« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

October 31, 2005

Friends don't let friends fall for AIM viruses

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

Before you click a link in an instant message, chat back to make sure there's a real person on the other end, not a nasty virus that has spoofed your Buddy List.

We now return to our regular programming.

Posted by at 03:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I Hope My Retirement Goes Better Than O'Connor's

I bet she'd thought she'd be off the hook for this next session, now who knows she might have to sit for the whole thing!

Posted by at 01:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Sound Familiar?

Ralph Neas, from People for the American Way when John Roberts was nominated for the Supreme Court:

“It is extremely disappointing that the President did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor,” said Neas. “John Roberts’ record raises serious concerns and questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues – it will be critical for Senators and the American people to get answers to those questions. Replacing O’Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans’ rights, liberties, and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe.”

When Harriet Miers was nominated, from PFAW's press release:

If confirmed, Miers would replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the key vote on many crucial 5-4 decisions on the Supreme Court. Justice O’Connor cast a number of decisive votes protecting the right of privacy, reproductive freedom for women, the constitutional principle of government neutrality toward religion, effective civil rights remedies, environmental protection, congressional authority to protect Americans’ rights and more.

Ralph Neas, today, on the nomination of Samuel Alito:

“Replacing a mainstream conservative like Justice O’Connor with a far-right activist like Samuel Alito would threaten Americans’ rights and legal protections for decades,” said Neas. “Justice O’Connor had a pivotal role at the center of the Court, often providing a crucial vote to protect privacy, civil rights, and so much more. All that would be at risk if she were replaced with Judge Alito, who has a record of ideological activism against privacy rights, civil rights, workers’ rights, and more.”

These guys have got to get some new rhetoric. Every nominee has come under the same exact line of attack. It's almost enough to make you believe that Karl Rove orchestrated all of this to make the left pull out their talking points not once, not twice but three times.

Posted by slublog at 09:40 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Okay, I Guess This is "Big"

Well, that didn't take long, did it?

The president will nominate Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court to fill the chair of the vacating Sandra Day O'Connor.

Michelle Malkin has a good links roundup of the pick.

UPDATE - Well, he's certainly got a lot more experience than Miers. So far, the signs are good.

A major talking point for the left will doubtless be his dissent in the case that became Planned Parenthood v Casey, a case dealing with abortion and spousal notification. My two senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, are both extremely pro-choice, which tends to make them susceptible to talking points from that side of the argument. I hope they examine Alito's full record before using this as an excuse to support a filibuster.

When it comes to Alito, the evidence suggests he's likely pro-life, but has a respect for precedent. More on his dissent here.

A list of opinions he has written, courtesy of Hugh. Yes, that Hugh. The band is back together on this one, although Hugh's op-ed in the NY Times is still a sore spot.

From what I've seen so far, this seems to be the guy we were looking for.

Posted by slublog at 08:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 30, 2005

Blog Break

Unless something big happens tomorrow, I plan to take the day off from blogging. Will be late blogging on Tuesday, as that's the day Dan Rather comes to town. A full report will follow.

Posted by slublog at 08:59 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 28, 2005

Those Evil French!

Now they're stealing American cats! Okay, not 'stealing' maybe...

Amazing story, actually.

Posted by slublog at 10:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Keeping the Bad Blood Flowing

Hugh Hewitt has taken some last shots at the anti-Miers crowd, but not on his blog. Nope, the guy who has done more to promote blogs has taken shots at the great unwashed from the grand altar of the mainstream media itself...the New York Times.

That hurts, Hugh.

All of us rebels are in our little blogs, swarming the Death Star, and you go right in and start blasting away at us with the planet-killer beam.

Ouch.

Posted by slublog at 09:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Sirens Blare

Drudge highlights a NY Times story that says Lewis "Scooter" Libby will be indicted tomorrow for making false statements to a grand jury.

When President Clinton was impeached, I believed that perjury was a serious charge, no matter what one was lying about.

I still do.

So if Libby made false statements under oath, then he should be charged. It should be interesting watching people like Paul Begala, who argued perjury wasn't that big a deal when Clinton was charged with it, now portray it as a dire threat to the republic.

On an unrelated note, why on earth did Libby keep the nickname "Scooter?" Seriously, that's one of the worst nicknames for a top government official I've ever heard.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Poor John

Senator John Kerry made a speech about Iraq today.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has a wonderfully snarky take on it.

The good news: John Kerry settled on his Iraq policy yesterday.

The bad news: He did so 51 weeks after losing the election.

Kerry seems under the impression that he has a chance to run for president again. His party, though, is just not going to let that happen. I have a feeling people working for Hillary Clinton and his old running mate John Edwards already have the long knives out for him and are just waiting to use them.

You thought the Swift Boat vets were hard on Kerry? Just wait to see what his own party members do to him.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 27, 2005

Brilliantly Stupid

Okay, let's see. Iran's President says, "Israel should be wiped off the map." Then Sharon reminds the UN that the charter forbids threats between members and says, "Iran should be kicked out of the UN." Maybe Iran should get its own nukes first, then rattle swords. As it stands, there is exactly one of the parties that can wipe the other off the map, and good thing it is the one with the restrained rhetoric. Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov put it best:

Those who insist on transferring the Iranian nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council have received an additional argument for doing so.

Until this comment, Russia had been openly opposing UN pressure on Iran's nuclear program. Way to go, Mr. Ahmadinejad!

Posted by at 04:59 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Origins and Natural History

This is the second in my series I'm posting on the pay-access Motley Fool on what I think about creation and evolution. The first installment is here:

I'm going to define "natural history" as an explanation of how things got to be the way they are today, and "origins" as an explanation of why things exist in the first place.

Referring to the four paradigms for reconciling science and the Bible I defined earlier, I choose to use Compartmented Authority to determine my response. Science is the authority for natural history, so I Defer to Science for questions about the natural world; philosophy is the authority for origins, so I Defer to Theology for questions about beginnings.

One of these is easy. The raw material of science is observations, and observations have a location in spacetime. Without spacetime, there can't be observations, so science can't tell us anything about how spacetime itself came to be. Science cannot begin with truly nothing (no energy, no physical laws) as a starting point. The conservation of energy (including mass-energy á lá E=mc²) says that the amount of energy in (our?) universe is constant—but can say nothing about where that non-zero amount of energy came from. It cannot possibly hope to observe the beginning moment itself, and our ability to reason back in time towards that moment from things we can observe is dependent on invoking physical laws, the origin of which themselves require an explanation. So ultimately, we need to make some assumptions about why things exist, or science can't even get started. This is why I say that philosophy is the sole authority for origins.

Arguing that theology has no authority about natural history is more difficult. Here I am going to first use a theological argument and then an argument from history. (For those of you who don't care about theology, this whole paragraph is moot anyway.) 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This, to me, is the Bible's own testimony about its authority and purpose: spiritual instruction for moral living. Therefore I do not believe that the Bible claims to be an authority on natural history. This is fortunate, because attempts to use Biblical narratives and statements to illuminate natural history have all disappointed, and efforts to shoehorn physical evidence into conformity with the Bible are embarrassing. Two examples suffice: the persecution of Bruno and Galileo based on 1 Chr 16:30, Ps 93:1 and 96:10 (“The earth is firmly established and cannot be moved”) and Eccl 1:5 (“The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.”), and the efforts of the Institute for Creation Research and others to argue that the Grand Canyon and seashell fossils on mountaintops are all caused by Noah's Flood. The Bible is a lousy science text, and those who try to use it as such set it and themselves up for ridicule IMO.

The one area of natural history (using the definition above) where I might be tempted to invoke Complementary Perspectives is when it comes to matters of why humans behave the way they do. Only if I were convinced that my personhood is a purely material artifact of the neurons in my brain could I get away with relying only on science for explaining how people's personalities get to be the way they are and why people do the things they do.

As for cosmology (how did the structure of the universe get to be the way it is today) and biological evolution (how did the diversity and adaptation of living things on Earth come about), these both have starting points: Big Bang theory starts with a singularity, the compression of the universe into an infinitely dense, infinitesimal volume; biological evolution starts with abiogenesis, the first thing that can be labeled, “alive.” The singularity is on the frontier of origins and where the singularity came from (or if you prefer where the multiverse from which many singularities arises came from) cannot be answered by science—but what happened after the singularity began to exist can be answered by science. Abiogenesis on the other hand is a prime candidate for a purely natural explanation because there were raw materials for it, the unliving things that comprised the first living thing, already in the universe. Where these came from can be answered wholly by natural history, because there is room earlier than the abiogenesis event before you get to the dawn of time. So one starting point is definitely in the realm of philosophy, and the other is arguably in the realm of science, but in both cases once the processes get started they are purely natural history. I therefore give science all authority in cosmology and biological evolution and do not look to Scripture for any insights into their past history, current operation, or future effects.

Next up: my thoughts on the question, “Does the cause of the existence of the universe have any effects on its natural history?” In other words, what I think of Intelligent Design.

Posted by at 01:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Kudos to...Frist?

From National Review:

THE SENATE - Ed Henry of CNN says Frist called Bush last night and said the votes weren't there.

Well, I'll be darned. It would be hard, as the majority leader, to call the White House with that sort of bad news. Frist did it anyway, and for that he deserves our thanks.

Posted by slublog at 10:29 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Now the Healing?

The conservative movement has a choice. This withdrawl can end the fight that it caused, or that fight could intensify. I get the feeling for the next few days, there is going to be a some bitterness from the pro-Miers camp, and some celebration and relief on the anti-Miers side.

Where the conservative movement goes from here depends on the President. Who he nominates will determine how quickly the fight ends. Nominate a strict constructionist like Luttig or Brown, and the base will unite behind that nominee and even relish the fight it's sure to cause. Nominate another stealth candidate, and the disappointment will be great.

Now the waiting.

Posted by slublog at 09:31 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Your Fifteen Minutes Are Over!

Breaking news banner on cnn.com:

President Bush "reluctantly" accepts Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's request to withdraw her nomination.

Sweet!

UPDATE - This is Peter. I think Bush made the right choice here. The speeches were the last straw, I think.

Posted by at 09:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Ugh

Jeff Goldstein points out a really, really bad quote from a speech by Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

We undeniable still have a justice system that does not provide justice for all as provided by the Pledge of Allegiance. One justice for the rich, one justice for the poor. One justice sometimes for minorities, one for whites.

Goldstein says this sounds a lot like John Edwards' "two Americas" speech. I'm going to be less charitable. I think it sounds like the ramblings of someone trying to be profound, and failing miserably.

I've tried very hard to keep my comments on Miers away from anything that smacks of ad hominem attacks, but let's face facts here - the woman is a crappy writer, and if this speech shows the thought processes we can expect from a Justice Miers, then we need to increase the pressure on the White House to withdraw the nomination, or encourage our senators to vote against her.

For reasons unknown, Hugh Hewitt has read the speeches and is still banging the pro-Miers drum. Although I must point out that his rhetoric has gone from "Miers must be confirmed" to "Miers must be given a hearing." Hewitt makes the argument that we shouldn't judge Miers based on a speech made over a decade ago. That seems a fair point, but those of us who oppose this nomination simply see that speech as another point against her, not the only one.

Hewitt's support of Miers seems grounded in his reluctance to give the Democrats a win if she is rejected. Given what we know about her so far, I'd say Hewitt is fighting for the Democrats on this one - they'll get a win if she's confirmed.

By the way, NZ Bear, I oppose the Miers nomination. You can add me to the list.

UPDATE - Captain Ed is off the fence, as well.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

What's "Time Off?"

There is a lot happening in the news. The Plame case may end up with indictments, the nomination of Harriet Miers is floundering, Maine got its first nor'easter of the season (mostly rain, thank heavens), but today, I really didn't keep up with much of it.

Why?

Mindless personal drivel follows. You've been warned.

Well, the first day of my 'vacation' between jobs was spent doing stuff I'm not particularly good at. Namely, working with wood. After spending a good hour wandering around at Home Depot with a very noisy cart, I plugged a hole in our dining room floor. Today is laminate flooring day and we had an old vent hole that needed filling. Let's just say I had no idea it was so hard to cut 3/4 inch plywood with a hand saw.

I then started to build a platform at the bottom of our cellar stairs and gave up after realizing I didn't have the right type of nails. Tomorrow, my Competent Guy friend Scott is coming to help me with the floor. I'll seek his advice with framing.

I didn't spend the whole day working, though. Some of it was spent in mindless diversions, such as reading websites like the Gallery of Regrettable Food. Very funny stuff. I ordered his new book from Amazon and can't wait for it to be in.

As a sort of reward to myself for finishing some projects, we went out to sample Bangor's newest restaurant, the Texas Roadhouse. Verdict? The atmosphere is odd. There are peanut shells all over the floor, the music is loud and the wait staff, um, dances at times. Plus people yell "yee haw" a lot. Incidentally, Mainers have no idea how to give a good "yee haw." The trick is to draw the "yee" out longer and don't over-enunciate.

The food was very good. I had chicken fried steak with fries and white gravy. My arteries aren't very happy, but my stomach's gratitude more than makes up for it. Plus, the prices were reasonable. If they'd just turn the country music down a bit, the restaurant would be great.

Yup, this was pretty much a "Dear Diary" sort of post. Well, you can't say you weren't warned.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 26, 2005

A Little Late for Columbus Day, but ...

Get the T-shirt here.

Posted by at 11:31 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Oh, Crap

Does Harriet Miers even know what she believes? Seriously.

From today's Washington Post:

"Parties should not be able to establish social policy through court action, having failed to persuade the legislative branch or the executive branch of the wisdom and correctness of their preferred course," she said in the document.

But she offered a different view of the judiciary in the 1993 speech to Dallas women executives and another one a few months later...

"My basic message here is that when you hear the courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong, stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue," she said.

At a speech later that summer titled "Women and Courage," Miers went further. Citing statistics that showed Texas's relatively high poverty rates, Miers said the public should not blame judges when courts step in to solve such problems.

"Allowing conditions to exist so long and get so bad that resort to the courts is the only answer has not served our state well," she said. "Politicians who would cry 'The courts made me do it' or 'I did not do that -- the courts did' should not be tolerated."

So is it okay for the courts to address social issues, or not? This should be troubling to the social conservatives that Hewitt is so concerned about - unless of course they want to now support, say, the actions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. No matter how you feel about gay marriage, it's not the place of the courts to order lawmakers to pass a particular piece of legislation.

Also, if those supporting Miers are doing so because they believe she will overturn Roe v. Wade, then perhaps they should examine how seriously she seems to take "self-determination" when considering questions of public policy.

This woman's beliefs are incomprehensible.

Posted by slublog at 08:18 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

First ,Tragedy

Then farce.

Posted by slublog at 08:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Miers and the Midterms

Doug at Bogus Gold refutes Hugh Hewitt's arguments regarding how a withdrawl of Harriet Miers' nomination would affect the 2006 midterm elections. This is what Hewitt has said:

Getting this [Miers confirmation] vote wrong will be disastrous for the GOP, with possible consequences including Patrick Leahy returning to the chair of the Judiciary Committeee for starters. Michael Barone was right to call it a 51-49 or 51-48 nation after last year's election. That crucial margin can be lost. In such a situation, the GOP cannot send even 3% of its supporters to the sidelines.

What Hugh doesn't realize is that in an attempt to shore up that 3% of the base, the president and the Miers supporters are alienating a much larger percentage of non-evangelical voters who wanted to see a qualified jurist with proven constructionist views nominated to the court. Some evangelical voters (like me) are not in support of Miers at all, and do not wish to see her confirmed. Hugh is making assumptions regarding evangelical voters - that we are more interested in identity politics than good candidates, and that's simply not true.

Frankly, I think Hugh is playing to the petulant here. There is undoubtedly a segment of the Republican evangelical base that is always primed to bolt when they don't get exactly their way. Why should such a small segment of the population have so much control over a lifetime appointment?

Posted by slublog at 07:47 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Galloway's Green

So some oil for food money was found in MP George Galloway's wife's checking account. The same George Galloway who was very much against the war in Iraq.

Interesting.

Christopher Hitchens couldn't let this story go by without comment.

For George Galloway, however, the war would seem to be over. The evidence presented suggests that he lied in court when he sued the Daily Telegraph in London over similar allegations (and collected money for that, too). It suggests that he lied to the Senate under oath. And it suggests that he made a deceptive statement in the register of interests held by members of the British House of Commons. All in all, a bad week for him, especially coming as it does on the heels of the U.N. report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, which appears to pin the convict's badge on senior members of the Assad despotism in Damascus, Galloway's default patron after he lost his main ally in Baghdad.

Yet this is the man who received wall-to-wall good press for insulting the Senate subcommittee in May, and who was later the subject of a fawning puff piece in the New York Times, and who was lionized by the anti-war movement when he came on a mendacious and demagogic tour of the country last month. I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well.

Ouch.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Pardon Me While I Puke

This makes me sick. 2000 dead? Let's fundraise! Damnable vultures.

Remember, during the 2004 campaign, when the president showed a brief clip from 9/11 during an ad? Remember how crazy the Democrats and the media went, saying it was wrong to use pictures of the dead to prove a political point? Now CNN, MSNBC and other news outlets have as their top headline a story about the 2000th death in Iraq.

So I guess using deaths to support the president = bad. Using deaths to bash the president = good. Every combat death is sad, but let's try to maintain a little perspective, shall we?

The Democrats, of course, were eager to exploit this story, asking why Bush is "ignoring" the 2000th death. It makes me angry, and sick.

UPDATE - Yes, comments are turned off. Every once in awhile, I just need to vent. That was one of those times.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | TrackBack

October 25, 2005

When Science and Theology Disagree

I've recently started posting at a discussion board at the Motley Fool on the Creation/Evolution controversy. That's a pay-to-post board (I'm grandfathered in) and frankly, it ain't worth the money to join up so I'll be repeating here some of what I write there. For the most part this will be for me a way to force myself to put my thoughts down in writing.

I am a Christian who converted to Christianity in college. I had excelled in math and science in high school and was in a math major at the time. I soon changed my career aim to being a missionary and transferred to a conservative Bible school. That goal didn't work out, and to make a long story short today I am taking undergrad physics classes to qualify for grad school to pursue again the scientific career I set aside 15 years ago.

In that decade and a half I have flip-flopped several times on the topic of creation and evolution. I'd like to share what I have learned about the various ways Christians approach the reconciliation of science and Christianity. It seems to me that several fruitless discussions could be made profitable by first recognizing the philosophical assumptions that Christians base their arguments on and the emotional investments they've made in these philosophical assumptions.

My terminology is as follows. “Science” refers to statements and explanations made by the mainstream body of peer-reviewed literature and the theories and hypotheses that result from it. “Theology” refers to statements and explanations derived (explicitly or implicitly) from the Christian Bible. I am careful not to say, “Bible” for the latter, of course, because even the act of reading it involves interpretation removing the possibility of consensus on what the Bible says. Theology is the best we can do on that.

So then, when about a given topic there is both a scientific statement and a theological one, and furthermore these statements contradict each other or are otherwise incompatible, there are only four possible situations:

1. The scientific statement is right and the theological one is wrong.
2. The theological statement is right and the scientific one is wrong.
3. Both statements are wrong.
4. Both statements are right (the conflict is illusory).

Here is my conclusion about four different theistic paradigms that Christians have adopted to sort through these four options. Note that the second option is not to be confused with the option of ignoring theology altogether; these are paradigms adopted by various orthodox Christians who by default do give authority of some kind to the Bible.

1. Defer to Theology
   • Theology is generally trustworthy and science is generally not
   • When there is a conflict, discard science or try to re-interpret it
2. Defer to Science
   • Science is generally trustworthy and theology is generally not
   • When there is a conflict, discard theology or try to re-interpret it
3. Compartmented Authority
   • Science and theology have distinct spheres of authority
   • When there is a conflict, one side is speaking where it has no say
4. Complementary Perspectives
   • Science and theology can both contribute understanding to all topics
   • When there is a conflict, pursue a synthesis that embraces both statements

Note that in the first two paradigms science and theology can be seen as an unequal relationship, with one discipline dominating and dictating to the other, while the second two paradigms see them in an equal relationship, either facing away from each other towards separate domains or towards each other with their common domain in between.

In my opinion, these four each have advantages and disadvantages:

1. Defer to Theology
   • Advantage: Doctrinal Integrity – respects the historical testimony of the church
   • Disadvantage: Methodology – human interpretation of Scripture can be wrong, too
2. Defer to Science
   • Advantage: Doctrinal Integrity – incorporates revelation from both Scripture and nature
   • Disadvantage: Methodology – Science is in flux by design, theology should be more stable
3. Compartmented Authority
   • Advantage: Dualism – two methods of discovery for two realms
   • Disadvantage: Dualism – what if the two realms are not fully separable?
4. Complementary Perspectives
   • Advantage: Relativism - Avoids controversy, doesn't “major on the minors”
   • Disadvantage: Relativism – some topics really are wholly one or the other

I have found in my own experience that it is impossible to choose one of these paradigms and hope to apply it to every issue that comes up, rather the topic itself is what drives my decision on which paradigm to use. For instance, the topics of angels and chemistry are tailor-made for the Compartmented Authority paradigm, but mental illness is poorly explained by it. However one thing that I have found is that my interactions with those who disagree with me about origins and natural history, especially my interactions with Christians on the topic, have gotten a lot more civil and a lot less self-righteous once I developed this set of paradigms. I hope they can help others in this way as well.

Posted by at 05:21 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Wind Chill: Overrated

It's that time of year again to be thinking about wind chill. Here is a nifty map. It rarely gets cold in Indiana but I've lived here for ten years and have been wussified, and it does occasionally get windy seeing how the closest windbreak to the west is the Rocky Mountains.

It turns out that the dire warnings we hear about exposed skin freezing in seconds are excessive. We can count on Canadians to do research right:

Volunteers, wearing winter clothing with only their faces exposed, sat in the wind tunnel for up to 45 minutes at a time. They were exposed to various temperatures and wind speeds, with researchers closely monitoring their condition. The volunteers were removed from the wind tunnel when they developed frostnip - a condition where the skin turns white, but only the very superficial outer layer has frozen. If the skin is immediately heated, for example, with a warm hand, this condition can be reversed and the skin is not harmed. Researchers estimate that frostbite, where the skin and underlying layers of tissue freeze, will develop within 30 seconds to one minute after the first signs of frostnip. Using this method, the research team was able to clearly define the level of risk and to provide very precise information on the time it takes for exposed skin to freeze under various wind and temperature conditions.

Here are the results: by wind chill, and by temperature and wind speed. Note that these are metric; for backwards Americans, a table of risk by Fahrenheit wind chill follows:

Posted by at 10:14 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Okay, This is Irritating

Now can we accuse the oil companies of price gouging?

BP PLC, one of the world's largest oil companies, reported a 34 percent rise in quarterly profit Tuesday as record energy prices more than outweighed hurricane damage to its rigs and refineries.

BP said net profit for the three months ended Sept. 30 rose to $6.53 billion, up from $4.87 billion in the third quarter of 2004. Revenue jumped to $97.73 billion from $66.73 billion.

"The recent hurricanes in the U.S. have impacted our results. However, underlying performance is strong, amplified by high but volatile prices of oil, gas and products," said Chief Executive Lord Browne.

Behold the end result of panicky speculation-driven gas price hikes.

Posted by slublog at 08:46 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

This is Your Brain...This is Your Brain on...

Again, please forgive the lack of posts. I've spent the past couple of weeks finishing up at my current job, trying to make things easier for my replacement. Friday and today were especially busy, but today is my last day there and then I get a few days off to work on the house and relax.

Blogging may be spotty during that break, since I will be doing things like winterizing the house, laying down a laminate floor, assembling our new sofa and (ugh) painting again.

Have I mentioned how fun home ownership is?

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq's Elections

Michael Yon has a new dispatch up about the Iraqi elections. Worth a read.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 24, 2005

Optical Illusion

I've always found that with black-and-white spatial optical illusions it is easy to understand how your brain is being tricked, but the color illusions are another matter entirely.

UPDATE: Check these out.

Posted by at 01:19 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Monday, Monday

It may be cheating of a sort, but I normally write blog entries the evening before they are posted. I meant to do that last night, but remembered yesterday afternoon that I had a column due this weekend, so spent most of my time writing and editing.

So instead of a blog post, I'm going to take the lazy way out and link-dump.

Monday timewaster. An oldie, but a goodie. I was only able to get a score of 355.7 earlier this morning.

John Fund in the Opinion Journal on what has gone wrong with the Miers nomination.

James Lileks in The Daily Quirk talks about modern music, and the older generation's response. I got a taste of that this weekend at a football game. Before the game, the person in charge of the music decided rap was the best soundtrack for a crowd made up mostly of alumni, many of them elderly.

Ace of Spades asks exactly what sort of 'psychological coersion' Andrew Sullivan does approve of.

Posted by slublog at 09:16 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 21, 2005

DeLay's "Perp Walk"

If I were Ronnie Earle, I'd be pretty ticked off right now.

This picture probably wasn't what he was looking for when he got an arrest warrant for Rep. Tom DeLay. As this article points out, the picture will probably foil the plans of Democratic admakers in the upcoming midterm elections.

As I've said in the past, I'm not a big fan of Tom DeLay or his leadership style. The more I read about this case, though, the more inclined I am to support the congressman. Not out of any affection for him, but because I hate the idea of a prosecutor having enough power and partisanship to bring trumped up charges against a political opponent. District attorneys are given a great deal of power, and it's becoming increasingly clear that Earle is abusing the public trust, and some of the less scrupulous members of Texas' legal system are helping him.

This is turning into a farce, but anyone watching CNN would think DeLay has already been convicted. They would not know that Earle is missing a major piece of evidence used to secure the indictment, that he went grand-jury shopping to get that indictment and that Earle has, in the course of this investigation, invited a filmmaker to come along with him and made speeches about the case during Democratic fundraisers.

The main Demo talking point on this one seems to be that Earle is a "tough prosecutor" who has "even gone after fellow Democrats." Bully for Earle, but I'm sure in those cases he had actual evidence to back up the indictments he issued. If there is evidence to prove wrongdoing on the part of DeLay, fine. Let's see it and get on with the case. Until then, the media should remember that in our justice system, one is innocent until proven guilty. And so far, Earle has done little to offer that proof.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Whatever Happened to Bus Stops? And Other Traffic Questions

Yesterday, I got stuck behind a school bus. The bus would stop in front of a house, flash the lights, and let a kid out. The bus would then travel 100 feet to another house, flash the lights, and let another kid out. At the next house, a few yards down the road, it was again stop, lights, kid running into house.

Fortunately, the bus turned onto a side street after a few stops, before the road rage got too bad.

It got me thinking, though. What happened to the idea of a bus stop? < old guy voice > When I was in high school, we had to walk a few yards to a central location, where everyone boarded the bus at the same time. The driver would then go to another stop, where more kids would board. At most, two stops. /old guy voice

A month doesn't go by that we're hearing some sort of story out of the media about how overweight kids are becoming, and how they don't get enough exercise anymore. And yet this state ensures that, at most, no kid will have to walk more than a few dozen feet to get onto the bus or get home.

Just a thought.

Also, on a somewhat related note, contractors, citizen groups and city officials are all pointing fingers on who's to blame for the terrible traffic mess that is Stillwater Ave. in Bangor. I was out there last weekend and it really is quite bad. Bangor city planners like to talk big about how effective they have been at preventing sprawl and how well they've planned growth, but the mall area puts the lie to their statements.

The traffic problems at the mall are a combination of poor planning combined with simple greed. Those businesses bring in some nice property tax revenue, and the city didn't think about the fact that neither Stillwater Ave. or the Hogan Road are equipped to handle the amount of traffic generated by the mall and the various retail centers that have sprung up around it.

But what's done is done. Let's just hope they can find a way to fix what's wrong before Christmas, or things are going to get really bad. Seems I may have to do a lot of online shopping this year.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 20, 2005

Times Profits Drop, Minorities, Women Hardest Hit

New York Times profits drop 52%:

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- New York Times Co. on Wednesday reported a 52% decline in third-quarter profit due to expenses related to job cuts announced earlier this year, as well as ongoing advertising weakness at its New England media properties.

New York Times said it took a pretax charge of $12.4 million related to a plan announced in May to eliminate about 200 positions. On an after-tax basis, the charge was $7.5 million, or 5 cents a share.

Part of this, I'm sure, is due to the fact that almost the entire paper is available on the web for free. Why purchase the Times when you can read it at work when you're supposed to be doing TPS reports?

Also, the Times was once a great paper for national and international news, but that news is now available from other sources. The media is quickly becoming a la carte. Why should I care what the Times thinks of what's going on in Israel, for instance, when I can read the Jerusalem Post? If I want to read about a business story, I turn to the Wall Street Journal. For a story about something happening in Texas, I turn to the Dallas Star-Telegram. The NY Times still sees its role as news aggregator when such a service is no longer needed.

Hubris, more than anything else, is what's ailing the Times. Media is changing, but the Times has not. They still seem to consider themselves the one media outlet that drives the news cycle, not realizing that by the time their paper hits newstands each morning, most people have seen the headlines a few times on television, heard pundits talking about the stories and read a few opinions about the news on the internet.

Simply put - the old business model doesn't work anymore, and it's finally beginning to show in the bottom line. (h/t: Ace)

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 19, 2005

A Great Thing about America

My office mate Ben and I were discussing the Saddam trial, how much cheek he has and how he doesn't have anything left in life but to cling to his past grandeur. His many enemies came up and I said, "We're protecting Saddam from assassination so we can kill him ourselves later, after due process of law."

We laughed at how silly that sounded, but then I realized that this is a really great thing about America. Regardless of your views of capital punishment, I think it is universally assumed that Saddam is guilty of heinous deeds. 12 Angry Men is a good depiction of the fallibility of assumptions of guilt*. I think it is wonderful that our justice system is innocent until proven guilty to a fault, and that defendants are protected so that even minor technicalities can throw out a slam-dunk conviction.

If we can respect a scumbag like Saddam enough to give even him an opportunity to defend himself, and to protect him from the millions with deadly grievances against him until his guilt is demonstrated on a level playing field, then I have confidence that if I am ever wrongly accused I have a chance of getting out of my predicament. Not a 100% chance, as the recent DNA exonerations of death-row inmates shows, but a better chance than if vigilantes got their hands on me before the police did, and once i was in custody, a better chance than almost anyone else in history.

* Please note that my reference is to make a point about assumptions of guilt in general, not about the Saddam trial specifically

Posted by at 11:34 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Read the Screed

James Lileks, in the Screedblog:

On one level, you can’t be in favor of the Iraqi vote and opposed to the war. On another level, you can, but it’s a happy chocolate land where the fountains spout fudge and the bunnies are edible and Saddam relinquishes power, ashamed, because Kofi Annan drafted a stern letter promising Serious Consequences, and some Iraqi Gandhi not only showed he was morally superior to the Tikriti gang, but had a titanium-hulled body that made him impervious to torture shredders. And then the Baathists devolved and the Rotarians took over.

Perhaps in 15 years Iraq would be free under that scenario; who cares? I don’t live there. Of course, perhaps in 15 years it will be Rabid Foamy Mullah Central. We’ll see. I just like the idea of actual voting for actual constitutions in the Land of the Strong Man, and seeing all the fictions of the post WW2 Arab landscape upended and dynamited. But that’s me. What struck me was that these people standing by the shopping mall were protesting the means by which the right to vote had been secured. It seems like protesting Meals-on-Wheels because the truck broke the speed limit and had expired tags.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thanks, Pat!

Words have consequences:

Robertson, a 1988 presidential candidate, said on his August 22 broadcast of The 700 Club television program that the U.S. government should assassinate Chavez to protect American oil interests and because Chavez "has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent." He later apologized, but Chavez's government stopped issuing foreign missionary visas and reportedly tightened regulations on preachers in the country. Venezuela's religious affairs chief, Carlos Gonzalez, told Reuters that the government had already been working on the move "but these declarations have made us speed things up."

Robertson told CNN on Sunday that Chavez "is negotiating with the Iranians to get nuclear material. And he also sent $1.2 million in cash to Osama bin Laden right after 9/11." Robertson offered no evidence to support his accusation.

In response to Chavez's plan to expel NTM, another mission group wrote in a confidential prayer e-mail, "While we believe that Chavez has been planning to expel foreign missionaries for some time, statements like those made by Robertson have provided him with an excuse to do so and might actually justify his actions in the eyes of many Venezuelans who otherwise would have been more ambivalent."

...

While Venezuelan evangelicals "shrug Pat Robertson off as goofy," Olson said, the nation's evangelicals are coming under popular disfavor because of Robertson's remarks.

"That certainly isn't a wise thing to say," Olson said. "It certainly smears the evangelical world for all it's worth."

New Tribes Missionaries are being kicked out of Venezuela, in part because of Pat Robertson's comments. Sure, Chavez is using Robertson as an excuse, but Robertson should have known better than to give the Venezuelan president some political cover for this move.

Kudos to Christianity Today for this story. It's long past time for the evangelical community to start pointing out just how harmful the careless words of Robertson can be to missions work around the world.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 18, 2005

Fun with Correlation

Hmmm. Do you think this story about Bush's low approval numbers and this story about Harriet Miers on Capitol Hill are related? Or this story about her visit with Senator Arlen Specter?

Not every nominee to the Supreme Court is going to be of the same caliber as John Roberts, whose knowledge of Constitutional law was impressive. But if these stories are correct, then Miers is already showing she has little understanding of the importance or meaning of some pretty significant legal precedents in constitutional law.

Supporters of Harriet Miers have talked of how supportive the base is of the president. I think the dropping poll numbers show that more Republicans are starting to realize just how bad a pick Miers is and how poorly it reflects on the man who nominated her. Miers should withdraw her nomination, and soon, or the president should do it for her. Loyalty is admirable, but only so long as the recipient of that loyalty is deserving.

Posted by slublog at 08:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bird Flu Overhyped?

Glenn Reynolds posts a letter from a medical researcher, who says the media may be just a bit hysterical about the dangers posed by the bird flu. To me, the focus on the story illustrates one of the most annoying traits of the media - their obsessive need to scare the living heck out of everyone.

Remember SARS? Mad Cow? Swine Flu? We should all be dead, many times over. If you watch the evening news, or the 'newsmagazines,' they are full of scare stories about the dangers posed by household items, especially if children are involved.

Ratings are important to keep media outlets alive, I understand. But it's that need for ratings that leads to the scare stories. And such stories, while interesting, do little to serve the public interest.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

What's in the Boxes, Karl?

The media, seemingly desperate for a story (or just bored and irritated with the editors that made them stake out Karl Rove's house), ran an odd little piece on the contents of Rove's garage. A sampling:

_A rather large wood crate marked "FRAGILE" and painted with arrows indicating which way is up. On top of the crate, two coolers.

_A tall aluminum ladder.

_A snow shovel leaned in front of another cardboard box.

_Wicker baskets inside of wicker baskets on top of a shelf running the length of the rear wall. Transparent plastic storage bins crammed with indiscernible stuff. Another cardboard box.

Indiscernible stuff?

I smell scandal!

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 17, 2005

Busy Days

I apologize for the lack of posts. It's been a hectic couple of weeks. When things calm down a bit, I promise to post a bit more.

Posted by slublog at 02:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Decorating for Halloween

Steve at Hog on Ice has an idea for the ultimate Halloween lawn ornament.

Posted by slublog at 08:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 14, 2005

Back in Iraq

Michael Yon has updated his blog with a new story about what it takes to be an embedded journalist and why we don't see more of them in Iraq.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Perspectives on Miers

Jonah Goldberg has a very good column on Miers in National Review:

There's much panic and wishful thinking about what all this means for the Right in America. Howard Fineman of Newsweek declares that the conservative movement is "falling apart at the seams." This, too, is delirium. Such spats come with being a majority party. Recall that another president made a vastly more divisive Supreme Court play once. FDR tried to pack the Court with a whole herd of cronies. His party went batty. Insults were hurled in all directions. The scheme ended in a humiliating loss for FDR. And yet: The Democrats were reelected three more times.

Also, my latest column is available at the Republican Journal website and it's about...yeah, you guessed it...Harriet Miers.

Sorry about that. It will all end soon, I promise.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Oh, Danny Boy

Dan Rather is coming to Maine, and I plan to be there. I've got my tickets ordered, and my notebook ready. I'm actually looking forward to it quite a bit. I'd like to hear what he has to say, if anything, about the direction the media is headed in the future.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 13, 2005

"Let's Wait for the Hearings"

I promise, this is not going to turn into an all-Miers, all the time blog. But I've seen this argument a lot and think it should be dealt with. When discussing the Miers nomination with conservatives who disagree with me, the inevitable response by some is "well, let's wait for the hearings and hear what she has to say."

That's not exactly a convincing argument. Congressional hearings really have become nothing more than theater. Very rarely does something surprising or even interesting happen while the cameras are rolling and the senators are bloviating. With Roberts, we had papers, writings, case law. With Miers, we have some letters, some testimonials from friends and the president's word.

That may show she's a good person or hard worker or nice tipper at restaurants, but it doesn't indicate at all what kind of Supreme Court justice she would be. Anything she has to say at the hearings would not indicate that, either, since she'll likely stick to saying things that won't annoy the senators who will vote on her confirmation.

The best way to know someone's record is for them to have a record, to state the obvious. Miers does not have that record, and that is the most worrying aspect of her nomination. We simply do not know anything about what she would do if elevated to a seat on the Supreme Court, and the hearings will give us little indication of anything other than she crams well for tests.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 12, 2005

Why Christians Should Vote Democrat

Those who have paid close attention to my posts and comments will have noticed that I have been reconsidering my habit of automatically voting GOP. Events this past week led me to consider another reason why it might be a very good thing for Christians to vote against the GOP.

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family endorsed Miers last week (couldn't find an transcript but you can listen to the radio program at the linked site). Now he has to devote today's broadcast to clearing up speculation that he received inside information from Rove in return for that endorsement. FotF even has a portion of its website devoted to political issues. Now I’m not picking on them necessarily, but I do happen to be in Colorado for a funeral right now and so this has been front-page news here. I’m sure we all can think of similar organizations.

All this worries me, it worries me a great deal. FotF is not the first para-church organization to get involved in politics. Now, though, such organizations have political influence beyond mere grassroots encouragement. It is bad enough that each October pamphlets sprout up in churches all across the country with hot-button litmus-test checklists that make GOP candidates look good and Democrat candidates look bad. Now evangelical leaders regularly dispense political advice alongside spiritual advice. It is clear by the fact that Rove even talked to Dobson before the announcement, even if nothing secret was shared, that the GOP considers evangelical support essential nowadays. No longer is religious political activism the equivalent of some third-world country sending a couple hundred soldiers to a UN peacekeeping mission, the GOP must bring the evangelical bigwigs on board to succeed in any major endeavor anymore.

My fear is that the 21st-century American church is going to have no more success retaining its distinctive spiritual character as the body of Christ than any other church has in the past 2000 years once it gained political power. If salt loses its saltiness, what is it good for but being thrown out? A vote for the Democrats may well prove to be a vote to save the church from itself, for the only hope I see for it is to take political power from it. I may not like many or even most of the policies and decisions that would result from Democrats in power, but next to the spectre of a worthless church it’s an easy choice.

Posted by at 10:42 AM | Comments (25) | TrackBack

Miers and Evangelicals

Hugh Hewitt predicts doom for the GOP if Miers is not confirmed, because Miers has been identified as an evangelical and evangelicals might just stay home if the GOP offends them.

Some posters at ConfirmThem and other places are outraged by this observation, which seems to be to be completely beyond debate. The effect will happen. It is not a response to say it shouldn't occur, or that these Evangelicals are wrong or that they should know better. It will happen, and it will harm the GOP's position going into 2006.

Completely beyond debate? Um, not entirely. John Podhoretz:

The presumption, therefore, that the defeat or withdrawal of her nomination will cause millions upon millions of Evangelicals to stay home more than a year from now in a snit over the loss of their "identity politics" candidate -- as opposed to participating in the political process, as good citizens of this country do -- strikes me as tantamount to saying that a large number of Evangelical voters are looking for ways to cut off their noses to spite their face.

After all, whom will they be punishing? Bush? National Review? Charles Krauthammer? Rush Limbaugh? No, by acting in ways that may ensure a Democratic majority in the Senate, they will be punishing themselves, and they are sophisticated enough to understand that.

I agree with Podhoretz's take on this one. Evangelicals are becoming more and more politically savvy and realize that in order to maintain a voice in the party, they have to participate in the process instead of bolting every time they don't get their way.

I think a lot of evangelicals recognize that Harriet Miers is a poor choice for the Supreme Court. I'm not saying she's a bad person, but it's a missed opportunity to put a more qualified person on the bench. Miers has little to no judicial experience, something that may be seen as a plus by some, but the person sitting in that seat should not only know what they believe, but how the law should guide their decisions.

Again, a missed opportunity.

Posted by slublog at 10:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Miers Debate Thus Far

A WuzzaDem parody. Very funny.

Posted by slublog at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

La, La, La La La...BOOM!

Yes, when I was a kid, I watched the Smurfs.

That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy this.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Boy, Can This Guy Hold a Grudge

A columnist for the Des Moines Register says John Kerry should sue the Swift Boat Vets for libel. Why do I get the feeling that "Swift Boat Vets" is going to join "Halliburton" and "Enron" in the liberal lexicon?

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 11, 2005

Maine in the Fall

A few times each year, the Bangor Water District opens the Thomas Hill Standpipe to the public. Last Wednesday was one of those days and I got the chance to snap some pictures of this city from on high.

Pictures after the jump.

This is downtown Bangor. It's not a big city, but there's 'never a lack of things to do.' Sorry. Bad joke. It really is a nice city.

As you can see, the trees are beginning to turn. This is also a view of Bangor. It's basically a small city cut out of the woods. Drive 10 miles in any direction out of the city, and you're in the middle of nowhere.

This is the park near the Standpipe.

The Standpipe, from the ground. It's hard to capture just how big this thing is.

Posted by slublog at 12:41 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Evil Weather

It's rained for three days here in Maine. Our basement had some water in it, which isn't unusual for a 100 year old house with a fieldstone foundation. Still, it's unsettling to see a puddle in any part of the house.

No matter how terrible the weather here in Maine is, I feel lucky that I'm not in the midwest northwest.

Posted by slublog at 12:22 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

More on Miers

John Fund, who wrote a column recommending Miers not be confirmed, was interviewed on Hugh Hewitt's show today. Radioblogger has an interesting excerpt. I'm wondering if the White House realizes just how unpopular the Miers nomination is among its supporters, and whether they will take any steps to withdraw her name from consideration.

Ace and JeffG both have good posts on the debate over Miers.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 10, 2005

Still Underwhelmed

Hugh Hewitt, who I normally like quite a bit, makes some unconvincing arguments in support of Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court.

There are quite a few pundits who feel the president has blundered, some badly. Time will tell, as will other factors such as the number of additional vacancies he gets to fill, and his nominees for those slots.

The major problem I have with the "time will tell" argument is that in this scenario, if Miers is confirmed and turns out to be more O'Connor than Scalia, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. We'd be stuck with a wishy-washy by the seat of her pants jurist for a decade or two, and the president would have squandered his chance to impact the court in any significant way.

But only a disingenuous pundit will argue that it is better to lose ground in the elections of 2006 than to maintain or gain ground then.

Some pundits are indeed arguing that the Republicans deserve to lose in 2006. While I'm sympathetic to the argument that Republicans are disappointing in so many ways, I'm not willing to allow a party controlled by unserious people such as Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi to assume power in Congress.

To put it bluntly: There is zero advantage and plenty of harm in defeating Miers, including the very obvious encouragement of the previously fever-swamp argument that Bush was a lame duck.

So now we're supposed to care what Kos, Atrios and the MoveOn crowd think? President Bush will determine the status of his presidency from this point on. His selection of this cipher candidate displays a lame-duck mentality already instead of a willingness to engage in the needed fight over the proper role of the judiciary.

It is also certain that a crucial slice of the evangelical base will perceive in the rejection of Miers a rejection of their status as equal partners in the governing coalition. Even if that slice is small --and it does not appear small to me at this point-- it is strategic.

Bull. I'm an evangelical, and I think this is a terrible nomination. If evangelicals are so petulant as to jump ship on Bush simply because 'one of their own' isn't nominated, then one has to ask why such an easily-offended slice of the electorate has been allowed to assume such a large measure of control over a political party. Personally, I don't believe all evangelicals, or even a majority of them, would be offended if Bush withdrew the nomination of a woman whose judicial philosophy may not be all that conservative in the first place.

Posted by slublog at 03:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Rudy Rising

So far, I've been extremely unimpressed with the potential Republican nominees for president in 2008, with one exception - Rudy Giuliani. This article sums up pretty well why, if Giuliani decides to run, I'll support him.

THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP VACUUM has many conservatives, many Republicans, and many mainstream Americans longing for authority, for someone to step in and run things. Someone to take charge visibly of the day-to-day conduct of the country's affairs. Somebody who will butt heads willingly, even joyously, with obstreperous backstabbers, obstructionists, foot-draggers, and whiners, whether in the opposition party or his own. Someone who will joyfully champion a public fight against waste and inefficiency. Somebody who may be at times conspicuously wrong, but who will, nonetheless, be conspicuous.

It sounds like Rudy Giuliani to me.

Giuliani's leadership ability is his greatest asset, but as an extra special bonus, he'll be able to take media attention away from John McCain without resorting to the sort of phoniness the Arizona senator uses to attract journalists.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Doug on Fire

Doug at Bogus Gold is writing up a storm on the Miers nomination. Good stuff.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 07, 2005

Here is a general we can get behind

Just over at The Corner and found a link to this site: General Zod for President!

Complaining about the high price of gas? His answer is to send you to the salt mines!!!

Posted by at 03:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Gang of 14 Led to Miers?

That's Mark Levin's argument in National Review Online.

But the ideological confrontation with the likes of Senator Charles Schumer and the Democrat left that many of us believe is essential, including Will and Kristol, was made much more difficult thanks to the likes of McCain and the unwillingness to change the rule before any Supreme Court vacancy arose. This president has been poorly served by his Republican "allies" in this regard. Bush is the first president who has had to deal with an assault of this kind on his constitutional authority. And unless and until the filibuster rule is changed, a liberal minority in the Senate will have the upper hand.

Read the whole thing.

It's little things like this, and McCain's endorsement of a pro-choice Republican candidate in California, that have already sunk his chances for the Republican nomination. The media will continue to push his candidacy and portray him as the front-runner, but the base just doesn't like him all that much.

Posted by slublog at 06:47 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Earle's Oops

Hm. Maybe this really is a case of malicious prosecution.

Makes Newsweek's latest 'trouble for the GOP' story look like jumping the gun, doesn't it?

Posted by slublog at 06:46 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 06, 2005

No Update Thursdays!

Okay, I'm really not going to turn this into a regular feature. Today and tomorrow, though, I have an all-day class to attend and will not be able to update the site until the evenings. So if breaking news happens, I'll be, er, elsewhere.

BTW - saw "Serenity" last night. Great movie.

Posted by slublog at 06:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 05, 2005

More On Miers

Doug over at Bogus Gold compares the efforts of some conservatives to defend the Miers nomination to Rube Goldberg's contraptions.

And George Will is very upset about the nomination.

This was a bad move by a president who can't afford too many more of those right now.

Posted by slublog at 11:39 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Afterlife Weather Forecast

We've all heard the expression, "Hotter than Hell" but have you ever wondered just how hot that is? Using evidence from the Holy Scriptures, it is possible to calculate just how hot Hell can be, and as a bonus how hot Heaven will be too! The results may surprise you!

The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is Isaiah 30:26, "Moreover, the light of the Moon shall be as the light of the Sun and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days." Thus Heaven receives from the Moon as much radiation as we do from the Sun, and in addition 7 x 7 (49) times as much as the Earth does from the Sun, or 50 times in all. The light we receive from the Moon is one 1/10,000 of the light we receive from the Sun, so we can ignore that. The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation, i.e., Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, (H/E)^4 = 50, where E is the absolute temperature of the earth (-300ºK), gives H as 798ºK (525ºC).

The exact temperature of Hell cannot be computed. However, Revelation 21:8 says "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulphur] means that its temperature must be at or below its boiling point, 444.6ºC.

We have, then, that Heaven, at 525ºC is hotter than Hell at 445ºC.

One can assume that the temperature in Heaven will fluctuate slghtly based on the eccentricity of the orbits of the Moon and Earth.

Posted by at 11:19 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Eew! Icky Religious Cooties!

Huffington Post writer Michael Schaub is annoyed at Florida Governor Jeb Bush. A HuffPo writer? Annoyed at a Republican? Try to contain your shock. At issue is the "Just Read, Florida" program and its selection of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis. Schaub has two reasons for opposing this move. One, he says its a blatant attempt to reward a rich Republican donor who just happens to be making a movie based on that book.

Two, the book is just full of Christian references. Of course, as this article in Time points out, Lewis also borrowed from folklore and myth to tell his story. Schaub and those who have already commented on his post, attempt to argue that assigning this book is an attempt to "push Christian dogma on Florida schoolchildren."

First, let's admit the obvious. The book contains Christian allegory. But it also has swordfights, magic, a witch and talking animals. When I first read the book, I was not a Christian or particularly religious. But I loved the story of Narnia and read my way through the books over the course of a summer. If the allegory were heavy-handed enough to be indoctrination, the books would likely not be as popular as they are, and a movie might never have been made.

Still, though, why should words that display faith be removed from the public square? I thought the purpose of education was to expose children to a variety of ideas. Schaub seems to believe education should consist of exposure only to ideas with which he and his contemporaries agree.

Posted by slublog at 08:28 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

This Looks Good

Bill Watterson has released "The Complete Calvin and Hobbes." Now if Berke Breathed could only get going on a similar book for Bloom County.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

What's a Planet?

This question really is more suited for Joe's expertise, but I figured why not? Is a planet simply any celestial body that orbits a star, or should the definition be narrowed? That's a question the International Astronomical Union will debate.

WASHINGTON – The discovery of a tiny moon circling the most distant object seen in the solar system is further proof that the view of a tidy solar system with nine planets - enshrined in science-fair dioramas and school textbooks - is headed toward almost certain revision.

In July, astronomers announced the discovery of what they considered the 10th planet, an icy world that swings 9 billion miles away from the sun and is almost certainly larger than Pluto. This weekend, they declared this object, informally known as Xena, also has a most planetlike feature: a moon.

Whether Xena is in fact a planet will be the decision of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), which could instead begin a far more fundamental reexamination of what a planet is.

Xena? Sounds like these astronomers also happen to be Lucy Lawless fans.

Personally, I think the new planet should be called "Vulcan." Just for kicks.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

A Worthy Invention

I agree. These are kind of cool. They would certainly save me from the stubbed toes I've gotten recently.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 04, 2005

I Like My Wireless Internet, But...

I'm not sure I'd go as far as San Francisco's Mayor:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became internationally known for his campaign a year ago to legalise gay marriage, said on Monday he considered wireless Internet access a fundamental right of all citizens.

Newsom told a news conference that he was bracing for a battle with telephone and cable interests, along with state and U.S. regulators, whom he said were looking to derail a campaign by cities to offer free or low-cost municipal Wi-Fi services.

Wi-Fi is a short-range wireless technology that is now built into most laptop computers and is increasingly offered on handheld computers and certain mobile phones. Local officials are mulling plans to blanket every nook and cranny of this hilly city of 750,000 residents with Wi-Fi access.

"This is inevitable -- Wi-Fi. It is long overdue," Newsom told a news conference at San Francisco's City Hall. "It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information," he said.

Hm. Universal wireless would certainly come in handy sometimes. Here in Maine, though, I'd settle for good cell phone reception between towns.

Posted by slublog at 09:16 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

What the World Needs Now

Burt Bacharach has the answer to that question - a protest album collaboration with artists such as Rufus Wainwright and Dr. Dre. That's right - Burt Bacharach and Dr. Dre.

Legendary songwriter Burt Bacharach has "things he needs to say"; this time around though it seems love wont do, with a salvo aimed directly at the Bush administration with his new protest album "At This Time".

Set for release through Columbia Records on November 1, the new set features a host of major guest stars, as well as a 25-piece backing orchestra. It's also the first time Bacharach has written lyrics to his music.

"People ask why a man who has been known for writing love songs all of his life is suddenly rocking the boat," Bacharach says. "I had to do it. This is very personal to me, and this is the most passionate album I have ever made.

Sometimes, there are no words. That's just one of the weirdest things I've heard this month. Bacharach and Dre.

I won't buy the album (not a big fan of schmaltz) but if iTunes has samples, I'm there.

Posted by slublog at 12:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Home Sweet Home

I've talked about it quite a bit, so here's a picture of the new house. I'm not telling you where it is, but it's near this thing. We're slowly getting used to the fact that this place actually belongs to us. Well, us and the critters, that is. A skunk decided to pay us a visit tonight. Fortunately, it didn't leave a calling card.

This picture doesn't show the barn at all, and was taken before the new chimneys were built. It also doesn't show the massive pile of carpets we built up during the mini-renovation project. Ah, home ownership...

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 03, 2005

Miers for SCOTUS

Meh.

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday chose White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States," Bush said during a press conference announcing his pick.

Saying she has a "record of achievement with the law," Bush said Miers also has "built a reputation of character and integrity" and possesses a "deep compassion and abiding sense of duty."

Sorry, but this feels like cronyism to me, and judging by the reaction on the right side of the blogosphere, I'm not alone. This is a huge disappointment and a mistake on the part of Bush - he's made a pick that demoralizes many of us inclined to support him.

UPDATE - Criminy, Andrew. Learn to use the web before you spout off. Update to the Update - Sullivan corrects.

LUNCHTIME UPDATE (1:46 p.m.) - I just spent some time reading about Miers and the more I read, the more discouraged I get. Given the choice between encouraging a base he's spent the last few months annoying (spending too much money, refusing to do more than recite applause lines on progress in Iraq, not pushing for needed entitlement reform, etc...) and giving a job to a marginally qualified friend, he chose the friend over those of us who worked extremely hard to help him get re-elected.

It would just be nice, for once, if that famous "Bush loyalty" extended to his supporters.

Posted by slublog at 01:46 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

Where's he Been?

Just got back online at the new house. Almost thought it wouldn't happen this weekend - Verizon, my former ISP, said they couldn't get to it until October 12. When the cable guy showed up to hook us up, I asked him how long it would take if I put in an order this afternoon. He said "right now."

Adelphia it is.

Tomorrow's the big move day, so probably no updates until Monday at the earliest.

UPDATE 10/3 - Heh. This morning, I called to cancel my Verizon DSL order that was still in the system. I was on hold for 35 minutes and the guy on the other end of the line still seemed surprised when I told him the reason for my cancellation was inadequate customer service.

Sheesh.

Posted by slublog at 11:08 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Lies, Damned Lies, and Journalism

Why does Tony Zumbado still have a job?

During the emotional outburst that was the MSM's Katrina coverage, he described the conditions in New Orleans to MSNBC's Alison Stewart.

STEWART: Tell me about the sanitation.

ZUMBADO: The sanitation was unbelievable. The stench in there . . . was unbelievable. Dead people around the walls of the convention center, laying in the middle of the street in their dying chairs. . . . They were just covered up . . . Babies, two babies dehydrated and died. I'm telling you, I couldn't take it.

Gripping story. Only problem is, it's complete and utter fabrication. There were deaths at the convention center, but nothing like the scene of mass horror described by Zumbado. He exaggerated the story and communicated false information.

So again, I ask. Why does this man still have a job?

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Surrounded by Boxes

So we're now officially moved into the house. It feels odd actually being here - pulling up into the driveway and realizing this place is ours. (Okay, technically it belongs to the bank, but still...)

We've already locked ourselves out of the house. We were going to get something out of the barn, and realized we'd shut the door behind us. The door that locks from the inside. Good thing we gave my parents, who live across town, a spare key. I was also thankful we had friends across the street who allowed us to use their phone, and that this didn't happen in February.

I'm still going to start carrying around my keys. Just in case.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

One Column, Four Corrections

Columnists, fortunately, are given a lot of editorial freedom in what they write. They do, after all, make their living giving other people their opinions. As the saying goes, though, people are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.

Someone should have informed Paul Krugman of that, it seems.

Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 01, 2005

Sweet Serenity

I caught a late night showing of Serenity last night, and me being one who usually doesn't go out late, it was so worth it.

I have to say that "Serenity" is the best movie I have seen this year (Sorry, Batman). Matt Roush over at TV Guide thoroughly enjoyed the movie, but thinks Whedon's storytelling is better showcased on the small screen (Link via Whedonesque). I disagree.

Whedon's unique Western/Sci-Fi blend was amazing on the big screen. While I enjoyed watching the "Firefly" series, the movie had me on the edge of my seat the entire time. Now, some have said that there is no appeal for anyone that was not a fan of the show. Here again I disagree. Whedon's script gives first timers plenty of background so they are up to speed on what has transpired. But, I have to say, that as a fan of the show, I was way more invested in the characters, actually cared what happened to them, then a first time viewer might be.

The cast, which included everyone from the TV series, was amazing. The transition from the small screen to the big screen was seamless. Once again, Whedon went against the norm casting all the actors from the TV show, no big names, just good actors. Summer Glau, who plays the troubled teen River Tam, was the focal point of the story, and was awesome in action. The few glimpses of killer instinct we saw in the "Firefly" series really comes to life in this film. At one point she clears out a bar, and even puts Jayne (Adam Baldwin), the resident tough guy aboard Serenity, down for the count several times.

Visually, the film was stunning. Everything about it was awesome. The space scenes were epic. The fight scenes were intense and well choreographed. The acting was great and Whedon infused plenty of humor into a very serious story. There were even a few surprises which I won't elaborate on here so as not to spoil the film for any fans out there that haven't seen it yet. Definitely some surprises.

Joss Whedon is a genius, and I look forward to more adventures with the crew of the Serenity, whether it be on TV or at the Theater.

Worth the full price of admission.

Posted by at 10:35 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack