Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Weather Drama Queens
Oh, the humanity.
Is global warming robbing us of our historical knowledge and perspective?
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Thought of the Day
If the major news outlets won't cover the news, what good are they? I have already gone on to more reliable sources. You should consider doing the same.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Predicting the Near Future
Just as long as he brings back Sergio's White Hot Top 5, I'm good with it.
Labels: Prediction; Watts Up With That
Who is Kyle Clark?
He's a local TV talking head here in Denver. I don't watch the news, so he was unknown to me.
news hype notwithstanding.
Labels: Tropical Storm; News Hype
Friday, October 26, 2012
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Enemies Foreign and Domestic
Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler in 1943 inspects and chats with Swedish members of the Waffen SS (perhaps from the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking but more likely from the 11th SS Panzergrenadier Division Nordland). There were about 25 SS Divisions made of volunteers from various, mainly occupied, countries, but Sweden was an exception. It was oficially neutral but more of a non-beligerant in my book (not that I'm any expert here). With a population then just over 6 million, Sweden had a relatively high per-capita Nazi volunteer rate.
The more you learn about its history during this time, the less you like Sweden, no matter how holier than thou enlightened they are now.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Thought of the Day
A medley of extemporanea;
And love is a thing that can never go wrong;
And I am Marie of Romania.
Labels: Dorothy Parker quote
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Although it's been better lately. Carl is a stone Zombie/Ghoul killer and they got some supressors for their pistols (just as I suggested) and the show is bold enough to show that at least some of the survivors enjoy shooting the dead in the head. Next up, a visit to the nearest big box sports store for reloading equipment.
Labels: Walking Dead
Mann Files Suit
As a lawyer, I know the power of the discovery process. I'm led to believe Mann does not.
Older posting here.
UPDATE: Here and here are Forbes magazine on the subject.
Labels: Michael Mann
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Running on Empty
I've been desperately trying to get money into an account at Intrade Prediction Market so I can bet on Romney and nearly triple my investment. It irks me about the wait for the wire transfer to betting-on-anything friendly Ireland because every day robs me of vig, as even the herd at Intrade wises up to the fact that Obama has nothing and the odds change slowly, slowly in Romney's favor.
At the very least, I'll double what I bet, assuming Romney wins, as I am sure he will.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Troubling Bible Story of the Month
At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses'[a] feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone.
What? Why is God so cross with Moses that he wants to kill him? It's not explained. We'll get to the logical choice below.
Why does Zipporah immediately cut off her son's foreskin? It's a complete mystery. I'll note that no one knows what "touched Moses' (actually the pronoun 'his' in the text) feet" means in Hebrew. This is our best guess but it might have been she touched the bloody foreskin to Moses' genitals.
What the freak does "bridegroom of blood" mean? I really have no clue.
Why does the emergency circumcision of Moses' son placate God? And how did Zipporah know that it would? Or was she just cutting off foreskins willy nilly that day and it just happened to be the thing to cool God's apparent anger? This part is particularly disturbing.
There are nothing but questions about this passage. Most people leave it alone. In all the Masses and Protestant services I have attended in my life, I have never heard these verses read and certainly they were never part of any homily or sermon I have heard.
We do assume that the lack of circumcision of the son is the reason God is out to kill Moses (because after the circumcision He is no longer out to kill Moses). It is generally accepted that cutting off the foreskin is the sine qua non of the First Covenant (between God and the Jews) so it is Moses' negligence to keep the Covenant with his own children before he sets off to free God's children that has God all worked up. But God was talking to Moses every day. Why not a little warning to get his house in order before Moses sets off to do God's bidding? Of course, if God did tell him to do that, unrecorded, we can certainly understand the rage (at least the desire to kill) He feels when his chosen guy disobeys him. But isn't that attributing human foibles to God? Isn't rage a deadly sin?
Circumcision is back in the news, lately. German courts have ruled that it is a crime to circumcise a child. Nazis.
Aside from the fact that we have complete religious freedom here, we American non-Hispanic Christian males don't seem to think circumcision is a big deal, as we are routinely circumcised on day one of our lives, mainly for health reasons. Certainly we, unlike the Germans, have no problem with the Jews doing it, and throwing a party because of it even. There is a little bit of a trade off we make getting circumcised in that the exposed penis tip is supposedly less sensitive due to contact with clothes afterwards, and sex for the uncircumcised is apparently more intensely pleasurable. But countering that is the fact that to most Americans an uncircumcised penis looks slightly worse than a circumcised one, or at least that's what a majority of the American women who have discussed the topic with me have said. So to the final question.
What has God got against foreskins?
UPDATE: Diomedes says that there are two types of Jewish law: 1) The laws that jive with logic and common sense; and, 2) The laws that absolutely make no sense (like most of Leviticus). Circumcision as the bedrock basis for the Frist Covenant is one of the laws that doesn't make sense. It's that you follow an absolutely senseless law in order to obey God which makes the law (and your decision to obey it) valuable, both for the fact that we cannot understand God, and for the fact that we love and honor God so much we'll do whatever He asks.
Reminds me of dialogue in the movie Pork Chop Hill. The American brass, seeking to figure out why the ChiComs will waste so many men on a worthless objective, finally see the light and say that the hill's value is that it has no value. I can follow the logic, but it still sounds stupid to me. Sorry, D.
Labels: Exodus; Moses
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Thought of The Day
Labels: James Taranto quote
Monday, October 15, 2012
Why The New York Times Continues to Fail
If I were to quote selectively from each, it would be impossible to tell what was supposedly from disinterested journalists and what was pure Obama campaign rhetoric.
Chris Wallace provided sufficient coverage of what Axelrod was failing to do (Shut up, Axelrod explained), so let's look at the NYT piece which is titled, ironically, No Shame (and caries the internal title Republicans have no shame). It starts:
There are many unanswered questions about the vicious assault in Benghazi last month that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
No, there are only a few. The one that leaps out at many Americans, since we know that the State Department had a live video feed on the attack and drone surveillance of the attack, "On what did the Obama administration base its no longer operative supposition that the attack and murders were a spontaneous demonstration caused by the supposed movie critical of Mohammad?"
Neither the live feed nor the drone tape showed any protest at all. That's a very inconvenient fact to the administration who had UN Ambassador Susan Rice lie about the attack on 5 different Sunday talking head shows 4 days later. Moving on.
But Republican lawmakers leading the charge on Capitol Hill seem more interested in attacking President Obama than in formulating an effective response.
And what "effective response" is being formulated? Drone attacks on the leadership of al Qaeda in Lybia, or attempting to have the FBI arrest a few of the many attackers? Are we at war with al Qaeda or are they just a criminal organization like the Somali pirates or the Mafia? It seems to me that the President doesn't know the answer to that question.
Then the NYT trots out the straw man of budget cuts. It calls the Republican outrage at the incompetence of the administration in failing to protect Ambassador and other Americans in Benghazi hypocrisy because the Republicans have allegedly voted to cut the security budget of the State Department. I call this a straw man because the budget for security had nothing at all to do with lack of security in Benghazi. We somehow had enough money for a Marine security team in Barbados.
And has the State Department's security budget been cut? Is the alleged "cut" of $500 Million to the State Department's security accounts an actual cut (that is, less money spent than last fiscal year) or is it, as is usual with Democrats, merely code for giving the government department less of an increase in spending than it asked for? Anyone want to bet it's the former?
And the House budget with its supposed "cut" to the security accounts, that has been approved by the Senate in its budget and signed by the President, right? Oh, I forgot, the Senate hasn't passed a budget in nearly three years. So there is no actual budget and no actual cuts. Straw man within a straw man.
And the draconian budgets proposed by Mitt Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, would cut foreign affairs spending by 10 percent in 2013 and even more in 2016.
The so called "draconian" budget of Rep. Ryan allows deficit spending to continue for at least a decade, but, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, we are actually going to have to spend less on the federal level. We are actually going to have to cut the bloated federal budget. We cannot continue to run up $Trillion plus deficits, as we have each and every year that Obama has been president.
The NYT says there is a lot to learn about the attack. I think we have sufficient facts now. Then the NYT says this:
The former security chief at the embassy in Tripoli has been critical of the administration and said he had requested more security from State Department officials. [...] (In the last debate, Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. said of the consulate in Benghazi, “we did not know they wanted more security.”)So who is not telling the truth, the security chief at the embassy in Tripoli or VP Biden? On that relevant question, the NYT is silent.
It ends this horrible exercise in misdirection with this thought:
More spending on security improvements will certainly help, but there will still be threats and risks. America’s diplomats must be protected, but they cannot do their jobs and interact with the world if they operate only behind fortress walls. There will always have to be a balance. Ambassador Stevens knew that.He knew the job was dangerous when he took it. His and the others' deaths were not the result of incompetent bureaucrats cutting the security at Benghazi and then steadfastly refusing to respond to repeated requests to restore them, in light of the intelligence that an attack was coming. It was merely the unavoidable result of the risks all Ambassadors take. Nothing to do with the Obama administration at all, if you really think about it.
The NYT continues to lose readers and money because most Americans are well enough informed from other sources to know this is partisan tripe, pure Obama campaign propaganda rather than an honest opinion piece.
Labels: Benghazi Attack
Friday, October 12, 2012
Protest Songs Never Sung
And it's 1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a frak,
Next stop is in Iraq;
And it's 5, 6, 7, open up the Pearly Gates;
Well, there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee, just a few will die.
Labels: I'm A'fixin'-to-die Rag 2005
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Lies and the Lying Liars...
First Lie: Brook Baldwin mentions the Benghazi scandal is a "circus" but asks Cutter how do you explain the mixed messages coming from the administration?
Cutter replies that the administration has been open and honest from day one...
Right. Which is why they peddled a false narrative for a week and a half.
Second lie: Baldwin plays a montage of the administration saying different things even weeks after the al Qaeda attack and murders.
Cutter says the administration is focusing on capturing and prosecuting those responsible for the attack and murders.
Right. We're expecting arrests in a city the feds are too chicken to enter any day now.
Then she says one of the stupidest thing I've heard from her (and I've heard a lot of stupid things from her these past weeks): "...but the entire reason that this has become the, the political topic it is is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It is a big part of their stump speeches and it's reckless and irresponsible..."
It is a political topic because four Americans including an ambassador have been murdered by al Qaeda (supposedly no longer a player in the middle east), because of this Administration's fecklessness and then its members peddled a false narrative for a week and a half.
Third Lie: When Brett Baier played her the clip that I have just quoted from. Stephanie then said: "I was asked why it became such a political circus..."
No, Baldwin mentioned it was a circus but asked why were there "mixed messages" coming from the administration. She even played the montage. Stephanie offered the lie about why the false narrative and the murdered Americans were the subject of political discussion entirely because of the reckless and irresponsible politicization by the Romney team in a dodge of that question not because she was asked it.
Perhaps the Obama campaign should cut its losses and furlough the incredibly ineffectual Ms. Cutter. If she told me that the sun was shining at noon, I'd look out the window and check.
Saturday, October 06, 2012
This really has nothing to do with my college experience, more's the pity, but the captions is congruent with my experiences.
Labels: Chive Motivational Poster
Labels: Personal History; Palo Alto
Friday, October 05, 2012
Thought of the Day
Labels: Hugh Hewitt quote
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Second Thought of the Day
Labels: Mark Hemingway quote
Thought of the Day
Henry David Thoreau
What a weirdo misanthrope. Who was he seeking when he returned home for dinner and fresh laundry each day he spent on Walden Pond then? I suspect some disengenuousness here.
Labels: Henry David Thoreau quote
Monday, October 01, 2012
Happy New (Fiscal) Year!
Maybe it's not so happy after all.