it is our hope that you participate in any of our international programs in the nearest future.
Thank your sincerely,
Mrs Veronica Mallory
The lottery Coordinator,
International Premier Lotto United Kingdom
Great Surry House
203 Black Friars Road,
London SE 1 8NH
Pretty cool, no? As these spam “prizes” go, this one is fairly convincing—indeed, if one follows the link in the e-mail, one is taken to an honest-to-gosh BBC article about the lottery…not about my winning the lottery, mind, but about the inauguration several years ago of the lottery, designed to help fund the 2012 Olympics.
- "Thank your sincerely"? What kind of a complimentary close is that? That your sincerely what?
And so—“E” for effort but, alas, no sale. Perfection remains something to be striven for.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Dem Bones
Ah, the pleasure of predictability. James Cameron et al. come across with the startling (and, methinks, insupportable) claim that they have found "the bones of Jesus and his family" retrieved from what they say may be the final tomb of Jesus. An AP story, with photos, is (among many other places) here. The most salient line in the story is this: "The claims have raised the ire of Christian leaders in the Holy Land."
Do tell. And only in the Holy Land, you think?
Well, The Lost Tomb of Jesus--Cameron's account of the discovery, which is to air next month on, naturally, The Discovery Channel--sounds like interesting speculation...but how could it every be anything but speculation? Much is made of "DNA evidence" from the ossuaries, but I fail to see how that could prove much beyond whether the various bones belonged to people who were related to one another. It would certainly be impossible to show that they belonged to the Jesus and family, for the very simple reason that we have nothing to compare the DNA to.
So it's all a bit of a tempest in a teacup, and yet here comes the Christian Ire. And why? Because this speculation doesn't jibe with the account given in the New Testament, that's why, and as we have previously noted, there is something in the psyche of "good" "Christians" that cannot permit them to allow anyone to have a different point of view, or speculate on a different idea, or just not believe. It is seemingly impossible for these folks to simply shrug it off, dismiss the other guy as misguided, or nuts, and move on.
No...no matter what, they always rise to the bait, bless 'em.
Interesting, too, how they adopt the position that the biblical account is "fact," and therefore any other idea is fiction (or, if you like, heresy). Here's a telling tidbit from John Gibson's "My Word" column at Fox News--or, more accurately, Fox "News":
..."There aren't supposed to be any bones of Jesus around. After all, he ascended to heaven, didn't he? Well, yes that is the history billions of Christians have believed true, and, in fact, the documentary doesn't much debunk that history because no bones were found in these boxes, called ossuaries."...
Did you spot it? The New Testament account of the Ascension is portrayed by the fair-and-balanced crowd as "history." Obviously a new definition of history that is not to be found in a standard dictionary.
But then for literal-factual interpreters of the Bible, it and it alone is "true"--true science, true history, true everything down to the Nth degree--and so any "evidence" of anything else must, by definition, be false.
No room for faith in there, from what I can see.
And that, for me, is the ultimate test. So James Cameron and Co. think they may have found the bones of Jesus (contradicting the Ascension story...not "history"), and not in the grotto beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre where tradition (not "history") says Jesus was laid after the Crucifixion. So what? He can't prove it...and even if he could--so what? Is our faith such a fragile and shaky thing that anything that suggests a hint of an innuendo of a deviation from the story (not "history") portrayed in the Bible causes it to collapse? I hope not!
So maybe Jesus' tomb was at Point A and not Point B. So maybe he was married. So maybe he had siblings. So what? Does any of it detract one iota from his sacrifice or his saving message?
And if so...how?
Do tell. And only in the Holy Land, you think?
Well, The Lost Tomb of Jesus--Cameron's account of the discovery, which is to air next month on, naturally, The Discovery Channel--sounds like interesting speculation...but how could it every be anything but speculation? Much is made of "DNA evidence" from the ossuaries, but I fail to see how that could prove much beyond whether the various bones belonged to people who were related to one another. It would certainly be impossible to show that they belonged to the Jesus and family, for the very simple reason that we have nothing to compare the DNA to.
So it's all a bit of a tempest in a teacup, and yet here comes the Christian Ire. And why? Because this speculation doesn't jibe with the account given in the New Testament, that's why, and as we have previously noted, there is something in the psyche of "good" "Christians" that cannot permit them to allow anyone to have a different point of view, or speculate on a different idea, or just not believe. It is seemingly impossible for these folks to simply shrug it off, dismiss the other guy as misguided, or nuts, and move on.
No...no matter what, they always rise to the bait, bless 'em.
Interesting, too, how they adopt the position that the biblical account is "fact," and therefore any other idea is fiction (or, if you like, heresy). Here's a telling tidbit from John Gibson's "My Word" column at Fox News--or, more accurately, Fox "News":
..."There aren't supposed to be any bones of Jesus around. After all, he ascended to heaven, didn't he? Well, yes that is the history billions of Christians have believed true, and, in fact, the documentary doesn't much debunk that history because no bones were found in these boxes, called ossuaries."...
Did you spot it? The New Testament account of the Ascension is portrayed by the fair-and-balanced crowd as "history." Obviously a new definition of history that is not to be found in a standard dictionary.
But then for literal-factual interpreters of the Bible, it and it alone is "true"--true science, true history, true everything down to the Nth degree--and so any "evidence" of anything else must, by definition, be false.
No room for faith in there, from what I can see.
And that, for me, is the ultimate test. So James Cameron and Co. think they may have found the bones of Jesus (contradicting the Ascension story...not "history"), and not in the grotto beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre where tradition (not "history") says Jesus was laid after the Crucifixion. So what? He can't prove it...and even if he could--so what? Is our faith such a fragile and shaky thing that anything that suggests a hint of an innuendo of a deviation from the story (not "history") portrayed in the Bible causes it to collapse? I hope not!
So maybe Jesus' tomb was at Point A and not Point B. So maybe he was married. So maybe he had siblings. So what? Does any of it detract one iota from his sacrifice or his saving message?
And if so...how?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
God versus...Who?
My friend Jerry sent a copy of today's Robyn Blumner column, "Flat-Earth Society's Warriors," about Texas state representative Warren Chisum circulating a bizarre memo, ostensibly originated by a Georgia state representative, Ben Bridges, but evidently really written by one Marshall Hall, the president of something called the Fair Education Foundation and the mind behind a web site called www.fixedearth.com. You really must read the column for yourself--for there is no way I can do justice to the convoluted Froot-Loopiness of it all (there's a copy of the original memo here; reports are all over, including this one at Accidental Blogger and this one at the New York Times Select), but a few lines from the Blumner column is as good as anything for summing up the gist of the Chisum/Bridges/Hall memo: "Darwin's theory of evolution was described as nothing more than a Jewish plot."
"'Indisputable evidence - long hidden but now available to everyone - demonstrates conclusively that so-called secular evolution science is the Big Bang 15-billion-year alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion,' the memo said."
Well then. Good to have that settled.
But I once again find myself puzzling over the slavering fury of the "religious" right. (The quotation marks are there because their actions and attitudes invariably strike me as being at odds with what one traditionally associates with religious people; we won't even discuss their insistence on labeling themselves "Christian" when they seem so contrary to that which Christ taught.) Why does it seem so important to them to prop up their "faith" and "beliefs" by defaming others'? Why all the frantic--and, usually, embarrassingly misguided--attempts to discredit science and scientific curiosity? Why isn't their "faith" enough for them?
And why would they think God cares?
It strikes me for not the first time that I seem to have a much higher opinion of God than those who consider themselves his biggest fans. For instance, I think God has an ego sound enough to survive the thought of people not believing in him. Or professing their devotion to him in different, even contradictory ways. And I think that when his son suggested we should love our neighbors, he probably meant what he said, and what he said was not "love thy neighbor who is in lock-step agreement with thee" or "love thy neighbor who is morally upright as defined by thee" or "love thy neighbor who has the same skin tone or belongs to the same political party as thee."
I don't go around bragging about what a swell Christian I am, partly because I think I'm pretty bad at it most of the time, but I have read the Bible a few times (well, only one trip through the entire Old Testament: too many "begats") and what I mostly come away with--especially from the words of Jesus, whom "Christians" purport to revere and emulate--is love, peace, tolerance, and ethical behavior...all that namby-pamby crap that the "religious" right despises.
So then (and setting aside for the moment that I think God is probably big enough to fight for himself whatever battles he thinks need fighting), precisely what is it that these "Christian" soldiers see themselves as marching off to war against? Or for? Apparently not the ideals of Jesus of Nazareth, who is tellingly silent on such subjects as evolution, gay marriage, or the Democratic party. They seem uninterested in promulgating any definition of "love," or "peace," which seem to me the central messages of Jesus' ministry; indeed, they seem to thrive on exactly the opposite--on perpetual rancor, on intolerance, on hatred.
Because, after all--if the true Christian ideal were ever realized, they'd all be out of work...some of them literally. Their very existence depends on perpetual antagonism.
Any resemblance to the Bush Administration is probably not coincidental.
Well, if you depend on perpetual antagonism, you need a perpetual enemy. Science is a good one. For one thing, it isn't going to go away. For another, it's big and multifaceted--you can attack evolution, you can attack medicine, you can attack anthropology and astronomy and physics. And for another, it doesn't march in step with the accounts laid out in the Bible.
Ah! Now we're getting somewhere.
Whenever Time or Newsweek or anybody else does their periodic "God vs. Science" article, they invariably fall into a clever trap set by the "religious" right, viz., making it seem like someone is attacking God (who, in their view, needs them to defend him...again, I seem to have a higher opinion of God than they do, which is pretty sad for God)--when in fact the real discussion should be "Science vs. the Bible," or, even more accurately, "Science vs. Literal-Factual Interpretation of the Bible." (And it is to numerous publications' shame that their editors seem not to understand this, or do understand it but prefer the catchier-though-inaccurate "God vs. Science.")
God doesn't enter into it. Undoubtedly there are scientists who are atheists: so what? Let God worry about that (which I doubt he does). The question is whether the world needs to bow to a bunch of noisy religious fanatics who insist that every syllable in a series of books written over several millennia by various human beings who had various tales to tell and points to prove must be regarded by everybody else on the planet as literal-factual "truth." That's the whole versus.
But I misspoke--God does enter into it, for, to those of us who believe in a Creator, science is the tool by which we decipher and understand his creation. It is not something to be feared, let alone something to be reviled. Would that we could get back to a time when Science and Religion were seen as companions on the same journey, not antagonists heading in opposite directions.
But Religion is a jealous institution, and will brook no other gods but itself.
Actually, far from "God vs. Science," the more pertinent subject might be "God vs. Religion."
"'Indisputable evidence - long hidden but now available to everyone - demonstrates conclusively that so-called secular evolution science is the Big Bang 15-billion-year alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion,' the memo said."
Well then. Good to have that settled.
But I once again find myself puzzling over the slavering fury of the "religious" right. (The quotation marks are there because their actions and attitudes invariably strike me as being at odds with what one traditionally associates with religious people; we won't even discuss their insistence on labeling themselves "Christian" when they seem so contrary to that which Christ taught.) Why does it seem so important to them to prop up their "faith" and "beliefs" by defaming others'? Why all the frantic--and, usually, embarrassingly misguided--attempts to discredit science and scientific curiosity? Why isn't their "faith" enough for them?
And why would they think God cares?
It strikes me for not the first time that I seem to have a much higher opinion of God than those who consider themselves his biggest fans. For instance, I think God has an ego sound enough to survive the thought of people not believing in him. Or professing their devotion to him in different, even contradictory ways. And I think that when his son suggested we should love our neighbors, he probably meant what he said, and what he said was not "love thy neighbor who is in lock-step agreement with thee" or "love thy neighbor who is morally upright as defined by thee" or "love thy neighbor who has the same skin tone or belongs to the same political party as thee."
I don't go around bragging about what a swell Christian I am, partly because I think I'm pretty bad at it most of the time, but I have read the Bible a few times (well, only one trip through the entire Old Testament: too many "begats") and what I mostly come away with--especially from the words of Jesus, whom "Christians" purport to revere and emulate--is love, peace, tolerance, and ethical behavior...all that namby-pamby crap that the "religious" right despises.
So then (and setting aside for the moment that I think God is probably big enough to fight for himself whatever battles he thinks need fighting), precisely what is it that these "Christian" soldiers see themselves as marching off to war against? Or for? Apparently not the ideals of Jesus of Nazareth, who is tellingly silent on such subjects as evolution, gay marriage, or the Democratic party. They seem uninterested in promulgating any definition of "love," or "peace," which seem to me the central messages of Jesus' ministry; indeed, they seem to thrive on exactly the opposite--on perpetual rancor, on intolerance, on hatred.
Because, after all--if the true Christian ideal were ever realized, they'd all be out of work...some of them literally. Their very existence depends on perpetual antagonism.
Any resemblance to the Bush Administration is probably not coincidental.
Well, if you depend on perpetual antagonism, you need a perpetual enemy. Science is a good one. For one thing, it isn't going to go away. For another, it's big and multifaceted--you can attack evolution, you can attack medicine, you can attack anthropology and astronomy and physics. And for another, it doesn't march in step with the accounts laid out in the Bible.
Ah! Now we're getting somewhere.
Whenever Time or Newsweek or anybody else does their periodic "God vs. Science" article, they invariably fall into a clever trap set by the "religious" right, viz., making it seem like someone is attacking God (who, in their view, needs them to defend him...again, I seem to have a higher opinion of God than they do, which is pretty sad for God)--when in fact the real discussion should be "Science vs. the Bible," or, even more accurately, "Science vs. Literal-Factual Interpretation of the Bible." (And it is to numerous publications' shame that their editors seem not to understand this, or do understand it but prefer the catchier-though-inaccurate "God vs. Science.")
God doesn't enter into it. Undoubtedly there are scientists who are atheists: so what? Let God worry about that (which I doubt he does). The question is whether the world needs to bow to a bunch of noisy religious fanatics who insist that every syllable in a series of books written over several millennia by various human beings who had various tales to tell and points to prove must be regarded by everybody else on the planet as literal-factual "truth." That's the whole versus.
But I misspoke--God does enter into it, for, to those of us who believe in a Creator, science is the tool by which we decipher and understand his creation. It is not something to be feared, let alone something to be reviled. Would that we could get back to a time when Science and Religion were seen as companions on the same journey, not antagonists heading in opposite directions.
But Religion is a jealous institution, and will brook no other gods but itself.
Actually, far from "God vs. Science," the more pertinent subject might be "God vs. Religion."
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Miscellany
A couple of random thoughts/questions on a wintry day...
Item 1: What is it with conservatives and global warming? Make that, "conservatives and the environment." I have never understood the insistence of so many right-wingers that anyone concerned about environmental concerns is just being an alarmist Chicken Little; that any evidence that shows we're wrecking the planet is perforce trumped-up "liberal" propaganda; that things can't possibly be as bad as "those liberals" say; or--my favorite--that it doesn't matter what we do to the earth since God has everything under control.
Wouldn't it make more sense for conservatives to be interested in, you know, conservation? Which brings me back around to the old, old question: Precisely what it is they're supposed to be conserving, anyway?
The above is sparked by yet another bonehead who, not content on being a bonehead for his friends and family, decides to prove his boneheadedness to others by sending a letter to the local rag, where other boneheads decide it should be printed. I can't lay hands on the letter at the moment--it was several days back, and if TLR archives these things it's not at all obvious and I am insufficiently motivated to spend any time looking--but the gist of it was, he's looking out his window and it's snowing, so how can anyone say there's global warming?
Golly, but it's hard to argue with "logic" like that.
Item 2: Having spent my entire life in the upper Midwest (where, despite global warming, it still occasionally snows), I have been in a position to observe what I have come to dub Midwestern Machismo. This mindset holds that to be concerned about winter weather is, in a nutshell, to be a pussy. No matter how dire the forecast--indeed, no matter how inclement the current conditions--those beset by Midwestern Machismo never conclude anything except "it doesn't sound so bad" or "it's not so bad" or "I've driven in way worse weather than this."
I got to observe a bit of this condition yesterday. The regional forecast for this weekend consists of nothing but rain turning to freezing rain turning to snow--six to eight to twelve inches across the area--with high winds to top it off. My son's drumline, Groove Inc., was to travel to Minneapolis-St. Paul for competitions today and Sunday. By noon yesterday, Weather Service bulletins were advising against travel in exactly the part of the world where we purported to travel. And yet there was some considerable resistance to canceling our plans. (I'm pleased to report that wiser heads prevailed--although I had decided that there was no way my family was going out into the teeth of the storm no matter what the group decided.)
Part of the "reasoning" seemed to be that, if we could cram everybody onto our bus (instead of bus and a caravan of private vehicles), all would be well...since everybody knows that motor coaches are immune to weather conditions.
Then there was the "not as bad as predicted" faction, those who innately know that whatever the National Weather Service and other meteorologists are reporting is by definition wrong...and that they know better by virtue of not being a meteorologist.
My favorite, though, was the friend who had spoken with a friend in Iowa who had been listening to a Twin Cities radio station that allegedly was reporting that the storm was going to hit several hours later than forecast. Okay. Setting aside for the moment that that information was not supported by any other sources, one is still left with the burning question: So freaking what? That might be of some help if we planned to go up Saturday morning and stay a few days. But since we planned to go up Saturday and come back Sunday afternoon, having the storm delayed a few hours isn't really of much help.
But it's all part of that Midwestern Machismo, which somehow sees shame in canceling plans for something a paltry as ice storms or blizzards. Indeed, there were those who argued for waiting until 4:00 or 5:00 this morning before making a decision. For crying out loud. How much advance warning do so people need? Better to disappoint the kids (and their parents!) than to knowingly risk life, limb, and lawsuit by heading into a storm that had been forecast well in advance.
Item 1: What is it with conservatives and global warming? Make that, "conservatives and the environment." I have never understood the insistence of so many right-wingers that anyone concerned about environmental concerns is just being an alarmist Chicken Little; that any evidence that shows we're wrecking the planet is perforce trumped-up "liberal" propaganda; that things can't possibly be as bad as "those liberals" say; or--my favorite--that it doesn't matter what we do to the earth since God has everything under control.
Wouldn't it make more sense for conservatives to be interested in, you know, conservation? Which brings me back around to the old, old question: Precisely what it is they're supposed to be conserving, anyway?
The above is sparked by yet another bonehead who, not content on being a bonehead for his friends and family, decides to prove his boneheadedness to others by sending a letter to the local rag, where other boneheads decide it should be printed. I can't lay hands on the letter at the moment--it was several days back, and if TLR archives these things it's not at all obvious and I am insufficiently motivated to spend any time looking--but the gist of it was, he's looking out his window and it's snowing, so how can anyone say there's global warming?
Golly, but it's hard to argue with "logic" like that.
Item 2: Having spent my entire life in the upper Midwest (where, despite global warming, it still occasionally snows), I have been in a position to observe what I have come to dub Midwestern Machismo. This mindset holds that to be concerned about winter weather is, in a nutshell, to be a pussy. No matter how dire the forecast--indeed, no matter how inclement the current conditions--those beset by Midwestern Machismo never conclude anything except "it doesn't sound so bad" or "it's not so bad" or "I've driven in way worse weather than this."
I got to observe a bit of this condition yesterday. The regional forecast for this weekend consists of nothing but rain turning to freezing rain turning to snow--six to eight to twelve inches across the area--with high winds to top it off. My son's drumline, Groove Inc., was to travel to Minneapolis-St. Paul for competitions today and Sunday. By noon yesterday, Weather Service bulletins were advising against travel in exactly the part of the world where we purported to travel. And yet there was some considerable resistance to canceling our plans. (I'm pleased to report that wiser heads prevailed--although I had decided that there was no way my family was going out into the teeth of the storm no matter what the group decided.)
Part of the "reasoning" seemed to be that, if we could cram everybody onto our bus (instead of bus and a caravan of private vehicles), all would be well...since everybody knows that motor coaches are immune to weather conditions.
Then there was the "not as bad as predicted" faction, those who innately know that whatever the National Weather Service and other meteorologists are reporting is by definition wrong...and that they know better by virtue of not being a meteorologist.
My favorite, though, was the friend who had spoken with a friend in Iowa who had been listening to a Twin Cities radio station that allegedly was reporting that the storm was going to hit several hours later than forecast. Okay. Setting aside for the moment that that information was not supported by any other sources, one is still left with the burning question: So freaking what? That might be of some help if we planned to go up Saturday morning and stay a few days. But since we planned to go up Saturday and come back Sunday afternoon, having the storm delayed a few hours isn't really of much help.
But it's all part of that Midwestern Machismo, which somehow sees shame in canceling plans for something a paltry as ice storms or blizzards. Indeed, there were those who argued for waiting until 4:00 or 5:00 this morning before making a decision. For crying out loud. How much advance warning do so people need? Better to disappoint the kids (and their parents!) than to knowingly risk life, limb, and lawsuit by heading into a storm that had been forecast well in advance.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Do Editors Read Headlines?
It is a question I often ask myself: Do editors read headlines? Or do they read the articles for which they are inventing headlines? (It appears to be an oddity of newspapers in particular that headlines are crafted by editors, not the writer of the piece. This, I believe, is how things like this, which actually occurred in my local paper a few years ago, happen: The headline is something like, "100s Sickened by Tainted Ice Cream" while the article begins, "Nearly 100 people became ill..."
Anyhow, here's this gem from ABC News: "Can Earth Dodge Asteroid Heading This Way?"
Um, it's only a guess, but I would have to answer no. I find the earth to be extraordinarily un-nimble when it comes to dodging things. It's pretty good at that rotation-and-revolution stuff, but that's all very predictable and, frankly, hidebound. I have no confidence whatsoever that the planet can move out of the way of an asteroid.
Later on, the article (which is here, by the way) tells us, "Scientists believe that if advance warnings of dangerous asteroids like Apophis can be made decades in advance, there will be enough time to try and knock them off course."
Setting aside the clumsiness of "advance warnings...decades in advance", one is left to wonder why scientists would believe that advance warning of dangerous asteroids will do any good. Were they not around when Hurricane Katrina struck? What makes them think that our political "leaders" will be any more prepared for a potentially bigger catastrophe?
Anyhow, here's this gem from ABC News: "Can Earth Dodge Asteroid Heading This Way?"
Um, it's only a guess, but I would have to answer no. I find the earth to be extraordinarily un-nimble when it comes to dodging things. It's pretty good at that rotation-and-revolution stuff, but that's all very predictable and, frankly, hidebound. I have no confidence whatsoever that the planet can move out of the way of an asteroid.
Later on, the article (which is here, by the way) tells us, "Scientists believe that if advance warnings of dangerous asteroids like Apophis can be made decades in advance, there will be enough time to try and knock them off course."
Setting aside the clumsiness of "advance warnings...decades in advance", one is left to wonder why scientists would believe that advance warning of dangerous asteroids will do any good. Were they not around when Hurricane Katrina struck? What makes them think that our political "leaders" will be any more prepared for a potentially bigger catastrophe?
Gotta Love 'Em!
As annoying as they are, I have to admit to a certain grudging admiration for spammers. For instance, now that I'm hip to a new (to me) technique of theirs, I find their ingenuity rather noteworthy. This technique involves sending e-mail that really, truly looks like a news item. The subject is always timely and, as far as I can tell, "real." I was first tooken in by what purported to be a report on the health of my state's senior senator, Tim Johnson. "Sen. Johnson's condition upgraded MORE ..." read the subject line; the sender purported to be "C. Mcgill - News Service", a monicker unfamiliar to me, but since it is a subject of interest to me...
Well, of course, it turned out to be yet another IPO come-on ("could be your big break!"), and since then not a day goes by that the inbox is not littered with similar "news" items. Annoying, yes, but ingenious!
(And lest you fear: I was not so gullible as to open a suspect message in my e-mail client: The item in question came to my workplace e-mail account, which is safeguarded by the truly remarkable Barracuda filter, and it was in the Barracuda window that I safely viewed the e-mail's spammy content.)
On the other hand, sometimes--lots of times--the spam mongers are just stupid. Or lazy. Or think their audience is (probably can't go wrong thinking that). F'rinstance, this morning I have no fewer than four items in my Yahoo! Mail "bulk mail" folder (out of 95) indicating a "4th Notice" that " You're a YAHOO winner!" Uh-huh. How can I have four "fourth notices" staring me in the face? And what happened to notices one through three?
As with so many things in life, why do it if you're not going to do it well? I mean, there you are in an internet cafe in Nigeria or someplace and you and your buddies are sending out spam to the big wide world out there--how come you're all using the same subject line? Does it not occur to you that your 500 pieces of spammery will all end up in my mailbox more or less at the same time, and that I might, just might be suspicious if I have 500 messages that all say "Urgent message for wjreynolds@yahoo.com"?
Come on--you guys aren't even trying. And if you don't care about your work, well, why should I?
Well, of course, it turned out to be yet another IPO come-on ("could be your big break!"), and since then not a day goes by that the inbox is not littered with similar "news" items. Annoying, yes, but ingenious!
(And lest you fear: I was not so gullible as to open a suspect message in my e-mail client: The item in question came to my workplace e-mail account, which is safeguarded by the truly remarkable Barracuda filter, and it was in the Barracuda window that I safely viewed the e-mail's spammy content.)
On the other hand, sometimes--lots of times--the spam mongers are just stupid. Or lazy. Or think their audience is (probably can't go wrong thinking that). F'rinstance, this morning I have no fewer than four items in my Yahoo! Mail "bulk mail" folder (out of 95) indicating a "4th Notice" that " You're a YAHOO winner!" Uh-huh. How can I have four "fourth notices" staring me in the face? And what happened to notices one through three?
As with so many things in life, why do it if you're not going to do it well? I mean, there you are in an internet cafe in Nigeria or someplace and you and your buddies are sending out spam to the big wide world out there--how come you're all using the same subject line? Does it not occur to you that your 500 pieces of spammery will all end up in my mailbox more or less at the same time, and that I might, just might be suspicious if I have 500 messages that all say "Urgent message for wjreynolds@yahoo.com"?
Come on--you guys aren't even trying. And if you don't care about your work, well, why should I?
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Again I Ask: What WOULD Jesus Do?
Here's a headline from this morning's New York Times online edition:
Yes, it's another one of those charming examples of religion in action in the world today: These self-proclaimed leaders of their church have philosophical disagreements with positions held by their American colleague, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church USA, so, as men of God, what do they do? Why, naturally, they "refused to take Communion here on Friday with the new head of the American Episcopal Church, to protest her support of gay clergy members and blessings for same-sex unions." Read the entire article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/world/africa/17anglicans.html
Well, naturally, this is in keeping with the example set by whom they purport to be a follower of, viz., Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus turned his back on everyone who did not think the same way he did. He certainly would not endorse comporting with those whom we perceive to be sinners--that's why he studiously avoided contact with the downtrodden and outcasts of society, and made sure to traffic only with yes-men and sycophants. (That's sarcasm, by the way.)
As the years go by, it becomes harder and harder to view religion as anything other than a great big speedbump on the road to Heaven, a colossal man-made obstacle designed to stand between Creator and creation. How can any institution that engenders so much rancor and violence and even death be seen as doing "God's work"? Quite the opposite, much of the time.
One hates to be so negative toward "organized religion" (an oxymoron if there ever was one)--and in brighter moments one does have to point to the good that religious institutions can do and occasionally have done in areas of education, health-care, poverty and disaster relief, and so on. When they are good they are very, very good...but the rest of the time--yikes!
Make no mistake: The culprit here is not God, of whom I maintain a very high opinion--Father, Son, and Spirit alike; no, the bad guy in this scenario is good ol' Homo sapiens, who seems incapable of developing any institution without a gilt-edged list of rules, regulations, doctrine, dogma, theology...and the insistence that everybody must subscribe. You have a question? A doubt? A different idea? Heretic! Blasphemer! Apostate! Out with you--if you're lucky we'll merely excommunicate you; if not, we'll stone you to death. (The Bible makes it clear we're allowed, nay, expected to do that.)
P.S.: Homo sapiens wrote the Bible, too. Make of that what you will.
Of course, ecclesiastic sleight-of-hand does a pretty good job of tricking the audience into thinking that religion is God--and more specifically, our religion is God--and therefore any criticism of the former is an attack on the latter. Which is nonsense.
There is a joke that tells of a rough-hewn sort who one Sunday attends services at a very upscale and well-heeled church. The man appears to be a laborer of some sort and, while he and his clothes are clean and neat, they definitely do no compare with the finery of the others in the congregations, who make no bones about their distaste for his style of dress. Indeed, afterward the pastor approaches him and suggests that he go home and pray to God, asking what God thinks would be the proper way to dress for a church such as this one.
The following Sunday the man is in his pew again, and dressed as before. Afterward the pastor comes up to the man. "I thought I encouraged you to go home and ask God how he thinks you should dress for this church," he says pointedly.
"I did," the man assures him. "And God said, 'Boy, I don't know--I've never been to that church!'"
"Church" is not God. "Religion" is not God. "Bible" is not God. To the extent that these human inventions bring us closer to God, they are good; to the extent that they stand between us and God--on the basis of doctrine, or theology, or tradition--they are evil.
Meanwhile, back in the ECUSA: Blessed are those who persist in trying to see the positive in things: "Liberal Episcopalians, on the other hand, were encouraged that the number of primates — the term for the leaders of Anglican provinces — who refused to take Communion at this meeting was only seven, about half the number who refused two years ago."
Anglican Prelates Snub Head of U.S. Church Over Gay Issues
Yes, it's another one of those charming examples of religion in action in the world today: These self-proclaimed leaders of their church have philosophical disagreements with positions held by their American colleague, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church USA, so, as men of God, what do they do? Why, naturally, they "refused to take Communion here on Friday with the new head of the American Episcopal Church, to protest her support of gay clergy members and blessings for same-sex unions." Read the entire article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/world/africa/17anglicans.html
Well, naturally, this is in keeping with the example set by whom they purport to be a follower of, viz., Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus turned his back on everyone who did not think the same way he did. He certainly would not endorse comporting with those whom we perceive to be sinners--that's why he studiously avoided contact with the downtrodden and outcasts of society, and made sure to traffic only with yes-men and sycophants. (That's sarcasm, by the way.)
As the years go by, it becomes harder and harder to view religion as anything other than a great big speedbump on the road to Heaven, a colossal man-made obstacle designed to stand between Creator and creation. How can any institution that engenders so much rancor and violence and even death be seen as doing "God's work"? Quite the opposite, much of the time.
One hates to be so negative toward "organized religion" (an oxymoron if there ever was one)--and in brighter moments one does have to point to the good that religious institutions can do and occasionally have done in areas of education, health-care, poverty and disaster relief, and so on. When they are good they are very, very good...but the rest of the time--yikes!
Make no mistake: The culprit here is not God, of whom I maintain a very high opinion--Father, Son, and Spirit alike; no, the bad guy in this scenario is good ol' Homo sapiens, who seems incapable of developing any institution without a gilt-edged list of rules, regulations, doctrine, dogma, theology...and the insistence that everybody must subscribe. You have a question? A doubt? A different idea? Heretic! Blasphemer! Apostate! Out with you--if you're lucky we'll merely excommunicate you; if not, we'll stone you to death. (The Bible makes it clear we're allowed, nay, expected to do that.)
P.S.: Homo sapiens wrote the Bible, too. Make of that what you will.
Of course, ecclesiastic sleight-of-hand does a pretty good job of tricking the audience into thinking that religion is God--and more specifically, our religion is God--and therefore any criticism of the former is an attack on the latter. Which is nonsense.
There is a joke that tells of a rough-hewn sort who one Sunday attends services at a very upscale and well-heeled church. The man appears to be a laborer of some sort and, while he and his clothes are clean and neat, they definitely do no compare with the finery of the others in the congregations, who make no bones about their distaste for his style of dress. Indeed, afterward the pastor approaches him and suggests that he go home and pray to God, asking what God thinks would be the proper way to dress for a church such as this one.
The following Sunday the man is in his pew again, and dressed as before. Afterward the pastor comes up to the man. "I thought I encouraged you to go home and ask God how he thinks you should dress for this church," he says pointedly.
"I did," the man assures him. "And God said, 'Boy, I don't know--I've never been to that church!'"
"Church" is not God. "Religion" is not God. "Bible" is not God. To the extent that these human inventions bring us closer to God, they are good; to the extent that they stand between us and God--on the basis of doctrine, or theology, or tradition--they are evil.
Meanwhile, back in the ECUSA: Blessed are those who persist in trying to see the positive in things: "Liberal Episcopalians, on the other hand, were encouraged that the number of primates — the term for the leaders of Anglican provinces — who refused to take Communion at this meeting was only seven, about half the number who refused two years ago."
Friday, February 16, 2007
Noise
Am I the only one to note a recent uptick in internet noise? By this I mean sites and ads within sites whose creators seem to think that I want to hear whatever junk they feel inclined to spew? This has long been a bane of home-made web pages (and, believe me, there is absolutely NO ONE who wants to hear your dirgelike midi of "Amazing Grace"), but of late I've noticed it in "professional" applications as well. To wit:
I was playing Text Twist at Yahoo! Games when I became aware of a kind of clicking sound that was not part of the game. Turns out there was a commercial for Cascade playing off to the right of the game panel, and the nice folks at Cascade thought I would like to hear the click and clack of a woman putting away dishes as she removed them from her dishwasher. Wrong!
I'm a member of MyPoints, which is usually a lot of fun--they send you e-mail offers, you click on the link and get a certain number of points for reading the message, a greater number for responding to the offer, etc.; and then you can redeem the points for, you know, stuff. Works like a charm. Except some big thinkers behind some of the offers have decided that it's not enough to show me their come-on--they think they should tell me all about it. Usually loudly.
Likewise, I occasionally take online surveys for fun and...well, okay, so far just for fun. Every so often I land on one that, unannounced, plays me an ad for my input. Or at least it starts to. If they haven't the courtesy to forewarn me, I immediately close them down.
Considering that I usually have music playing, this extraneous noise is really annoying. Do these advertisers really think that the nuisance click and clatter of someone putting away dinnerware while I'm trying to listen to music inclines me favorable toward their dishwasher detergent? If so, here's my advice to them: Think again!
I was playing Text Twist at Yahoo! Games when I became aware of a kind of clicking sound that was not part of the game. Turns out there was a commercial for Cascade playing off to the right of the game panel, and the nice folks at Cascade thought I would like to hear the click and clack of a woman putting away dishes as she removed them from her dishwasher. Wrong!
I'm a member of MyPoints, which is usually a lot of fun--they send you e-mail offers, you click on the link and get a certain number of points for reading the message, a greater number for responding to the offer, etc.; and then you can redeem the points for, you know, stuff. Works like a charm. Except some big thinkers behind some of the offers have decided that it's not enough to show me their come-on--they think they should tell me all about it. Usually loudly.
Likewise, I occasionally take online surveys for fun and...well, okay, so far just for fun. Every so often I land on one that, unannounced, plays me an ad for my input. Or at least it starts to. If they haven't the courtesy to forewarn me, I immediately close them down.
Considering that I usually have music playing, this extraneous noise is really annoying. Do these advertisers really think that the nuisance click and clatter of someone putting away dinnerware while I'm trying to listen to music inclines me favorable toward their dishwasher detergent? If so, here's my advice to them: Think again!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)