« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »
November 30, 2005
More Life Downtown
Bangor's history museum gets a great donation.
I think this is fantastic. There's a lot of history in this little city, and finding a nice place downtown to display it is another step in the revitalization of downtown.
Now, if the city leaders could just find the political will to stop the loitering, things would get even better.
Posted by slublog at 06:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
I Don't Know How to Say This ...
... without coming across as judgmental or self-righteous, but I am really, really glad I don't own a TV. I was at the in-laws for the weekend and watched a lot of TV for the first time in a long time. Got to see Dallas lose which always helps the digestion on Turkey Day. Watched a neat series on crab fishing in the Bering Sea on the Discover channel. Saw a couple CSIs and a MythBusters (the Confederates apparently did not bombard Washington DC with two-stage rockets).
I also saw a lot of commercials. A LOT of them. And it's funny, not having seen commercials for so long, how stupid they are. Most of them were variations on this theme: "Spend your money to buy this amusing gadget." I didn’t even know what half these gadgets are, I had never heard of them—and therefore, didn’t want them. I still don’t want them even after seeing the ads. They seem pretty pointless, or maybe the ads are aimed at values I just don’t share. I don’t miss what these gadgets provide very much, and certainly not enough to pay “must-have” inflated prices for them.
I used to think that the shows on TV were the most detrimental thing, all the coarseness and violence, but now I think the ads are more damaging. Rachel has no clue who Dora the Explorer is, and therefore doesn’t want everything she sees that has Dora on it. Contrast that with the other kids we saw in Toys R Us the day after Thanksgiving—where did they learn that they needed or wanted these things? They learned it from TV, that’s where. TV is a huge materialism trainer. I’d like to have the chance to teach Rachel that people are more important than things, and I won’t get the chance if Cartoon Network is my babysitter.
Here’s another way TV undermines valuing people. Alethea goes to a community ladies' Bible Study and to MOPS here in town, and so Rachel gets to play with the kids in the nursery. I feel bad for the babysitters, because when they put in a video everyone crowds around the TV except her, and one of them has to play with her. She just totally ignores the TV. I’m kind of proud of her, I don’t know if that’s right but I do feel that way. I'm also amazed how young the other kids have gotten used to focusing on the TV. This is convenient for care-givers but it isn’t really interpersonal interaction. When we go to visit the in-laws it seems like the way they spend time together is to watch TV or movies together. I suppose that's a shared experience, but there isn’t much interaction between people, no sharing of feelings, opinions, values, and ideas. As for Rachel, I really enjoy her curiosity, even if it means we get less done around the house.
I'm not anti-technology, and I'm not saying that everyone who has a TV is a sinner or fool or something stupid like that. I'm just trying to put into words how satisfied I am with the decision Alethea and I have made to not have a TV in our house. It’s about the personal interaction and the materialism. I think we have a much better chance raising Rachel with the values we hope to instill in here without TV contradicting our instruction. It good for us too not to have something dragging us down in these areas too.
Posted by at 01:13 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
November 29, 2005
Firefly, Season Two?
This would be cool, and if it sold well, would demonstrate that good television shows don't necessarily have to depend on networks for their survival.
Posted by slublog at 08:36 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
No Home, No Job, But Hey, There's WIRELESS
New Orleans starts the first citywide wireless internet service.
That's an interesting way to attract people back. Good jobs, clean homes and less corruption in city government would be better, but I guess you've got to start somewhere.
Posted by slublog at 08:20 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
On the Road
Traveling to Rockland today for a conference. Blogging will be light (read: nonexistent) from me until either this evening, or later tomorrow.
UPDATE - I always feel like such a pretender when I'm at a nice hotel, and this qualifies. The conference is actually very interesting, and I'm thankful for the wireless internet that came with the room, but I'll be glad to be home tomorrow.
Now, I wonder how much soap I can stuff into my suitcase...
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 28, 2005
Modeling Proper Behavior
According to the Bangor Daily News, a community in Blue Hill is looking for ways to solve the underage drinking problem. I think it's great this community is trying to find ways to deal with the problem, but Maine is never going to solve its underage drinking problem until it takes serious steps to deal with adult drinking.
I don't mean the occasional beer or glass of wine. There are far too many adults in Maine who still get themselves drunk on the weekends and model improper drinking behavior to their families. Kids tend to follow the examples set by adults, and so far, too many in this state are not taking that responsibility seriously enough.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Cars
I'll admit, the first teaser trailer for the new Pixar movie didn't do much for me. This newest one, though, gives me hope. Plus, these guys provide two of the voices in the movie, which is just a great move on Pixar's part.
This studio hasn't had a real clunker yet, so I'm beginning to look forward to this upcoming film.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 26, 2005
The Great Debate
My latest Republican Journal column is up.
Posted by slublog at 07:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Dilbert Blog
Scott Adams, of "Dilbert" fame, has a blog.
Who knew?
Posted by slublog at 07:35 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Fun with Headlines
Mary Katherine Ham, writing at Hugh Hewitt's site, points out the media's reluctance to report good news as good news.
Posted by slublog at 01:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 24, 2005
Happy Thanksgiving
Posted by slublog at 09:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 23, 2005
My Wallet Gets Lighter
Ah, good. It's been awhile since the Republicans in Congress did something to infuriate and frustrate me, so this story comes as a welcome surprise.
WASHINGTON -- The Republican-controlled Congress helped itself to a $3,100 pay raise on Friday, then postponed work on bills to curb spending on social programs and cut taxes in favor of a two-week vacation.The headline above this story is "Congress Helps Self to $3,100 Pay Raise." A couple of notes on style. First, what a lazy headline writer - the editor just stole this guy's lead to create the headline. Bad form.
Two - a note to the reporter, Espo. Pretty good lead, if you were writing a column. When you reach the point where you have a column where you can slyly assign value judgments and motives to Congressional behavior, then knock yourself out. Until then, keep your voice out of the blasted story.
Now, to the Republicans - what the bleedin' holy heck are you morons thinking? Sure, the Democrats voted along with you on this pay raise thing, but this move brings the average pay in Congress to $165,000. The median household income in this country is around $41,000. Do you want commercials decrying you as rich elitists next year? I guess I don't have anything more profound to say than stop spending my money!
An amusing bit of the story is pointed out by As I Please. Pelosi, just before voting herself a pay raise, said the following: "The Republicans are taking food out of the mouths of children to give tax cuts to America's wealthiest. This is not a statement of America's values..." Sure, Nancy. Let me know which charity receives the $3,100 extra bucks you'll be making next year.
All in all, another fine performance from our free-spending Congress. (h/t: Ace)
Posted by slublog at 08:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 22, 2005
Congrats, Dan
My friend is a father, again.
Posted by slublog at 09:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Mmmm...Calories...
Like Milli Vanilli, I'm going to blame it on the rain.
Two-thirds of a pint of Ben and Jerry's Coffee Heath Bar Crunch in one sitting. At least three servings - about 870 calories.
Definitely the rain.
Posted by slublog at 08:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
More Bad Buzz for the 360
As though Microsoft wasn't unpopular enough. Makes you wonder whether Bill Gates is on some sort of weird crusade to make everyone on earth hate him.
It's pretty simple - when you own a business and promise to have a product out at a certain (celebrated and advertised) date, you have the product available. This is bad business and could backfire if these customers decide to go with another gaming console instead of waiting for Microsoft.
Posted by slublog at 06:13 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
A Sad Day for Sam
It's too bad the dog has passed on, but criminy was he ugly.
Posted by slublog at 04:29 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Mostly Maine Gamblers
Once upon a time, I dismissed gambling as a tax on people who can't do math. After a few weeks of having Hollywood Slots in town, I've changed my mind on the issue a bit. The news that the racino has taken in over $12 million in as many days in a state with an average household income of $37,000 is shocking, to say the least. Makes you wonder what some people are giving up to gamble.
I think some people have the ability to gamble without getting addicted. However, given the high incidence of other addictive behaviors in the state, I'm not sure much good can come of this new business. The casino may bring in a lot of money, but I fear most of the increased revenue will be spent on the increased social costs of helping those whose addictions get the best of them.
Posted by slublog at 12:05 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Wow. Political Geniuses at Work
Senators Graham and McCain say the GOP may be in trouble. Gee, what gave you the first hint, guys?
For the record, though, I agree with them. Even if they are a bit late to the party.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 21, 2005
Judge: "If you are on a plane you must behave yourself."
An Australain woman failed in her attempt to qualify for a Darwin Award when a flight attendant prevented her from opening an emergency door to take a smoke. Apparently she was so afraid to fly that she took sleeping pills and boozed herself up. Consequently she claimed in court that she has no recollection of the flight or her bid for fame, although she did admit to a history of "sleepwalking."
Posted by at 12:29 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Column Night
Yesterday, I realized I had a column due this week. That's what I've expended a lot of time writing this evening, so I have little energy left to blog.
So, once again, it's a link dump.
Pennsylvania goes retro on hunting.
You know, this movie might not be half bad.
Orson Scott Card says McCarthyism still exists - just not where you might think.
Yes, Portland is changing. But is it for the better? This series smells like award-bait, but it's well written and asks some good questions.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 18, 2005
Sorry...
No real posting today. Couldn't think about politics. Had more important things on my mind today.
Technology is amazing. My wife is 20 weeks along, and they used the new 3-D sonogram machine to take this picture.
Posted by slublog at 07:41 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
On Faith and Politics (again)
One of the bloggers I don't read as often as I should is Mark D. Roberts. He's the senior pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church in Irvine, California, and the author of a book on prayer that I enjoyed quite a bit, No Holds Barred: Wrestling with God in Prayer.
Recently, Roberts wrote a series about a church in California that has run afoul of the IRS. The pastor is accused of using the pulpit to deliver partisan messages. As part of that series, Roberts puts into words something I've often thought when dealing with politics and religion:
Furthermore, preachers who delve into partisan politics often fail to recognize that they are no longer articulating what can be plainly known from Scripture, but rather that which depends on a host of other political and economic ideas. Let me provide an example I've used before. I can with great confidence call my congregation to care for and seek justice for the poor because Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, is abundantly clear about such things. I stand on solid ground when I preach that God cares for the poor and that we much be committed to working for a world in which there is less poverty, both in our country and throughout the world. I can applaud efforts our church makes to alleviate poverty in places like northern Mexico and Swaziland.This is an important point. Jesus told us to take care of the poor. He didn't tell us how. Despite our best efforts to fit Jesus' command into whatever economic theory we prefer, Jesus was not a follower of Smith or Keynes. I think His expectation is that if we are blessed with wealth, we should do more with it than indulge our own desires.But if I were to begin to advocate specific economic and political solutions to the problem of poverty – more government aid, free trade agreements, redistribution of American wealth to other countries, the expansion of capitalism in the third world, or whatever – then I would have imported a whole bunch of economic and political theories into my equation. Thus I would have greatly muddied the water, while losing the moral clarity and authority that comes from the trustworthy and obvious exposition of Scripture.
The problem in churches is not that we interpret scripture differently, but that we too often accuse those who disagree with us of being wrong or less devoted to Christ.
Posted by slublog at 12:05 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Vandal Attacks Radish, Breaks Hearts
Someone in Tokyo, Japan cut a radish that had been growing up through the asphalt. Why is this news?
Well, it was a popular and inspirational radish:
Asked why the radish -- more often found on Japanese dinner tables as a garnish, pickle or in “oden” stew -- had so many fans, town spokesman Jiro Matsuo said: “People discouraged by tough times were cheered by its tenacity and strong will to live.”It's like Seabiscuit. Except, it's a plant.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 17, 2005
The Grinch Who Stole Fitzmas
Bob Woodward revealed that he knew Valerie Plame worked for the CIA before Lewis Libby allegedly leaked the information to another reporter.
I'll admit it. Now I'm completely confused. Was there a crime committed or wasn't there?
This does call into question the timeline that Patrick Fitzgerald has used to investigate this and throws a wrench into the "Fitzmas" celebrations on the left. I still think that if Libby lied under oath, he should be prosecuted, but Woodward has provided a potential jury with some serious reasonable doubt.
A side question I've asked before related to the Fitzgerald investigation - how much is it costing us? During the Starr investigation, all we heard about was how much the special prosecutor's office was spending. The media and the Democrats gave us a running tally of how much was being spent to "hound Bill Clinton."
Where are the running tallies today? How much is being spent to investigate what has become something of a mess, a situation in which there is now some doubt as to whether a crime was committed at all?
Just asking.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Sticking With the Classic
Jonathan Last at Galley Slaves says the early buzz on the Xbox 360 is not that great.
I have a classic XBox and had no intention of upgradiing. I like the games I have, play them to relax by myself or as a social event with friends (Halo 2 with 8 players is all kinds of fun). To justify the upgrade and the cost of the new console, Microsoft needed to wow video game enthusiasts with something new and different.
Doesn't look as though that's happening.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
November 16, 2005
Garbage Birds
It appears that it is a crime to shoot a house sparrow in the Netherlands, even if it knocks over your record-setting domino set-up. They are an endangered species there, if you can believe it. I have an idea: let's send the Dutch all our house sparrows! They are a classic example of invasive exotic species outcompeting native species.
Posted by at 02:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Why I Don't Miss Cable
I have no doubt that David Schuster would have just as much trouble being an honest reporter on a network news channel, but he fits right in at MSNBC, home of Ron Reagan, Chris Matthews and the snooze-inducing Tucker Carlson. It's like a graveyard for brain cells.
As Glenn Reynolds has pointed out, the White House is finally beginning to push back against the media's increasing unprofessionalism. And that's just what it is - unprofessional behavior. Bias in news stories is one thing - sloppy reporting or outright distortion is another. How hard can it be? You figure out what's going on, find some quotes and slap a tidy little story together in time for the broadcast or printing.
The media are now calling the White House response to their distortion an "escalation of the rhetoric" when in fact it's simply an attempt (long past due) to bring some measure of context and truth back into a debate that has become a playground of hyperbole and rewritten history. Goldstein says this doesn't show a pretty side of the media:
This is a truly frightening occurence, when the media and the Dems can step back for a moment and look in awe over what they have wrought—as if they are mini-gods at the creation of a liberal utopian society who have just banished from their heavens the conservadevils.More here. Ted Kennedy was caught off guard by Tim Russert, who got the senator to say he was "concerned about" statements that they "had to get to the bottom of" that turned out to be from a speech by John Kerry.It hardly bears noting out that the Time correspondent was in fact pointing to the perception created and nurtured by Congressional Dems and their enablers in the media—whether through malice or, in the case of many in the media, through incompetence and intellectual laziness—as proof of their own assertions. It is a vicious and factually inaccurate feedback loop.
There has been a lot of bad-faith politicking and reporting on the issue of WMD in Iraq. It's tiresome, maddening and makes me wonder if politics will ever be civil again.
I'm not optimistic.
Posted by slublog at 12:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"Narnia" News
Soundtrack.net has clips of music from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe available online. I love Lisbeth Scott's voice, so I enjoyed these clips and they only made me want to see the movie even more.
I feel basically the same anticipation I felt with Fellowship of the Ring, wondering whether a movie could truly capture the feeling of a book I've loved since I was a kid.
Guess I'll find out Dec. 8th.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Ah, the Web...
Proof that yes, some people have far too much free time on their hands.
Funny, though.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
November 15, 2005
Television Show Enrages Small Nation
Kahzakstan threatens to sue satirist Ali G.
Behold the might of a nation lined up against the terror that is a comedian.
Posted by slublog at 07:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
I'm Free!
Pig makes dramatic escape attempt in Ellsworth. Funny story from the 'ayuh, it's Maine" files.
Posted by slublog at 06:49 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Robertson, Crawl Back Under Your Rock!
Seems like God's appointed interpreter of natural disasters has a dire warning for Dover, PA, who voted out every incumbent on a school board trying to introduce Intelligent Design into the science curriculum.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."
"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.
Will someone please shut this guy up?
UPDATE: Maybe this explains it.
Posted by at 03:22 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
An Unusual, but Funny, Interview
Another good Wuzzadem parody.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Best of Drucker
Management guru Peter Drucker died last week. Opinion Journal prints some of his best pieces of wisdom. I had to read a lot of Drucker in grad school. Kind of dry at times, but always interesting.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 14, 2005
Sick Day
Spent the day sleeping, after trying to go to work. Decided to come home when I realized the nausea wasn't going away, and throwing up at work would be bad.
Sorry for the lack of posts.
Posted by slublog at 09:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Boyfriend Abducts Girlfriend, Kills Her Parents
Everyone knows about this episode so I won't go into details. the only thing I'm wondering is, if this had happened in the inner-city, would we have heard about it? Is the grief of poor mothers and the horror of poor families not newsworthy? No, only when the security of suburbia is threatened is it news.
Posted by at 07:57 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Tax Cuts?
Olympia Snowe has come out against tax cuts, again.
It's understandable, though. I mean, just think of what a tax cut would do to the trough.
Giving money back to the taxpayers would threaten that sweet, sweet pork.
Olympia's crusade against deficits would be more convincing if she weren't so fond of bringing home the bacon. Her latest antics only serve to ease my mind about voting against her in 2006.
Posted by slublog at 12:03 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
November 11, 2005
Alito the Libertarian
A somewhat libertarian Supreme Court Justice?
Could happen, it seems.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"Worse than Nothing"
Some members of Congress really don't seem to like the Constitution all that much. That pesky First Amendment always does get in the way, doesn't it?
The other bill – HR 4194 – is a substitute offered by those most interested in regulating the internet. Its supporters are engaged in an aggressive campaign to pass this legislation in Congress, in an effort to muddy the waters and distract Congress from passing real protections for bloggers. They're so terrified of your freedom to speak your mind that they've actually compared giving freedom to bloggers to the scandal involving Scooter Libby in the White House. No, we're not making that up.Opposition to this bill on the web is completely bipartisan. Call your congressional representative and urge them to spike this one.In order to pass the bill we want – we need to stop the sham alternative bill – HR 4194.
Their measure, H.R. 4194 purports to protect “bloggers” from campaign finance regulation. But, in fact, it is so riddled with exceptions and exclusions that it is worse that nothing.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 10, 2005
Venturing Into the Land of Dial-Up
I have tomorrow off, so we're going to visit my wife's parents. They live far away from the life-affirming goodness that is broadband internet, so there will be no posting this weekend.
Posted by slublog at 10:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Who's in Charge of this Party?
Is Howard Dean calling the shots at the RNC?
Come on, guys. Cutting spending should be an easy vote. Guess they didn't learn anything from Tuesday.
Posted by slublog at 09:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!"
Well, I guess you have to give these guys credit for tenacity.
AUGUSTA - Still stinging from their lopsided defeat at the polls, Christian fundamentalist groups have all but abandoned efforts to repeal the state's new gay rights law to instead focus on pushing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.Before commenting on the idea presented at the press conference, let me first ask a question of the BDN's copy editors - what the heck? Were you guys asleep? I'm not a big fan of Heath, but I'm allowed to say so - this is a blog. You guys are supposed to be objective. Enough of this "still stinging" and "staid" nonsense. Just tell us what they said and cut the extraneous crap, okay?"Now that the gay rights movement has prevailed, we will soon hear the call for gay marriage," a staid Michael Heath of the Christian Civic League of Maine said Wednesday outside the group's Augusta headquarters. "We must work to see that this never happens."
Okay.
Now, where were we?
Yes, the anti-gay marriage amendment to the Maine Constitution. The short version? I hope these guys are long-range planners, because there is no chance of this happening anytime soon. Democratic House, Senate and Governor. That's one heck of an obstacle course to navigate.
Two, announcing it so soon after what turned out to be a resounding defeat (boy was I wrong on the margins) makes you look like sore losers and obsessives, not resolute. Before jumping into another expensive, time-intensive campaign, figure out why you lost the last one so badly.
The answers may surprise you.
Posted by slublog at 07:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Foiled Again!
Trust the guys at MIT to uncover the mother of all conspiracy theories: starting a rumor of how to protect yourself from mind control beams by wearing tin foil hats that actually make people more susceptible to them!
Posted by at 03:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Nice Solution to a Nasty Problem
This post has nothing to do with the Chicken Little movie. Really.
Astronomers have long wondered what to do when an asteroid is detected on a collision course for Earth. Recently it was calculated that the asteroid Apophis may hit Earth in 2036, depending on how Earth's gravity affects its orbit when it comes quite close to us in 2029. The Deep Impact/Armageddon solution is the worst one: even if are successful in blowing up an asteroid, you just get a bunch of fragments of the same mass in generally the same orbit for no net benefit. Using a nuke to deflect an asteroid is less promising now than before since we have discovered that many asteroids are piles of rubble held together by their own gravity instead of solid rock. Other ideas include deflecting it by attaching a rocket to the asteroid or painting it white to use the Yarkovsky Effect. None of these have been satisfactory for one reason or another.
A new and promising idea is to simply park a really heavy spacecraft next to the asteroid and let gravity alter its orbit. Surprisingly this is apparently sufficient to deflect even large asteroids, given 20 years or so. This is one of those ideas that is so simple it's a wonder no one thought of it before!
Posted by at 03:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Link Dump!
I sat in front of my computer for ten minutes, watching the blinking cursor, before I realized I had no idea what I was going to write. Maybe I've entered the 'long dark November of the blogging soul."
Until I get the blog bug back, here are some links.
Jeff Goldstein looks at rhetoric and truth in politics. (content warning)
Phil Collins - an honest entertainer.
You can never have enough Steyn.
Lark News is just funny.
Speaking of funny, it's always amusing to see your governor mentioned in The Onion.
Maine election results, for those interested.
Posted by slublog at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
An Interesting Admission
From Mike Heath's blog:
So emphasizing marriage was not an ideological decision, but a political and development one? Was it all about the money?Some people are speculating that Q1 would have prevailed had we decided not to emphasize marriage. They believe that highlighting the radical nature of the law would have carried the day. The truth is that there isn't much that we could have done differently to create a different outcome. We learned in the spring that we weren't going to have money. Businessmen told us then that they couldn't contribute to the campaign. They were afraid of reprisals.
Would they have given money had we not emphasized marriage, and emphasized the radical nature of the law instead? Doubtful.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 09, 2005
Making the Switch
An analyst is stating that due to the enormous amount of viruses that attack Window-based PCs and because of the phenomenal success of the iPod, more and more people are going to be making the switch to a Mac.
On October 11, Apple reported the highest revenue and earnings in its history. The company shipped 1.2 million
Macintosh computers and 6.5 million iPods during its fiscal 2005 fourth quarter, a 48% increase in Mac sales and a 220% increase in iPod sales compared to the same quarter a year earlier.
In his report, Needham & Co. analyst Charles Wolf observes that cumulative iPod sales have reached 28 million since 2001 and that the momentum of the iPod, in conjunction with the ubiquity of malware on the PC, has created a halo effect that benefits the Mac platform. "Windows users are buying Macs in increasing numbers," he wrote. "We estimate in the first three quarters of calendar 2005, over one million of them have purchased a Mac compared to our estimate of 500,000 for the entire calendar year."
Having already seen the light (Mac user since 1995), I’m glad to see the increase. I think there is an Apple laptop coming my way as soon as the Intel-based machines roll of the assembly line.
Posted by at 05:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
My Gnome is where?
Do you live in Leavenworth, Kansas, and are missing your Garden Gnome? It might be here.
Posted by at 05:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
When Lawyers Are the Only Cure for Earlier Lawyers
Indiana's Owen County is stuck with a one-square-inch plot of land and it's costing them a bundle.
Posted by at 12:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"Sorry, I can't help you because you're a fag"
If I were a registered Maine voter, I would have voted No last night. The text of the measure talks about repealing a law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment and education. In other words, the law makes it illegal for landlords, employers, and educators to act out the title of the post--hardly anyone will actually say it. A Yes vote is a vote for discrimination, not a vote against homosexuality. A No vote is a vote against discrimination, not a vote in favor of homosexuality. I am no fan of homosexuality, but I am no fan of discrimination either and would have felt that I could vote NO without committing myself to condone that lifestyle.
Discrimination is ugly. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Posted by at 09:35 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Good Night for the Dems
Two governorships, one in a red state. I won't attempt to minimize the losses, but neither do I buy the media spin that Republicans should run scared. New Jersey is a tough nut to crack for Republicans, and always has been. In Virginia, the Republican vote totals were hurt by a third-party candidate.
Still, though, those losses are going to hurt morale, fundraising and raise the possibility of a bad Election Day 2006.
In Maine, if this trend continues, it's going to be a bad night for Michael Heath and the Coalition for Marriage.
UPDATE - Looks as though the people's veto effort has failed. With 71% of the vote in, No is at 56% and Yes is at 43%. That is a very big gap, one that is unlikely to narrow. Judging from the tone of this post, Mike Heath probably isn't surprised by this result.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | TrackBack
November 08, 2005
The Cloud Returns
Many of you may have noticed a distinct lack of posting lately. There are a couple of reasons for this. One, life is just busy. The new house and new job are keeping me moving all the time.
The second reason is that with the arrival of winter, the black clouds are returning. In other words, I'm dealing with depression, my constant winter companion. I don't say this to gain sympathy or to excuse any excessive grouchiness I've shown over the past few weeks (although I do apologize if the grouchiness has been obvious). I simply believe that despite the progress we've made as a society in our acceptance of depression as a legitimate medical issue, there is still a stigma attached to this often-misunderstood condition.
When people ask me what it's like to be depressed, my usual answer sounds glib. I tell them it's like being Pig Pen. Only instead of having a cloud of dirt surrounding you, there's a cloud of...what?
It's hard to explain. It's not sadness, but it's close. It's more like being tired, but without the physical exhaustion. In fact, sometimes no matter how tired you may be physically, depression deprives you of the ability to get a good night's sleep. The best way to describe the feeling is to say it's an absence of feeling, a flatness.
Anyway, as I said before, I don't say this to elicit any sort of reaction, but as way of explanation and maybe in the hope that by talking about it, I can remove just a little of the stigma still attached to feeling "the blues."
If you think you might be depressed, a pretty good screening tool can be found here.
Posted by slublog at 12:01 AM | TrackBack
Ancient Church Found
Inmates in an Israeli prison unearthed the remains of a 3rd century church recently. No comment. Just a cool story.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 07, 2005
Why Microevolution Obligates Macroevolution
This is the third in my series on evolution and creationism that I am concurrently posting here and on the Motley Fool discussion boards. The first two are here and here.
Back when I was a new Christian and the people who were teaching me about it included anti-evolutionism as part of it, much was made about the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. I was told that microevolution, genetic change within a species, is perfectly acceptable, and humanity’s success in selective breeding is a good example of it. Macroevolution, though, the arising of a new species from a previously existing one, was the line drawn in the sand that no one opposed to evolution could budge on. In this post I’m going to explain how I came to realize that to accept microevolution while rejecting macroevolution is to fool oneself. There is no fundamental difference at all between the two.
I’m going to define a species as a population or organisms that can successfully breed with any other member of the population and produce fertile offspring. Now it’s true that biologists continue to argue about the nuances of defining species, but the definition I’m using is broad enough to be acceptable to everyone involved in that controversy. This also holds for typically asexual creatures, because they almost all have the ability to reproduce sexually when they choose to and this suffices for our definition. Asexual reproduction makes more offspring for a given amount of resources, but sexual reproduction makes more robust offspring, which is why creatures able to reproduce both ways will reproduce sexually only when under stress.
We’re going to start with the assumption that microevolution occurs. This means that the gene pool of a species can change over time. What we need to show is that this change over time is enough for a new species to arise. Here then is what we will do: we will put a representative sample of the species into suspended animation while the rest of the population experiences microevolution through the normal processes of genetic drift and mutations. We’ll thaw out our sample of the original species periodically and let it try to breed with the sample that has been changing. Clearly the genetic differences between the frozen and microevolving populations can only increase with time. The question of course is, given enough time will there ever be so much difference that the two populations cannot breed?
I think the burden of proof is on the skeptic to show that no matter how much microevolution occurs, it will never introduce enough genetic differences to create a new species. Consider red-tailed hawks. Not only do they come in a dark phase and a light phase, they also range from coast to coast. Hawks of different phases can breed together, as can hawks from different areas of the country. It is unlikely that Georgia hawks and Montana hawks breed often, though, and each phase prefers mates of its own phase, so you have several sub-populations within the red-tailed hawk species that typically only breed amongst themselves. Microevolution will tend to increase the differences between these sub-populations, at a rate roughly proportional to the frequency that matings occur between them, yet all these sub-populations remain a single species. Do this process many times on many different species and it will become apparent that there is an amount of genetic variation that can be tolerated within a population while still permitting successful breeding—but at the same time there is also an amount that is too much. In the case of humans and chimpanzees, for instance, 1% is apparently too much difference.
The skeptic must produce a mechanism that allows microevolution to introduce genetic change but prevents it from introducing too much change. Irreducible complexity is not such a mechanism, by the way. Instead it is merely an observation that suggests that mere natural selection cannot be the mechanism that does produce macroevolution. IC can do nothing to prevent macroevolution, nor does it claim to. What it has done, however, is prompt more rigorous research into an area where evolutionary biologists had perhaps been lazy, and this research has refuted IC (IC was a fragile idea anyway since by making a universal claim about the futility of natural selection it was only necessary to demonstrate that natural selection could in one instance produce an irreducibly complex structure, and we needn’t know how all the rest of the irreducibly complex structures formed, IC has already fallen with the one counterexample).
One reason I don’t think such a mechanism exists is that there is no reason to expect it, since it is fairly straightforward to conclude from the physical evidence that macroevolution has indeed occurred. The fossil record show a tree of similarities in body plan; genetic mapping, for instance of cytochrome C, shows a tree of similarities that has nothing to do with body plan but is nevertheless so much like the one derived from the fossil record as to leave no doubt that they are recording the same history of common descent. If we already have microevolution, and we have a history of common descent duplicated in disparate sources, then why shouldn’t we conclude that microevolution produces macroevolution??? Yet some people are so predisposed against macroevolution that they simply cannot accept it when it slaps them in the face. They invoke an Intelligent Designer to produce every episode of apparent common descent, as if He is an assembly line worker in the species factory and day after day he makes from scratch brand new species that happen to look just a little bit different from the species he made from scratch yesterday, right down to their DNA. A truly intelligent Designer would design a universe that didn’t have a mechanism in it preventing macroevolution, let microevolution do the dirty work naturally, and go fishing or something.
But wait! Big deal, the skeptic says, since it is not possible to pluck a sample of what a population used to be out of the past, your experiment doesn’t really result in speciation. Any member of the population can always breed with every other member of the population alive at the same time, so it is always the same species. All that is happening is microevolution and I’ve always said I don’t have a problem with that!
All right, I’ll concede that objection. Let’s do this instead. Instead of putting the control sample in suspended animation, let’s split the species into two halves and put some barrier between the halves that we don’t let them cross. Now there is no control group. Population A is going to undergo this genetic drift you’re talking about, and so will Population B, and it is impossible that they will both undergo the exact same changes at the exact same time. From time to time we’ll take representative samples of A and B and reunite them in a zoo and see if we get any offspring (for we have to keep A and B separate or the experiment is ruined). Remember, we’ve established that given enough time neither A nor B will be able to breed with the start population, and all that is required is to show that the difference between changing A and changing B is as much as the difference between changing A (or B) and the original population. If A is different from the start population, and B is different than the start population, then there is a roughly 50/50 chance that they’ll be even more different from each other. If they are less different to each other than either is to the start population (as if they both walked generally east from the start point instead of one east and the other west) then just wait a little longer. Every population split into two separated halves will accumulate genetic differences between the halves at some rate, because the changes that occur in one half are not shared with the other half. Inevitably the genetic differences will be so great that the populations, if somehow reunited, would not be able to breed. A and B are now two separate species, no magic deep freezer needed!
Well, populations splitting like that don’t happen very often, the skeptic might complain, but he’d be wrong. There are lots of ways that populations are split apart. Usually populations are physically separated, for instance by a river drying up between two ponds, by a natural disaster that wipes out the species in the middle of its range leaving two isolated ends, or a physical barrier like a river between two ponds drying up. Other times it is a behavioral split: one part of the population will become nocturnal and the other diurnal, for instance. Plate tectonics will suffice as a last resort. There are so many mechanisms by which populations can be split into two or more smaller groups that cannot or do not interact with each other that it is impossible to argue that populations breaks never happen. Again, the burden is on the skeptic to show that all species remain eternally monolithic.
Here it is in a nutshell:
You can’t have microevolution without macroevolution, because populations break apart. The genetic differences between the two halves can only accumulate via microevolution, resulting inevitably in macroevolution when the genetic difference become too great for the halves to successfully breed together should they be reunited.
And now you know why if you are opposed to macroevolution you are forced to be a young-earther: the only way to prevent this process, the only way to have your micro- without your macro-, is for there not to have been enough time.
Posted by at 07:55 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Rioting in France
The violence continues in France.
The Washington Post says it's a cry for attention. I'd say they got what they wanted. Mark Steyn says this should be a wake-up call for Europe - there's a war going on, and they don't even know it.
Chiraq has asked for "a spirit of dialogue and respect" to end the violence. Would that dialogue happen before or after these youths torch another store or throw rocks at more residents of Paris? As Ace points out, dialogue is great up to a point, but its effectiveness depends entirely on the willingness of the other party to put down their weapon and talk:
Diplomacy has its virtues, of course, but its efficacy has always by limited by its major flaw: The word "No." You can call for all the dialogue and respect you like, but if your would-be interlocutor simply says "No," that's it for diplomacy.Chiraq doesn't need to do more talking. He needs to get some boots on the ground, be they police or the armed forces, and restore social order. If those who would use violence see that government is unable or unwilling to stop them, that violence will continue.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Light Blog Day
Start the new job today, followed by helping out with youth group. Blogging will likely be nonexistent.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 04, 2005
Donald Miller
I'm going to go see him tonight at the local Christian coffee shop. He wrote two books that have had quite an impact on my life: Blue Like Jazz and Searching for God Knows What. His books are basically stories about himself and illustrate a Christianity lived out experientially instead of formulaically. He’s got a good knack for describing spiritual principles through stories instead of exposition. I'll try to write up something tomorrow about what he said.
UPDATE: Well I have to say it was pretty disappointing. It was a book reading from his new book due out next February, and there were about 150 of us crammed into the building. It talks about what it was like to grow up without a Dad. The section he read was about the several surrogate Dads his Mom tried to bring into his life with poor success. Maybe it's because I did have a Dad growing up, but didn't seem to have the same sort of spiritual content per page that Blue Like Jazz or especially Searching for God Knows What have. It seems more like Through Painted Deserts in this way, expect funnier--quite funny in fact. There was a Q&A afterwards, and it was lame. Just a bunch of stupid questions from people trying and failing to be funnier than he was. I think Donald Miller has a lot of good things to say and his two best-sellers have been extremely helpful to me. I think though that last night he and his questioners were trying too hard to be cool.
Posted by at 09:42 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
The Coalition for Marriage's Dishonest Rhetoric
What's missing from this sentence?
Question 1: People's VetoNeed a hint? Look at the graphic on this site.
"Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation?"
The Coalition for Marriage's radio ads say the same thing, but add that we need to defeat the gay rights bill to 'preserve our Maine way of life.' That quote is not exact, but it's as close as I can get to what was said. My ears were still ringing from the stupid sander when I heard it.
This is an issue that deserves a good debate. So far, however, the Coalition for Marriage seems uninterested in providing one. Instead of making a compelling argument against the law, the Coalition is engaging in a scare tactics campaign, trying to convince people that this is the first step toward legalizing gay marriage in the state and saying this law will end our way of life.
Whatever that means.
Tonight, I saw a "No on One" campaign advertisement. It was calm and personal. I'm not sure I agree entirely with the 'no on one' side of the debate, but their advertising is outstanding, and I think it will be effective.
I predict a loss for the Christian Civic League and the Coalition for Marriage next week. The energy and money is on the 'no' side this time, and I think they are going to pull out a victory this time. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say 51% no, 48% yes.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
November 03, 2005
Where in the World is Tom Daschle?
Hal went to see a speech by the former minority leader. His report is here. In it, there's a reminder why Daschle was a better leader than Harry Reid.
I was glad that Daschle had the fortitude to say that there are people who want to attack America regardless of the example it sets for the world. I think that there are just too few Democrats these days who will admit that. Bin Laden was bombing our soldiers even when Clinton was in office; Paris burns with the flames of Islamic radicalism at this very moment (Update: Apparently Dafydd ab Hugh is skeptical of this), despite their opposition to the Iraq War and support of Palestinian violence.Sure, Daschle is just as liberal as Reid. Unlike poor Harry, though, Daschle had the ability to communicate his liberal ideas in a way that didn't come across like connect the dots soundbites from DU.
Posted by slublog at 07:02 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
The Things You Learn
Huh. When you use a power sander, the dust goes everywhere.
Who knew?
More house-related babbling below the jump.
In the few days I have between the old job and the new one, I've decided to try and get some house projects done. One was sanding the stairs. I had to put about 20 pounds of wood putty in the stairs to repair them, since whoever installed the carpet used tack strips, staples and nails to hold it down.
After sanding, I spent the next hour dusting every horizontal surface in the house and mopping. Also discovered that a shop vac is powerful enough to suck up a doily. Accidentally, of course.
Assembled both a futon and a loveseat. We ordered the loveseat from this place, which I was sure was a dummy corporation set up by Bolivian drug lords to launder money. Turns out they actually do sell furniture online that you assemble yourself. Good furniture, too. Easy to assemble and comfortable.
The house is slowly coming together. There's still a lot to be done, but the list is less than it was a month ago. That may be a long-winded way to explain why I didn't blog today, but there you go.
Sure, I could have blogged while the paint dried, but that would have taken time away from this.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Misled into War?
The main point of the political theater in the Senate the other day was to start investigating the 'lies' that led us to war. Harry Reid and the Democrats seem to believe this is a winning issue.
Personally, I say investigate. With one caveat.
When the issue of WMD's comes up, make sure you look at what some politicians said about Saddam and his weapons. More here. President Bush was not the first politician to believe those weapons existed, and the attempt on the part of the Democrats to rewrite that history is self-serving bunk.
In recent months, I've had my share of disappointments with the Republican party and this administration, but the political posturing and Orwellian historical revisionism of the Democrats shows a fundamental unseriousness that does not speak well of the party, its leadership and its supporters.
That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Olympia, though. I'm not that partisan.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 02, 2005
Frist, Master of Capitulation
So the Democrats threw a temper tantrum on the floor of the Senate, and Bill Frist, after some promising soundbites, basically gives them what they want.
I'd like to think Frist had this sort of thing in mind when he made his agreement with the Democrats, but that would probably be giving the guy too much credit. Can't we find a better leader than this? Mr. President, some help here?
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 01, 2005
In My Day...
Dan Rather is an outstanding storyteller.
In his speech today at the Maine Center for the Arts, he told some very entertaining tales about his start in journalism, his lack of football skills and what it was like to interview former Iraq leader Saddam Hussein. It's easy to see why Rather was a popular network anchor - the man has undeniable charm.
The speech focused on the evolution of the news. As a reporter who started out in radio and did see many of the major changes in the world and in journalism, Rather was a good person to speak on this subject. The speech itself, though, seemed a bit disjointed at times and it's clear that Rather, like the rest of us, has no idea how the journalistic landscape has changed with the emergence of the new media.
He started his speech by talking about this generation's sophistication and easy access to information. Despite that, Rather said this generation was "not as informed as it ought to be." If the speech had an overriding theme, it was that the journalism world has become too broad, with information coming from people who might have “partisan or ideological” motives.
I point this out because Rather seemed to advocate a return to the way things were – when he and the anchors of the other big three networks were the disseminators of information. He drew a distinction between news the smaller outlets report and "the news we need to know about." What he didn't get into, though, was who would have the power to make such a determination. While I don't think news should be entirely consumer-driven, neither do I believe what is news should be decided by an oligarchy of reporters, anchors and producers
Rather's speech made some great points about the commercialization of news that began in the 1980s, when network executives made the decision to treat news as a commodity rather than as a public service. This decision, Rather said, cut the ability of networks to report international news.
The most interesting part of the speech concerned the newest of the new media - internet news providers and blogs. Rather said "when I first sat at the anchor desk at CBS News, there was not an entire computer in the building." If there was, "they were smart enough not to let me anywhere near it." Rather called the internet an "enormous force for change" and praised the ability it gives us to find information.
As good as this resource is, though, Rather wondered whether those who get their news from the web "to know how to separate news from rumor and innuendo," as opposed to the networks, which offered "professional, spin-free" news. He called the new media "a kind of tabloid journalism that has specific points of view."
Again, a fair point. But one that assumes the network news has always been objective in how it chooses to communicate information to the public. Organizations such as the Media Research Center (from the right) and Accuracy in Media (from the left) show that objectivity is a goal not often reached by the networks.
Rather ended his speech by exhorting the audience to communicate with the editors and reporters at the networks. "Those who value good reporting need to make their feelings known," he said. He then gave a rather odd definition of news, one that I think has its roots in the Watergate scandal.
News, Rather said, is something people need to know that someone, somewhere, doesn't want them to know. This is a needlessly adversarial definition of the media's job. The actual definition is much simpler, and often forgotten. News is stuff that happens, and the reporter's job is to tell those who couldn't be there what happened. That's pretty much it.
There is a place for investigative journalism, to be sure, but it is a mistake to see government and business as the enemy of journalists. Is there no room in Rather's world for people who operate in good faith?
After the speech, there was a question and answer session in which Rather displayed an area in which investigative journalism could help add 'nuance' to the media storyline on Iraq. Of the questions asked, most had to do with Iraq. Rather was asked to compare Iraq and Vietnam, and after some nice words about how those who oppose the war should not take their opposition out on the troops, said that one way Iraq and Vietnam are different is that in Iraq, there is "no outside power fueling the war" on the side of the enemy.
Huh?
Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia have been supporting the war with materiels and money since before it started. Either Rather isn't interested in finding out that support, or this is yet another example of how bad international reporting has become.
Some students asked Bill Cohen (former Maine senator and Secretary of Defense) whether he would run for public office again in Maine (gist of answer: no) and what he thought of the war. On the second question, Cohen talked about the need for international respect and said we needed a summit.
The last question dealt with what Saddam Hussein was like in person. Rather said that the man "had a military bearing. He seeks to command any landscape he enters into." Much of Saddam's persona is wrapped up in his belief that he is the new Saladin, who will lead an Islamic army into the streets of Jerusalem. In the end, though, Saddam is a "stone cold killer."
Overall, an interesting speech that clearly communicated the mainstream media's view of the debate over the nature of news, who should be allowed to communicate that news and what made someone a reporter. Plus, it was just kind of cool to see Dan Rather. No matter what you may think of him, the guy is a part of history - one of the last big three anchors who sat behind the desk when those three men still had the power to influence what America saw on their televisions each night.
Posted by slublog at 02:45 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
A Lost Opportunity
The Democrats are pretty upset about the nomination of Samuel Alito. They only have themselves to blame. Harriet Miers was about the most moderate candidate the left was likely to get from the Bush administration, and instead of supporting her, the Democrats watched conservatives fight over her nomination and quietly rejoiced in what they believed was a conservative crack-up.
Judging by the conservative blogosphere's reaction to Alito's nomination, the right is pretty unified and ready to fight for this nominee. If the Democrats had wanted an O'Connor, they should have spoken up in support of Miers and forced her nomination into committee, and onto the floor for a vote.
Unless something truly dramatic happens, Alito will be confirmed, since at least one member of the stupid "Gang of 14" has already indicated a willingness to vote against a filibuster. The Democrats have made a habit of opposing everything this president does or says. With Miers, it cost them.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack