No Way Will the Movie Measure Up-

to the cartoon "Avatar: The Last Airbender."

This music video-- fan-made-- shows some of the characterdevelopment of a major villain.  (Fits Zuko's story pretty well, too; father issues, refusal to live a lie, attitude, and "I bring the FIRE!")

I just know they're going to use slow-mo to death, and I wouldn't be shocked if they messed up Uncle Iroh.  (Sean Connery, if he's able to not take himself seriously, might be able to pull it off...)

The cast is kinda screwy; the only one of the folks I care about that I can "see" managing the role they've been cast in is Sokka, so far.  Looks can be overcome if they end up with the right... oh, I don't know how to put it, aura, projection, attitude... but my faith in modern acting is rather lacking.

Oh, and Zuko is supposed to have a top-knot for a very long time-- instead, he has Twilight hair. -.-

I don't have much faith in folks who would mess up that.  (It is actually important, symbolically.)

They really should have gone with some form of CGI instead.

Pepe Lobo?

Name is full of win and awesome.

(Wonder what kind of a rancher he is....)

Semantics

I can't stand it when folks say "you're just playing semantics" when what they mean is "I do not agree with what you're saying," or "I otherwise disagree with your statement, but am not going to actually offer an argument."

"Playing semantics" means talking about what the words actually mean.

English is wonderful for its shades of meaning-- "kill" vs "murder" vs "execute" vs "assassinate."  We may not have as many words for love as ancient Greek, but we can modify the word by adding qualifiers-- "family love," "romantic love," "moral love," "to love like a friend," plus love as in "to like very, very much."
  You remember that annoying thing from second grade, where every time anyone used the word "love," some moron would "wittily" say "then why don't you marry it"?

Generally, when someone complains that their opponent is playing with semantics, they themselves are busy commiting the logical fallacy of equivocation at best and are flatly wrong in their statements at worse.  Sometimes they're fully aware of the weaknessess, and will be all the more vicious for that fact.  (It's just human nature to be upset when your opponent is technically correct, but what they say either sounds bad to you or, while being technically correct, violates an implication you hold but can't support.  For a silly example, try calling someone's prize female dog as a "bitch."  For a less silly example, look at the abortion debate and watch as folks try to define a fetus as not being an organism, or not being alive, or not being human.)

This story over at American Thinker has a great quote from Confucius, when asked what he'd do if he were in charge:

It would certainly be to correct language. If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant. If what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone. If this remains undone, then morals and acts deteriorate. If morals and acts deteriorate, justice will go astray. If justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence, there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.

 Sounds very true to me.

Rom's Case, New Musings and a Contrast

Taken nearly whole-sale from my comments here.

Another reader, Kcom, drew attention to the other Big Story of this week-- the AGW fraud coming out.

Oddly enough, (8^D) I had previously wondered at the difference in my response to the two stories-- after all, they were both "scientists say something that pisses some people off, and may demand changes being morally needed."  Was the difference because I wanted to believe one and not the other?  Clearly, the demands of the climate guys would touch my life more than "people diagnosed as 'human vegetables' aren't always."

I think it's instructive to notice the difference between the two cases; the AGW fraud folks make their entire living off of showing that humans are killing us all, and they stand to gain power from their findings being put forth, do not act as though their claims are true (Stop using so much fossil fuels or the world will end! But I'm flying to the AGW conference. In a private jet.) and they release conclusions very quickly to the popular media while trying to control the scientific media to prevent any disagreement.

The folks involved with Rom's case make their living otherwise (although it does seem to be Dr. Laureys' pet theory that those diagnosed with PVS often aren't), stand to gain mostly personal attacks because their theories make "useless eaters" that can be easily dehumanized much harder to dehumanize, act as though they believe their results (My scans show brain activity in the normal range! Get this man to therapy!) and the story didn't show up in the popular media for three years-- after putting out a paper on the topic.

This new article (evil AP!  Warning!) makes me more confident in Dr. Laureys' group, since 1) he's acting like the guy is a patient instead of a project ( "How would you like me discussing your IQ on the Internet?") and because their response to attacks on the facilitated communication is to point out that they're working on a study to validate it (this could be bad, unless they've already got all the information and are just writing it up, but I'm willing to offer the benefit of the doubt since they've shown a willingness to test themselves before) and are aware it's controversial.

Oh, and this line is epic:
He refused to discuss it in the media, saying he will follow the classical route of scientific peer reviews and publication in specialized journals before making it public to the world at large.

Of course, there's the other point that I'm biased away from making dire changes in any situation-- not sure the guy is dead?  Not "as good as dead," or "has a life not worth living," or "is way more useful if we kill him to save twenty other people who will be able to pay us." Assume they are alive and treat them morally. Don't kill them for ease, emotion or spare parts.

Not sure that there's even long-term warming going on, let alone exactly what is causing it? Then don't force huge, expensive, totalitarian changes that will only work if one of many theories is right, and at best will just slow down disaster while removing our ability to adapt.

Presumption in favor of life and basic rights, basically. Probably related to my not trusting folks with more power than utterly needful.  Which would be why I like republic-flavored gov'ts over democracies.... (Two wolves and  a sheep, y'know?)

Twenty Three Years Ago-

what were you up to?

1986.

The Wall was still up, Reagan was in office, William H. Rehnquist became Chief Justice, Challenger exploded, Chernobyl blew its top, Matlock was on TV, Aliens was in theaters, Nintendo was new and I was tiny, and adorable enough to get away with calling an uncle a jack-ass. (Well, he was.)

Also, a guy was in a car crash.

Not so odd-- a little, in that he didn't recover or die; the doctors said he was in a coma.

He knows.  He heard them.

Again and again, he was diagnosed as being in a coma, or "persistent vegetative state."

Science marched on, making it easier and easier to do a more in-depth check of "human vegetables," but no-one bothered to check Rom, until three years ago, when Dr. Steven Laureys (an activist doctor-- of the "saving those who are misdiagnosed" type) did a brain scan (his big thing) and found that Rom was basically normal.  The story is coming out now because Rom is able to give interviews via typing out responses.  Seems less than sympathetic to the "kill the lock-ins" theory of dealing with misdiagnosed PVS.

You know, I'd say something like "maybe this will prevent murders, like Mrs. Schiavo!"-- but I doubt it. 

The same people will be calling for the slow murder by dehydration of those who can't ask them to stop-- and sometimes, those who can.

This is nothing new-- people "recover" from being a "vegetable" with worrying frequency, and it hasn't changed any minds before now.  Kind of like those folks who survive abortion.  The lines are drawn, and no minds will change.

Oh, side note?  The reason that I have quotes around the term "vegetable" above is because it's one hell of an attempt to dehumanize a person.  You think calling someone the various animal-based insults is bad, at least a pig has more moral protection than a zucchini.

Global Warming, Over Population

Amazing how the solutions are always the same-- "control! Get rid of them!

Coyote Blog has a neat article linked on the flaw(s) in such thought.

Fumbling Around A Global Warming Post-

I'm going to probably come back and edit this, and add to it, and re-form it, etc-- I just want to get it down as a sort of collector of things I've been reading, lest I space it. (Updates at the bottom) Blame B-Daddy's bait over here-- if he'd just act as utterly irrational and childish as most AGCC (anthropogenic global climate change) believers, I'd be able to just shrug him off. Curse the man! ;^p This is going to be rather poorly formatted, I fear. On CO2 causing the green house effect:

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

On the sun causing global temps:

NASA finally mentions the Maunder Minimum in its discussion of the current prolonged solar minimum, but it STILL does not mention that the Maunder Minimum coincided with the onset of the Little Ice Age, or that the Dalton Minimum in the early 1800’s was also cold, as was the unnamed fin-de-the-1800’s minimum.

On the oddly unscientific actions of AGCC supporters:

I was involved in climate studies seriously about 30 years ago [and]… got a very strong feeling for how uncertain the whole business is, that the five reservoirs of carbon all are in close contact — the atmosphere, the upper level of the ocean, the land vegetation, the topsoil, and the fossil fuels. They are all about equal in size. They all interact with each other strongly. So you can’t understand any of them unless you understand all of them. Essentially that was the conclusion. It’s a problem of very complicated ecology, and to isolate the atmosphere and the ocean just as a hydrodynamics problem makes no sense…

A PDF here:

A Skeptical Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming By Warren Meyer www.CoyoteBlog.com Coyote@CoyoteBlog.com Version 1.01, Dated 7/3/2007

Ignoring studies like this, instead of refuting them:

More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction.

And a wonder from my own head: B-Daddy accepts that, in the past, CO2 followed warming; if, today, he claims that CO2 is causing warming, and presumably had the same effect in the past, how come it didn't run away all the prior times? Why did CO2 go up, lagging the warming, and then the warming stopped? Yeash, some nuts will hook on to anything, won't they?

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers? What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who don't want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand it's a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth. So when the right wing f*cktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn't we start punishing them now?

K... I had to add this one, just to go with the one above:

Green consultant Dan Cass asks: Have you ever wondered why it is that nobody is going to jail for causing climate change? Probably because changing the climate, besides being relatively difficult to both accomplish and prove, isn’t actually a crime. Yet Cass sees a precedent: The best known precedent of international legal action are the war crimes trials held after World War Two, in Nuremberg and Tokyo.

Laura at Pursuing Holiness on the clean up of known-bad information sources, a look at why there is borderline hysteria, and a prediction for the future:

I’m not suggesting that the “quiet cleanup” is quiet due to anything more than simple embarrassment. But the result of it is that it will help pave the way for the next big global cooling scare. As the recorded temperatures drop back to normal levels, there will be media reports of the sudden sharp drop in temperature, and it will finally be widely publicized that warming stopped some time ago. The media will publish breathless reports. Demands for explanations will be made and taxpayer money for studies will be provided. This is easily predictable as it’s happened four times before just in the last century. Articles fretting about global cooling started in earnest a couple of a years ago and the pace is picking up. Newsbusters linked today to an article suggesting we may have a year without summer; an interesting flashback to when I was a kid and an adult warned me to enjoy my summer vacation, because we wouldn’t have that kind of warm weather when I grew up. The writer of Ecclesiastes did warn that there’s nothing new under the sun.

The Moral Case FOR Global Warming

As I have noted before, e.g., here and here, environmental cooling, whether on long or short timescales (and no matter what the cause), is associated with significantly increased morbidity and mortality compared with periods of higher temperatures. Add starvation to the list of mechanisms behind that inescapable fact.

Meet Ian Plimer:

He's an Australian geologist, and the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick: The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology,’ says Plimer, and while his thesis is not new, you’re unlikely to have heard it expressed with quite such vigour, certitude or wide-ranging scientific authority. Where fellow sceptics like Bjorn Lomborg or Lord Lawson of Blaby are prepared cautiously to endorse the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) more modest predictions, Plimer will cede no ground whatsoever. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, he argues, is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history. ... So go on then, Prof. What makes you sure that you’re right and all those scientists out there saying the opposite are wrong? ‘I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.’ What Heaven And Earth sets out to do is restore a sense of scientific perspective to a debate which has been hijacked by ‘politicians, environmental activists and opportunists’. It points out, for example, that polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty. All this is scientific fact — which is more than you can say for any of the computer models turning out doomsday scenarios about inexorably rising temperatures, sinking islands and collapsing ice shelves. Plimer doesn’t trust them because they seem to have little if any basis in observed reality. ‘I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.’ The article is a fascinating read, the story behind the publishing of the book is no less than amazing on its own. It made me sit up a little straighter, it made my fingers twitch, the activist in me was re-activated and I once again wanted to do something to stop this stupidity. And that's just from reading the article. I'd probably go nuts if I read the book.

Go read the rest, as usual. I especially like his response to folks who accuse him of ruining their childrens' future....

November:
A hacker has released e-mails showning that, at the very least, "Climate Change" advocates/scientists in GB don't think their evidence is strong enough, judging from their consperacy to cover up information (in violation of their FOIA) and having to use "Tricks" even on their hand-picked information.

Wow, Some Folks Are *Proud* of Being Petty

and what ignorant things to be petty about!

Ms. Dowd thinks that "bass-ackwards" was coined by Mrs. Palin-- exibit # umpty-squat that the woman isn't too familiar with -- and some other guy thinks you can't live an American life in Alaska.  (Based off of a quote of a guy who apparently does those "I am writing about my traveling" travel books.)

Y'know, the folks who use bass ackwards and other amusing spoonerisms-- but who, by and large, don't wonder if men are necessary, nor brag about having been loved and left-- would probably look at Mrs. Palin, note that she's got a boy in the military, see her husband is a hard-working guy, remember that she hunts and is able to look at wolves and see a large predator with all the needs that involves, rather than A Proud, Wonderful, Mystical Creature that looks really cool in a painting on your wall.

All and all, I think I'd consider Mrs. Palin a lot more qualified to decide if Mr. Dunn has lived an American life than the other way around.

This means everyone and anyone

(but usually Republicans) and including bewildered, innocent bystanders without anything even remotely approaching a hint of race-hatred or misogyny can be accused of racism and sexism.
The only way to avoid the accusation is to practice tokenism, and to get the statistically correct mix of sexes and races in every workplace, circle of friends, social club, and publication. Of course, tokenism is also a form of racism, since it selects according to race, so that anyone seeking to avoid the accusation has to practice tokenism without letting it be known that he is. The stance is therefore innately and inherently false and hypocritical: it consists of paying close attention to race and sex rather than merit while maintaining the pretense that no one is paying attention to race and sex.
 
(A new and toxic variation of the argument has recently arisen claiming that NOT paying attention to race and sex is actually a manifestation of a subtle and psychological (and hence invisible and undetectable) desire to exclude and marginalize others based on their race, in order to maintain the current power structure of the evil world-system. By this new argument, anyone who is not a racist on the grounds that he ignores race and judges men on the content of their character is actually a racist after all.)

Go, read, please.

Elf Says

"Epic. Pure epic."

NAACP & La Raza Rip Obama Over Historic Job Losses

Frankly, I can't phrase it better... only thing that would be more amazing is if you work in ACORN in an antagonistic form somewhere.

Side note: Lady Gaga's "Poker Face" is both an insane earworm, and the video reminds me of some of Michael Jackson's more odd works. 0.o

Philosophy!

Really wish we'd touched on this in school... it's a neat system of thought.

It is well-known that for Aristotle, finality was a fact of nature. That is, nature worked "always or for the most part" to an end. Physicists call that "minimizing the potential function" and speak of strange attractors and attractor basins and suchlike aetherial beings. The thing to remember is that without final causes, efficient causes make no sense. Why would A->B "always or for the most part" if there was nothing in A directing it toward B? Why would A not produce C or D or M or no effect? Hume "solved" the problem raised by rejecting final causes by rejecting efficient causation with it. Everything is correlation, not causation. This was much in the way that Alexander the Great "untied" the Gordian Knot.

Oh, and the science he mentions is pretty cool, too.

Who Do You Think You Are?

There's a trend emerging in American politics. I don't think it's a new one, but it's growth is disturbing to me. And it's the amazing hostility to the common people.

With the explosion of the internet, Andy Warhol's "15 minutes" theory seems to have developed a variant: under the right circumstances, anyone can become a superstar overnight, over the most trivial of reasons -- and fall just as quickly. Even in politics.

But in politics, there is a growing trend to take that nobody, that average person, and treat them just like we do hardened political professionals -- and attempt to destroy them in the process.

Is good. Go read the rest.

via CDE.

Obvious observation:
Blogs.  Legacy media.  Nuff said.

So...

Video here.
The black pleather => DC villain; blue X suit is Marvel hero?

I think most of the outfits the White Queen has worn at one time or another.....

Treating People As Represenatives

rather than individuals.

Over the last few days, working with over a half-dozen very reliable sources, the following story started to flesh itself out.

The day before their appearance, the two MIDN were notified that USNA senior leadership did not like the fact that the Color Guard was not diverse enough. As a result, they were to be removed and replaced with someone with a higher melanin content in their skin, and a female. Boom - there you go.

The good commander follows up on Monday, November 9, with even more damning evidence, including evidence as to why the media won't follow up. (Can't get the permalink to work for the second story, you have to scroll down to "The Mask Slips at Annapolis.")

The tragedy is that the Hasan case didn't have to be viewed through such PC lenses. The man stated that he didn't believe his oath of office, a simple interview asking him about his beliefs followed by a discharge for the good of the service would have sufficed to save lives.

Please go read the rest at B-Daddy's.
At risk of reaching dead horse status, I don't like it.

Little Kit

With Grandma.

No posting

for a while, in hospital.

Kit is a girl.

Compare and Contrast

Here we have Dana Pico trying very, very hard to be fair to Obama; here we have Cassandra evicerating the won.

I happen to much more agree with Cassandra, but that's not the point: the point is the responses to Dana's piece.

On a only mildly related note:
 news says that "focusing on the shooter's religion might make the backlash against Muslims worse."

Betcha there's more folks hurt or dead from honor killings than from this "anti-Muslim backlash."

W. Is Still The Man

Former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura secretly visited Fort Hood last night and spent "considerable time" consoling those who were wounded in Thursday's shooting spree, Fox News has learned.

The Bushes entered and departed the sprawling military facility in secret, having told the base commander they did not want press coverage of their visit, a source told Fox News.

God bless 'em.

H/t doubleplusundead.

Ft. Hood Shooter Was Involved In Homeland Security Policy Institute Task Force

Original link here at Gawker, I found out via Gateway Pundit. (at their shiny new digs; sad that one of the first big new posts there is on a pregnant soldier, just back from Iraq, being murdered)

Listed as a "Participant"-- which apparently is everyone who RSVP'ed before printing-- this may not be as creepy as it sounds; it's a pretty normal military thing to try to make sure that... well, for lack of a better way to put it, it's pretty normal to make sure that if you've got someone who would make a good token rep for an event, you send them.

K, gonna digress:
 If you send five people out of, say, fifty in your department, and you've three women, it's almost 100% assured that the women will go more than the rest of the guys.  If race is involved in the thing you're providing bodies for and you've got only one black guy, he'll almost always end up being sent.  Why?  Because if you don't, sometimes you'll end up sending five 20-something, brownish-haired guys, and you'll get chewed out for not showing enough "diversity."  Really funny if those guys consist of an immigrant from Poland, a guy whose ancestors were mostly from the PI, a guy who doesn't know what countries his ancestors were from, a guy who's dad is from India and a German/American Indian guy..."diverse" is so picky about what type of look-based diversity counts, even if the look-diversity usually results in three middle-class lapsed protestants from Cali going to 90% of the events.  All examples from folks I actually knew who didn't look "ethnic" enough to be token.

Back on topic:
 It's not beyond reason that, if Hasan made big noises about how Islamic he was, he'd be first in someone's mind as a good token name to send in for an event like this-- there's a good chance that if he asked a question, it'd be a PC one, and he's got a good chance of asking a really good question to boot, and it gets the "Uniformed Services University School of Medicine" listed with a name that clearly says "this isn't about attacking Arabs."  Sorry if this pisses folks off, but it is kind of important to consider presentation like this.

  All assuming that Hasan didn't go on his own initiative, although the listing of the school under his name makes that unlikely.

There's Nothing I Can Add

at this time, about Ft. Hood.

Jimmy points out the impropriety of Obama's initial reaction, while Neo tries to put her finger on what was so creepy.

The expected groups are claiming Islam had nothing to do with it, while simultaneously claiming that the bastard was harassed for being a Muslim.  (Er... choosing to give a lecture on your religion, in a professional setting, and advocating murder of unbelievers will make folks have an...unpleasant reaction to you.  That isn't harassment, that's you being a moron.)

Hopefully, heads will roll against whatever PC morons decided that ignoring the mounting warning signs that this guy was Trouble--not that it will manage to get the folks above them, that cause that kind of climate.
  (Back on the ship, we had a shop supervisor who had been accused of racism so many times he kept a pile of responses, xeroxed, in his desk.  Had nothing to do with him, had to do with his shop being the dumping ground for deck guys who thought they could get out of work by breaking things.  He had a crud-ton of trouble every time we had any change in our chain of command, because each and every new guy would try to make a name for himself...)

It's infuriating that over a dozen people are dead because the common sense notion "when we are fighting nutcases who take the Koran's orders to kill non-believers seriously, we should make sure there aren't nutcases who show sympathy to killing non-believers in our fighting force" did not reflect reality.

UPDATE:
Just had a random thought; all the sympathy folks are pointing out Ft. Hood has had a lot of suicides this year.
Wonder if any of them went through the bastard's office.

Something Good

Dead Baby Wasn't.

Short form:
Tiny baby (Just over a pound!) is born in critical condition; after an hour trying to revive him after they lose vital signs, the hospital gives up.

Baby is put in a casket and sent home.

The baby's father opens the casket to say goodbye to his son...and sees that the baby is breathing.  Crying, he rushes his son back to the hospital and gets him into an oxygen tent.

For an idea on the size of the baby, when I went in for my ultrasound they calculated that Kiddo was 22.4 weeks along, and weighed 1lb 4 oz (566g) with all growth-perimeters inside of normal.

Found the story trying to find reference to something I heard a few years back, that a baby's heart will synchronize with his mothers and his biological father's so I could share it with the folks here.  (speaking of cool stories, although you probably already heard about the "babies cry with an accent" thing)

"Stridency-Prone"?

Oh, you mean the way that we tell you when you're full of it, if you ask?

The military as a far-right group...um... yeah... Right.  Only in so far as it's about 90% merit-based-- that would be "equality of opportunity, not of result," and sadly does seem to have become a conservative thing-- and that folks who are willing to risk getting killed for the US tend to at least appreciate the USA.

I'm eagerly awaiting announcements of a Federally funded round-table on "News Media as Far-Left Fearmongers" or some such.  Not holding my breath, though.....

Phoenix Honor Killing Update

The girl is dead.  She was twenty.  And lovely.

The other lady who was hit is apparently the girl's boyfriend's mother, and is expected to be just fine.

The unspeakable murderer apparently had lots and lots of help in trying to evade capture after running down his daughter-- hope they all get hit with a nice, big consperacy to commit murder charge, as well as aiding and abetting and conspiracy to prevent capture, and I think a good lawyer could come up with more....

BZ to the Brits for catching the dog and sending him back.

"Defend the Safety and Confidentiality of Our Clients and Staff"

Rochelle Tafolla, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson issued the following statement: "We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary.

Wondering what happened?

Did someone break in to a records location?  Was a file stolen?  Did someone show up drunk, waving a gun?

Well.... No....

Their former manager was told that she needed to pull focus off of family planning, and go for drumming up more abortion business; she then saw a video of an ultrasound of an abortion in progress.

The lady resigned and is now praying with other pro-life demonstrators across from the PP office, and has been talking with the Coalition For Life.

So PP filed a restraining order against the lady and CFL:

The temporary restraining order contends that Planned Parenthood would be irreparably harmed by the disclosure of certain information, but does not bar Johnson or Coalition For Life volunteers from the premises.

As of Sunday evening, neither Johnson nor Carney had seen the complaint filed against them that prompted the restraining order.

I'd say that, yeah, your director of the last two years who has been big in your organization for the last eight resigning and announcing that you're trying to get folks to have abortions for the cash, then joining up with the pro-life group down the block, is  pretty harmful.

 Just not in a "safety" type way.

Oh, This Couldn't Be Abused

Organizing For America’s nationally-orchestrated, last-ditch, get-out-the-vote campaign in NY-23 is a privacy-invading and potentially dangerous effort.

NY-23 residents should be aware that because of a pervasive lack of controls in OFA’s get-out-the-vote operations and a poorly designed campaign:

The person calling them could be a potential spammer, thief, or even a violent criminal.
That person will be asking for personal information that no one should be willing to give out, including but perhaps not limited to personal e-mail addresses, cell phone numbers, and the time of day voters plan to vote.
OFA may be unable to track down persons who call on its behalf if unauthorized, illegal, or criminal acts occur as a result of information learned during this campaign.

h/t Confederate Yankee

Coyote Attack Update

Apparently, getting more common that is comfortable.

I haven't searched around for any extra info, and I'm headed out the door to buy cheap candy ASAP, so this'll be kinda bare-bones.

Woman and her lab, by three coyotes, in Denver.

Lone coyote attacks man in his back yard, trying to trap skunks.  Coyote is mentioned to not look well-fed and healthy.

At least two attacks in Griffith Park, in LA-- the guy in the story woke up to a coyote chewing on his foot.

Here's a quick google news of the last 6 years, with a very quick attempt to remove the poor musician and the college team called the "Coyotes."

(Prior post here)

Woman Dies After Coyote Attack

Wow, I've never even heard of non-rabid coyotes going for a decent sized kid, let alone a full grown woman.

And two of them attacking a woman, to the point of death?  I grew up around a large number of coyotes, because they are such a low threat to newborn calves that cows will allow them to clean up the afterbirth not twenty feet from the calf.  For comparison, they will not do this with any dogs, or even hawks and eagles.

I want a DNA test-- not that they'd ever actually do it, or release accurate information if they did-- 'cus I suspect they weren't pure coyote, if they were acting like that.  (The article mentions that such attacks are not uncommon in the park.  WTF?!?!?)

Red wolves are known to be wolf/coyote crosses; perhaps... *googles*

Oy. These coyotes are definedas wolf/coyote crosses.

The eastern coyote is descended from western coyotes which expanded their range northeastward as humans wiped out the native wolf populations. On the way, they interbred with wolves in northern Ontario and Québec. This means the animals in eastern Canada are actually a coyote-wolf mix, combining the wolf's hunting prowess with the coyote's adaptability to human activities. The eastern coyote is somewhat larger than its western ancestors because of its wolf blood.

The eastern coyote migrated to Nova Scotia in the late 1970s and had arrived in Cape Breton Highlands National Park by 1981. It may be competition for red foxes, bobcats and lynx which depend on snowshoe hares and rodents for food, like the coyote. Although it is a fairly large carnivore and sometimes hunts in packs, it has not filled the shoes of the wolf as the natural predator of moose, except in the spring when they sometimes take calves.

So it's not a coyote attack, it's an f*ing WOLF ATTACK.

*headdesk*

h/t five feet of fury

Probably Won't Comfort The Protestants-

But no small number of "pagan" customs are Catholic, thankyouverymuch.

Aliens in This World has a very nice article/post on one example where this happened.

(She has two other posts, related to Easter, and I found this old musing from Shea on converting symbols.)

Catholic Church Condems Halloween

-- in a pig's eye.

Yes, the Times of London put out an article titled "Hallowe’en is the devil’s work, Catholic church warns parents."

It's standard issue "did not do their homework" article-- they found quotes from two Catholics, a priest and a Bishop, complaining about how Halloween is celebrated in Spain.  (Anyone here got a clue how they celebrate All Hallow's Eve in Spain?  There's some mention of dancing around pumpkins, but that's about it....)

They then quote Fr. Amorath-- using the common and untrue claim that he's the "chief exorcist" at the Vatican (There is no "chief exorcist" position at the Vatican. Fr. Amorth is a priest of the Diocese of Rome who happens to be one of a number of exorcists there. He is the most well-known and prominent of them, but this does not give him the position of "chief exorcist of the Vatican.")-- saying something sensible about it not being a major risk, and then quote some generic Christian group in GB that objects to trick or treating on safety grounds. (I think this is them.)

Oh, their source is L’Osservatore Romano-- which is as much the "official newspaper" of Rome (let alone the Vatican, or the Pope, or the Catholic Church) as Fr. Amorath is the chief exorcist of those same groups.

But, hey, gee, that paper doesn't archive their stuff online.  So you can pull a chunk of quote out and presto!, instant validation!

I gotta say, I can see where this:

“Hallowe’en has an undercurrent of occultism and is absolutely anti-Christian.” Parents should “be aware of this and try to direct the meaning of the feast towards wholesomeness and beauty rather than terror, fear and death”, he said.

-could be entirely justified, especially given that, well, have you googled "Samhain" recently? Or even just listened to the hissy-fits from various Wiccan/Neopagan/whatever groups that, frankly, sound a whole lot like the standard "Halloween is horrible" sound-bites from Evangelical groups, or "commercialized Halloween has been stolen!" quotes that sound almost exactly like folks complaining about a borrowed feast-day?  (See also: St. Patrick's day, which I've actually had folks tell me has nothing to do with the Catholics. ^.^)

Given the...quality... of the research these papers managed on a modern, organized religion that actually has binding teachings that can be easily researched, I sure would take their history lesson at the end with a bit of salt.

Nicely Said!

To make things even easier, this faculty would be not only always on call and not only ready to hand, it would operate to lure men toward it even if they were unaware of it. It would be instinctive as well as instructive, and it would appear in all nations and all periods of history. Well, while there may be other explanations, we can at the very least say that if there were such a faculty or god-seeking instinct in man, then religion of some sort would be universal in all human cultures, including the prehistoric ones.

On the other hand, if religion is an abortive science, it would appear only in unscientific cultures; if religion is a brain disease, it would appear in families and tribes that carry the disease gene; if religion is a product of priest craft or civic control, it would appear only in civil polities and not in primitive tribes, and so on. We can dismiss at least some other possible models for the origin of religion based on their lack of universalism.

Mr. Wright, of course. Feel free to go read the rest!

I'm pleased to say I had a tiny little role in this-- the person he's replying to dislikes Christianity, apparently, and edited part of a prior 'comment on a link' Mr. Wright posted then scolded him for trying to argue folks should live by Mr. Wright's "subjective beliefs."

Being the smart-arse that I am, I pointed out that the well-named fellow was not only trying to tell someone else how to live, based on his own "subjective beliefs," but felt free to edit someone else's statement to conform to his "subjective beliefs." He kinda nose-dived from there. (Picture saying "boo" to a Chihuhua, and five minutes later it's still barking. Kinda like that.)

Motivator

http://thewarriorsong.com/Video.html

Five types of awesome.



h/t LMA and VC.

Something To Think On

  This is a piece quoted in an article about Late Night with Dave Letterman, but it could be put in to thousands of different areas with total accuracy:

Did Dave hit on me? No. Did he pay me enough extra attention that it was noted by another writer? Yes. Was I aware of rumors that Dave was having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Was I aware that other high-level male employees were having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Did these female staffers have access to information and wield power disproportionate to their job titles? Yes. Did that create a hostile work environment? Yes. Did I believe these female staffers were benefiting professionally from their personal relationships? Yes. Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely. Did I say anything at the time? Sadly, no.

This is why I'm still not so very big on women in the military.  Yes, a female vet is saying she has reservations about the way women are currently integrated.

In that, I am holding the military to a higher standard than I do civilian jobs; the first place I worked, I was about the only female that wasn't sleeping with the owner that worked there for more than a month, and males tended to quit with surprising regularity.  Honestly, I didn't even notice it until very shortly before I quit. Yes, I'm kinda slow on the whole interpersonal reaction thing.  It did make a lot of the very odd conversations suddenly make sense, though.  (I just figured he was strange.)

Off the top of my head, I can think of more examples of women who used their sex and sexuality to get ahead in the (military) workplace than I can think of women who didn't.  That is both sad and really frustrating-- I understand why folks would sometimes have to be careful to make sure I actually could do all the stuff my record said I could and had, because most of the women around me couldn't.  (The stories I could tell....)

I don't like to make waves, so I never reported anything, when the cluebat finally hit me and I noticed "women sleeping with supervisor gets perks"-- on the basis that it didn't create a life-and-limb hazard.  I just worked to prove myself and do my job to the best of my ability, since that's about all I can control and it's my bloody job.  I can't really say I know how guys feel about the situation, I just know it must suck to have to double-check to see if a woman is competent because, by the odds, she's probably not...picking up the slack is something all the competent folks had to do.
(On the upside, those of us who didn't play games tended to bond really dang fast once we were clear.)

I do know that making things against the rules doesn't really do much to stop it, unless action is taken when the rules are broken.  Our (married) protestant chaplain was sleeping in the XO's room most every night, and nothing came of it under two different captains; the guys in supply spoke almost exclusively in Tagalog unless they were giving you instructions (military requires folks speak English when on duty) and I know at least six different folks put complaints in the CO's box, plus the more normal routes to report violations, and nothing ever came of it.

I'm sure anyone who's been in can think of a bunch of examples of times where the rules were ignored-- for reasons both good and bad, with results both good and bad.
 (I know our supply worked some wonders because so and so was related/drinking buddies with/whatever to that guy on another ship, which had a spare of something that we needed yesterday... True, the problem usually existed because of folks doing favors or just being flat incompetent, but not much you can do when they're brass.)

  There isn't any simple, magical fix for this in the military, much less in civie life.

Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crud.

On the upside, I can think of several businesses where the top hand was sleeping with the boss!  On the down side, they were family-run ranches, and the top hand was the guy's wife.... ;^p

I don't agree with the woman's "dream," incidentally-- men and women do tend to be different, and I don't see destruction of the self-censoring impulse to be something to strive for, let alone to impose.  It's wonderful when a group of people know they can pull out the restraints, but it's more of a social/friendship thing than a "good work environment" thing in my book.  I can see that some work situations must blur the line between social and work environments if they're going to be successful.  (Please, take a moment to savor the irony that part of the lady's barrier to her dream of a totally integrated writer's room is the fact that folks know they can be fired for saying, doing or having something that offends a woman, or that someone decides "might be offensive."  To prevent a hostile work environment and sexual harassment, y'see....)

Fun With StatCounter

It's always amusing to see someone come to your blog via your profile link, then enter a string of blogger searches that lets you have a pretty dang good idea where they came from.

It's even more fun when they clearly didn't find any of the ammunition they were looking for in their straw-man notion of what you believe.

Lets you know that your arguments are strong enough that someone has to go muck-raking-- and then they couldn't find suitable muck!

Soldier's Angels/Valor IT

I, naturally, support Team Navy.

But I'd much rather some cash go to these guys under any flag.

I Do Thank You Notes

to an extent unusual for my generation.  (Come to think of it, that would be "at all....")

I'm a bit slow, but I do get them out, in my best hen-scratch, and they are not form-letters.

That said, I am in utter awe at this:
Japanese bank thieves wrote thank-you note to bank.

CLD, you totally put the cherry on a good day.

Strangled In A Protective Wrapping-

in geek terms.

Very much worth a read.

*headdesk*

As is understood by cops on the street (but not, apparently, by some of their bosses), maintaining a level of secrecy is crucial in mounting an operation such as this one, and officers often go to extraordinary lengths to conceal their preparations from anyone who might tip off the intended targets. For a recent gang sweep near downtown Los Angeles, for example, the command post was set up in the Dodger Stadium parking lot, well away from the neighborhoods where the warrants were served. So it came as something of a surprise to officers assigned to the operation Thursday morning to find that the command post had been set up in a parking lot at the corner of two of the busiest thoroughfares in South Los Angeles, Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Figueroa Street. Worse, this intersection marks the northeast boundary of the area claimed by the very gang the operation was targeting. Assembled there for all the world to see was an array of command post vehicles from the LAPD and the FBI, added to which throughout the night were hundreds of marked and unmarked police cars as well as SWAT trucks and armored cars. Any fool could have driven by and known at a glance that something big was about to go down in the neighborhood.

Is it humanly possible to be this STUPID?!

Read the whole thing-- it gets worse.

Beware Grandmothers and Purses-

especially if you're a 25 year old scumbag who likes to barge into hotel rooms, demand cash and jewelry then tell everyone to lay on the ground when you've illegally moved out of state while on probation.  (He'd previously served 7 years for offenses included burglary, auto theft and stealing a gun.  At age 25.  And he'd been on parole and on the run long enough for a warrant to be issued.  Yeash.)

The 70 year old lady had a CC license, the .357 belonged to her late husband, and police aren't expecting to file charges.

Lady's upset she had to shoot someone-- pray for her, please?

Good News of Crossing the Tiber

An Anglican Bishop in England is talking about converting, in the wake of B16's move that lets Anglican congregations come into communion with Rome.

There have been examples of high-ranking Anglicans converting, but generally only after they've retired or otherwise left active public service.  This is... unusual.

There's rumors that the Patriarch of Moscow is prodding his guys to get moving, so the Anglicans don't get ahead of them.  Emphasis on rumors, but that it's even being rumored is a Big Deal.

My husband-- who doesn't ID as Catholic-- says he's just waiting for the Queen to convert.

Hm... I Don't Much Care For This...

The CDC stopped actually counting verified H1N1 cased in July, before some states had even reported their numbers.

This is important because, when CBS asked the states for numbers (since the CDC was refusing to tell them anything) it turned out a non-insignificant number of folks who were told they "probably" had H1N1 not only tested negative for swine flu, they tested negative for any flu.  For example, Alaska had 772 tests done on those who were diagnosed as "probably" having swine flu.  93% didn't have any flu at all, and 1% (that would be about 7) had swine flu.

Think about that for a moment.  Wonder if they're testing all the 1000 deaths, or if they just assume?  How about the 20,000 hospitalizations?  Somehow, I'm pretty sure they didn't test everyone that's hospitalized, since the CDC stopped accepting valid numbers three months ago.  Yay, CBS, for investigating!

This is very important, because if you think you had the swine flu and didn't, you will assume you've got immunity; if you assume you didn't have the swine flu, get vaccinated and you actually had had it, you risk major side effects like Guillain-Barre syndrome. (Note: doing something to be on the safe side, and getting an auto-immune disease from it, would suck.  Greatly.)

Oh, and on top of it all?  Gates of Vienna is keeping track of this-- four people, so far, are dead from the vaccine in Sweden.  At least 190 are sick.

I don't much like that the president has authority over where hospitals can put emergency clinics, but I really don't like when they slide something in that declares a national disaster on Friday night, which is generally when you do stuff you don't want all over the news.

Rifqa Recap

The people she ran to, having only met them via facebook:
Global Revolution Church, specifically Rev. Blake Lorenz (formerly of Kirkman Road United Methodist Church).
(Oooh, scary, they're involved with IHOP and try to follow the Bible!)

The people she ran from:
Parents that liquidated their business after she ran away, who go to a mosque with terror links-- not the least of which is a head pastor who is big in the Muslim Brotherhood and deals with Hamas.
 (But it's ok!  He did an interview where he told a newspaper that conversion will naturally happen in the US, and he denies all accusations!  Oh, and the mosque is a member of "BREAD" so it must be totally mainstream, plus the mother's lawyer says there's nothing to the girl's claims.)

That's pretty much a recap of my morning....
Jordan, as usual, has something to say on the matter; unusually, he's about 99% pissed.

Starting to feel sort of like I did when I was on the Black Pearl and the nation watched Terri Schaivo being slowly murdered by dehydration in front of us.

Oh-- I forgot-- the girl carries a Bible around, and prays funny.
  So clearly she's lying.
(I wish I was joking about that line of "reasoning.")

A Gem

From Lileks:

But as I said, keeps you young – or at least in tune with a certain segment of the popular culture. I read with interest this VDH essay about dropping out on popular culture, and while I get it, I can’t do it. Entirely. Pop music: eh. Don’t care. Network TV news: please. No, Movies, I’m split – my love of old movies is matched only by my juvenile love of space operas, which I suppose means I can’t bear to live in the present, but in so many modern movies you can barely hear the bad dialogue for the sound of axes bent to the grindstone. The art and artifice of previous generations is often more rewarding, and in their own mannered fashion they say the same things about life as modern films, but in less time, with fewer pretensions. Human nature in those old movies is something the medium accepts as a given, instead of pretending it can be remade to suit the self-flattering preconceptions of an ahistorical generation. (Or three.)

Stem Cell Research-

we could be up there with Germany, which is offering treatments, if we'd outlawed ESCR ages ago and didn't let ESCR supporters sabotage application of what we know.

(Imagine if bone-marrow transplants required the same approval, each operation, as a whole new drug.)

Nope, gotta sacrifice babies at the altar of progress! Never mind that one works very well and has no moral objections to it, while the other involves cannibalizing small humans-- Science!

Speaking of things that matter less than humans you can't see, and things that matter less than your supposed goal, the Susan G Komen group felt the heat enough to object to the banning of Israli doctors. No word on if the UN looked into a right of return in the matter....

What's the Size of a Cellphone-

has a control pad that looks like a an iPod, some wires hanging off it and can see an unborn child, among other things?

A new portable ultrasound machine.

Is this not too cool? (Non-pregnancy related uses are just mind-blowing, too-- imagine a doctor with a whole medical lab in the classic black bag!)

Bravo, CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS

I do not know or care why you chose to behave honorably, but BZ and 'job well done' for doing the right thing:

"Today there was an announcement by the administration," Baier said. "They were putting out the pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, as we showed you earlier for the White House pool - that Feinberg would be doing a round-robin interviews with the five-network pool that covers the White House - basically shares the costs and the daily coverage duties of covering the president. Fox News has been a member since 1997." The press pool is comprised of the five major TV news organizations - CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox News. However, according to Baier, the other members declined to participate unless Fox News was included. "When they put out that message, they specified that all members of the pool were welcome except Fox News," Baier said. "Well the other members of the TV pool said, ‘Well we're not going to do the interview unless Fox News is included."

And up your nose with a rubber hose to whoever thought they could get away with kicking Fox out of a pool they help pay for.

Real Tolerance

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about how horrible some folks are willing to be when they say they're totally sure they're right. I have no way of knowing the actual state of their belief; for that matter, Mother Teresa fought against doubt; there's no superiority in having or not having doubts.

A while back a very good, nice lady got viciously attacked on LJ because she mentioned that she had been friends with a group of friends for ages and had never "noticed" their various races. If she'd been asked to describe them, she'd have been able to, but it didn't matter to her. She got accused of racism, of "forcing" those friends to act a set way to be her friend. Anyone who defended her was also attacked, with anything they thought would stick. At various times I was accused of racism (because my Geek Group in the Navy also didn't care what you looked like, we cared about your thoughts) and sexism, including sexism against myself and some sort of repression of my "true" self.... a stinking mess, really.

Because the lady's friends, my friends and I myself didn't behave the way their beliefs said we should, there was clearly repression, oppression, suppression-- some kind of external control forcing us to behave "wrong."

It couldn't be that their theories were flawed, and that I enjoy wearing T-shirts, blue jeans and playing computer games, arguing about who would win, Batman or Superman (Bats!) and who the best X-Mutant is (Nightcrawler!), or watching Ironman and Slayers! instead of Breakfast at Tiffany's.

I'm pretty sure that all these folks could go on at great length about the horrors of their notion of the 50s-- think the 'classic suburb rambler, wife cooks in a pretty dress in the kitchen while wearing pearls, a boy and girl, dad comes home at six in a suit' archetype-- and never realize that their idea of what folks 'really' want is just as horribly restraining as their nightmare of the 50s. (Makes you want to go over what you believe, doesn't it?)

At one point, I remember sharing a rather large complement that "my guys" offered me-- some topic was being discussed, and someone mentioned that they couldn't talk about this around girls. The conversation was light enough that I felt it appropriate to tease him, saying something like "Hey! What am I, chopped liver?" I was deeply touched by the statement: "Aw, you don't count." Anyone who grew up around close-in-age siblings knows that sisters don't count as girls, generally. I could not manage to get across this idea-- I don't know if the flaw lies in me, or if they simply couldn't understand the concept.

Anyways.

This came to mind again, for once because someone got it right. Someone managed to show actual, honest tolerance for something they disagreed with; I'm sorry that I only point this out because the man who was actually able to honestly show tolerance got smacked down by someone he'd respected for ages who wasn't able to do so.

Here's the Anchoress' version of the real tolerance in action:

For those who are unfamiliar with the story of Jillette and Bible, you can come up to speed here; Jillette movingly describing his encounter with an Evangelical Christian fan who loved him enough to give him a Bible. Although he is a professed atheist, Jillette understood and appreciated what the fan had done.

And here is the post and video she'd seen the night before, and that had stayed in her mind through the night:

Penn Jillette: Getting yelled at by my idol for appearing on Glenn Beck POSTED AT 7:11 PM ON OCTOBER 21, 2009 BY ALLAHPUNDIT SHARE ON FACEBOOK | PRINTER-FRIENDLY Via Moxie, the emotion here is raw enough to make this a surprisingly tough watch — but stick with it, as it’s genuinely moving. I’m surprised, frankly, that GB hasn’t had him on the show yet to talk about it. Or maybe he has and I’m out of the loop?

Both videos (Bible here, open mind here) have language warning, but I think are worth the listen.

I've known as far back as I can remember that probably the most dangerous folks to have around are those who want to do things for your own good, but not out of love. This is why I'm a republican--small R-- and generally vote for the Republican party.

Like the old saying goes, the road to Hell is paved in good intentions; working to balance folks' freedom vs other folks' freedom seems a lot safer than balancing freedom against 'good.'

Probably, this will go right past the folks who actually would benefit from evaluating their ideas and ideals, and will only be heard by the folks who already have doubt.

But there's always a chance.

Crisis Pregnancy Help

around Philadelphia, called "Mothers' Home."

Providing a safe place and help to women in trouble-- CMR's Mattew wants to bring your attention to their annual open house.

The important bit:

When I arrived at Mothers' Home I only had two bags of clothes. Not that I am getting ready to leave, I have enough for the baby and me to fill twenty boxes. Mothers' Home has been a place to be while getting help to find something more stable, have given my baby a chance to see life, and has helped me to embrace motherhood while still working towards my goals.

1-610-583-HOME

Attempted Honor Killing, Phoenix

all I can say is: hang 'em high.

Faleh Hassan Almaleki is being sought by police; used a grey or silver 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee with Arizona license plate ADS-9192 to run down two women. Anyone with information is asked to call Silent Witness or the Peoria Police Tip Line at 623-773-7045.

Daughter, Noor Faleh Almaleki, is 20; her roommate, Amal Edan Khalaf, is 43; both are in the hospital, daughter's injuries are life-threatening, the other lady's aren't.

K, This Is Amusing

Nice use of clips with claims and then evidence against them-- it's like a fisking, but worse.... The blank points are presumably the audio that's involved in lawsuits.

Grim Post

-in both meanings; from Grim's Hall:

The argument is difficult to counter, more difficult than you might imagine. The reason it's hard is that all of the facts are in their favor, and the only thing against them are unprovable: questions of intention, of character, of the meaning behind observed acts. The facts are these: 1) America is the most powerful nation in the world, and has set the terms of international debates for more than a decade. 2) This power results from three basic things: military strength, the superiority of the market instead of central planning to make basic decisions, and the strength of our economy (this last to include the dollar's position as a reserve currency). 3) Therefore, to undermine that strength, you'd need to undercut all three things.

Go read, please.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure

You may or may not know, my mom is a breast cancer survivor.

So folks are often surprised that I avoid all those "buy pink things for the cure" promotions, unless I can read the fine print-- I am greatly opposed to the Susan G. Komen group. Why? They do good work on trying to cure breast cancer, after all.

Well, they fund embryonic stem cell research - to borrow mom's phrasing, there's no disease she could possibly have that would make it alright to chop up babies. In so many words. (Not a stupid woman, my mother. The phrasing is at least as accurate as 'utilize portions of early division embryos' and touches on the important part of the situation.)

Interestingly, the only arguments I've personally had on this topic were by folks defending ESCR directly, rather than folks who thought curing breast cancer was worth the sacrifice of small humans. The worthless sacrifice, I'll point out, because ESCR hasn't cured jack. ASCR-- adult stem cell research-- has great results so far, and a lot of promise, without moral problems not found in blood donation. But no go there. (A good article here, including the question of supporting a good cause that directly supports a bad one.)

Maybe it's a mindset thing-- ESCR hasn't cured jack, but they'll sacrifice support for actually curing cancer to donate for the use of it for, I suppose, political reasons: they also sacrificed the attendance of Israeli doctors to have a meeting in Egypt.

But hey, what do they know about treating breast cancer?

Here's Something We Can Cut-

B-Daddy reminded me of something I meant to blog about.

Brain isn't working so well ATM, so I'll just post a link and a clip.

Taxes fund environmental suits

Environmental law firms reap billions in fees to fund lawsuits

By MITCH LIES

Capital Press

The federal government has paid out billions of dollars to environmental groups for attorney fees and costs, according to data assembled by a Cheyenne, Wyo., lawyer.

Karen Budd-Falen of Budd-Falen Law Offices said the government between 2003 and 2007 paid more than $4.7 billion in taxpayer money to environmental law firms -- and that's just in the lawsuits she tracked.

The actual figure, she said, is far greater.

"I think we only found that the iceberg exists," she said. "I don't think we have any idea how much money is being spent. But I think it's huge."

In some cases, Budd-Falen said, intervening ranchers and farmers are paying for the defense of their farm and ranch practices and -- through their taxes -- paying for the opposing lawyers' attorney fees.

"That money is not going into programs to protect people, wildlife, plants and animals," Budd-Falen said, "but to fund more lawsuits."

Budd-Falen, whose firm regularly represents farms and ranches, for years was aware that nonprofit, tax-exempt environmental law firms were generating sizable revenue from attorney fees paid by the federal government. In June, she submitted a formal request asking the Department of Justice for information on just how much was being spent.

"They said they don't track that information," she said.

After the response, Budd-Falen sat down with a paralegal and started what she said was a time-consuming process of uncovering and compiling the data.

Is It A Trope If It Really Happens?

The Smurfette Principle-- basically, in a show, there tends to be a group of guys and either one or two girls.

For example--from cartoons folks might know--Rescue Rangers has The Leader (Chip), Funny Guy (Dale), Tough Guy (Monty), Special Guy (Zipper-- he flies) and The Chick (Gadget). Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (er, the cartoon from the '80s) has The Leader (Leo), Funny Guy (Mikey), Tough Guy (Raph), Special Guy (Doni-- genius) and The Chick (April).

Now, whoever wrote up the trope thinks this is partly due to sexism. They admit that there's the inverse type, where there's only one guy and a bunch of girls, but still think it's sexism.

Got me thinking... all the groups I can think of, that formed socially-- that aren't made of couples, actually-- tend to fit this. On the ship, the Geek Group was a bunch of guys, and two girls. I'd think this was a side effect of there being a lot more guys than girls, except that the "extra" girls tended to form into their own groups...of a bunch of girls and one or two guys.

I can't think of a purely socially chosen group I've observed where the groups did end up in non-couple equal proportions.

Late night musings.....

A Rational Response to "Sell The Vatican"

-and no, I haven't watched the video, because I don't generally to around looking to be offended. (No matter what Elf sometimes thinks....)

Silverman is trying to claim that if the pope doesn't sell the Vatican to feed the poor, the pope and the Church are somehow being hypocritical - that their actions don't reflect their beliefs. Well, let's take a look at the facts:

• The Catholic Church already feeds more people than any private institution in the world. In the world. There's not even a close second. As a Church, of course we could do more. But we are doing something - and its a lot of something. Silverman might give credit where credit is due.
• Silverman makes the slur that the Vatican was involved in the holocaust. Seriously, Sarah? The historical evidence firmly exonerates the activity of the Church during the holocaust. Pope Pius XII personally saw to the protection of thousands of Jews, at great personal risk to himself and the Church. As a person of Jewish ancestry, how dare she attack the institution credited by Jews the world over with protecting Jews when so many world governments were deaf to their cries. This is beneath even her.
• Silverman likes quoting Christian sayings back to the pope - does she know about motes and beams? I'm curious how much of Sarah's profits, including her movie profits, have you used to feed the poor? If she is tired of seeing starving people on TV, what has she done about it, besides uploading a self-promoting video to YouTube? Shouldn't those who work to feed the poor be outraged at the antics of Silverman, when she uses the plight of starving people to further her own popularity and distract from their needs?
• At the end of the day, it's just a really stupid idea even in itself. The assets of the Vatican (St. Peter's Basilica, etc.) don't have a fair market value. Who is going to buy the Vatican? The best use of the Vatican is to continue to provide a place of worship to the millions of people who are members of the Church, who are in turn the economic engine behind the Vatican's ability to feed the poor. Pure and simple.

Some of you may be thinking: "Thom, chill out, everyone knows this is a joke."

Mr. Peters goes on from there-- go, read, it's worth it.