It really is like a whole other country.
Speaking of which, this inane chatter about Texas secession is just stupid. Stop it. Stop it now. And never mention it again.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
IHS: Stealthy Anti-Christian Coverup or Simple Stage Presence
No, not Indiana High School, immediate hand sanitizer, or even Illinois' Handsome Savior. IHS stands for something else, and it symbolizes controversy...
First, click here and here to get a little context.
Now, I know what you're thinking because at first, I thought it too: "That stinker...yet another anti-American, socialist, fascist, nihilist, and every other -ist thing to do!"
That is until I saw this post from some guy who claims to have a lot of education in theological academia. After you see his post by clicking here, don't go away yet, because there's more.
The gist of that blog appears to be that IHS isn't really a monogram for Jesus, and that right-wing kooks are to blame for this hullabaloo over a silly and trivial non-issue. In the 7th paragraph or so, he writes: "As a person who graduated from a Catholic grammar school, a Catholic high school and a Jesuit college, with a masters from a Jesuit school of theology and a doctorate from Berkeley’s Graduate Theological Union (which included the Jesuit, Franciscan and Dominican theology schools, along with Episcopal, Lutheran, Baptist and Unitarian), I do not recall hearing at any point in the last sixty years that IHS was any kind of monogram of the name of Jesus." Following this he states that what he does "recall hearing" is that IHS stands for the Latin "in hoc signo vinces" which according to him means "in his sign you shall conquer". Glad to know you heard something in all those years of school Mr. Theologian Ninja, PhD who also googles the web for his info instead of using his vast Alexandrian library wallpapered in the very Dead Sea Scrolls themselves. "Vinces" which appears to be the word for "conquer" just seems to be tacked onto the end to make his argument more palatable. Wouldn't that be the difference between IHS and IHSV? I doubt very much that the White House was simply trying to avoid linking Obama with the crusades of hundreds of years ago by covering the symbol. But I digress.
So now I'm thinking: "What the heck? It doesn't even mean Jesus? So not really a big deal, right?" Maybe. Then I researched a little further. According to sources here and here, IHS does appear to refer to a monogram for Jesus Christ. Hmm. So now what?
I began to watch Obama's sermon, I mean, speech at Georgetown U by clicking here. The first thing I noticed was that this controversial IHS and cross symbol that was covered up wouldn't have been visible throughout the vast majority of the video, and yet the excuse "they" used is exactly that, that it was just good cameramanship to cover it up, that it could possibly be interpreted controversially if it were not covered.
According to Georgetown's own Rev. Thomas Reese, "It is more for camera quality than anything else...They don't want distractions that would make the eye wander. I don't think this is motivated by theology, but by communications strategy...There is this great enthusiasm for Obama especially among Catholic young people. The conservatives don't know how to deal with this...The audience wanted to cheer and cheer this very professorial address. He played Professor Obama. He's a damn good professor but not even he could make economics a barnraiser."
You gotta love it when a Rev. says something is "damn good". What's more, you've gotta love a pretentious young president that doesn't mind covering Christian symbols and making sure your eye doesn't wander too far from his royal "Damn" Goodness. My advice: stay focused on what's behind the curtain.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Environmental Concerns Trumped by Economics: News at 11
This article is long, but you should read every single word. Then pass it along to the greenies you know.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Let Me
Did you know your government officials "let you" do things? Barney Frank, may I go to the bathroom? May I be excused...
Readme while you still have permission.
Pay particular notice to where he says, "...and the states have not done a good job on banking." In other words, "...and the federal government needs to control banking." And he who controls finance controls a lot more than finance, my friends. He controls decisions of all kinds. Did you realize that it is actually banking customers that control banking thru competition and shopping around? Banks are not just giant robotic ATM's that exist for your pleasure and a free handout. You don't go into Wal-Mart and expect free groceries (well except for you grape snatchers). Neither should you expect free money from banks. Banks are made of people just like you, people who work for a living and have children and bills and concerns of their own. They are in business to make money for their own bills, mortgages, children, tuition, contributions, and savings. Maybe they make more than you, and maybe they make less. That doesn't make them or you evil. In other words, they are not made of people like Barney Frank, who B.S. for a living and salivate over controlling other people's lives. I long for the days when the name Barney made me think of an oddly proportioned purple dinosaur with feminine tendencies. Then again, I guess it's just the purple that's missing.
Readme while you still have permission.
Pay particular notice to where he says, "...and the states have not done a good job on banking." In other words, "...and the federal government needs to control banking." And he who controls finance controls a lot more than finance, my friends. He controls decisions of all kinds. Did you realize that it is actually banking customers that control banking thru competition and shopping around? Banks are not just giant robotic ATM's that exist for your pleasure and a free handout. You don't go into Wal-Mart and expect free groceries (well except for you grape snatchers). Neither should you expect free money from banks. Banks are made of people just like you, people who work for a living and have children and bills and concerns of their own. They are in business to make money for their own bills, mortgages, children, tuition, contributions, and savings. Maybe they make more than you, and maybe they make less. That doesn't make them or you evil. In other words, they are not made of people like Barney Frank, who B.S. for a living and salivate over controlling other people's lives. I long for the days when the name Barney made me think of an oddly proportioned purple dinosaur with feminine tendencies. Then again, I guess it's just the purple that's missing.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
.gov
Kind of starting to define us isn't it?
Here's an interesting website if you're into this whole stimulus financial bit. You might say there is a plethora of information here: click me.
As Carl Sagan once said: "Billions and billions..." But that was in reference to stars not dollars being tossed around on your behalf like you had any say in it. Who can even keep up with this stuff? We've got the omnibus bill, the stimulus bill, all these various programs with fancy names, lovely sounding names...you can see other programs by going here. I'm not saying that all of these are unnecessary or bad...but dang...there's a lot. And like someone smart once said, "A government that can do anything for you can do anything to you."
Here's an interesting website if you're into this whole stimulus financial bit. You might say there is a plethora of information here: click me.
As Carl Sagan once said: "Billions and billions..." But that was in reference to stars not dollars being tossed around on your behalf like you had any say in it. Who can even keep up with this stuff? We've got the omnibus bill, the stimulus bill, all these various programs with fancy names, lovely sounding names...you can see other programs by going here. I'm not saying that all of these are unnecessary or bad...but dang...there's a lot. And like someone smart once said, "A government that can do anything for you can do anything to you."
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Ain't history a beeyatch
No wonder you can't learn it in schools anymore.
And finally, just for funsies:
And finally, just for funsies:
Strange Things are Afoot at the Circk K
Concerning education - Apparently equal opportunity means you don't have the right to an official language. What's next, I wonder, especially now that the gov controls the financial system? I'm sure that not learning the language common to the area will be of great benefit to immigrants and their kids.
On Plan B - Lest we forget our neverending quest for a complete lack of personal responsibility at the expense of the unborn.
On terrorism - Oh look. More equal opportunity. For terrorists. Equal opportunity to devise ways to kill people and answer to no one. But Mr. Terrorist...please please please tell me where you hid the nuclear warhead. I'll be your best friend. Muslims are the bomb, er, I mean, are great. Here's an iPod. It's got my book on audio on it. Don't you believe in my hope?
Other..."decisions"...can be found
here.
On death in the financial world - CFO of Freddie Mac has died. They are saying it was a suicide. FYI, Freddie Mac's CEO, David Moffett, resigned in March.
On Plan B - Lest we forget our neverending quest for a complete lack of personal responsibility at the expense of the unborn.
On terrorism - Oh look. More equal opportunity. For terrorists. Equal opportunity to devise ways to kill people and answer to no one. But Mr. Terrorist...please please please tell me where you hid the nuclear warhead. I'll be your best friend. Muslims are the bomb, er, I mean, are great. Here's an iPod. It's got my book on audio on it. Don't you believe in my hope?
Other..."decisions"...can be found
here.
On death in the financial world - CFO of Freddie Mac has died. They are saying it was a suicide. FYI, Freddie Mac's CEO, David Moffett, resigned in March.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Higher Ed: Outdated?
Been a bit slow around here lately, hasn't it? Today I want to deviate a little from the normal political talk and discuss another passion of mine: education. This article from Utah's Deseret News piqued my interest.
Higher education in America today is, for the most part, following in the footsteps of a few hundred years of traditional university-style learning. Hour-long lectures, with (more or less) occasional discussion interspersed. Outside the classroom, studying is done individually (online or textbook) and in small groups. What I find interesting is that this professor at BYU predicts the "end of the University" in its current format.
Wiley's work in creating Open Course standards and material is laudable. I am certainly of the opinion that "information wants to be free", and the ubiquity of instant information access from a variety of channels is fascinating to me as a lover of education and knowledge in general. And from this standpoint, Wiley is correct: the model of one lecturer standing and feeding information to pupils is increasingly going to be anachronistic. The iPod/laptop generation (which will give way in a decade or so to even smaller, ever-connected devices) changes what can be done in the educational realm. My university, I am proud to say, is on the bleeding edge of this paradigm shift. Certainly, it is not widespread on campus yet but the always-on lifestyle of students does have an effect, and that effect will grow to change things in the university world even further.
What I disagree with Wiley about is his thesis that universities will be irrelevant. Perhaps he means, universities that do not change to meet the times will be irrelevant. That is true. Universities, as businesses, must adapt and change if they are to continue viability.
Some things, however, I believe will not change. For one thing, college students are social creatures. The university campus is ideally suited for promoting and nurturing the creative common nature of college students. That is an aspect that can never, and should never, be replaced or subsumed in a pervasive online culture. The world is global, sure, but face-to-face interactions are very much local. Even the emergence of cheap teleconferencing technology (skype, webcams, etc) do not compare with sitting in a classroom or around a table or in a dorm room learning with (and from) experts and peers. The social aspect of learning manifests itself both in the sharing of ideas and in the sense of teaching social graces, independence, critical thinking, the importance of a diversity of ideas, and other unquantifiable lifestyle markers.
I do not want to get into the left-leaning politics of universities or the generally sorry state of primary and secondary public education. Those topics have been discussed at length before, and by smarter people. What I'm discussing is the need for the continued relevance of formal higher education. Universities, staffed by very intelligent people, should foresee the changing technology trends and rise to meet them: forging a link between the traditional lecture and the instant research available online. I would love to think that Socratic teaching methods will return, but Americans have been ingrained to avoid conflict and "hurting someone's feelings" - which equates to not debating ideas, which is the same as "what's right for me is not necessarily what's right for you". That being said, professors in the classroom no longer have absolute moral or factual authority, because it is very easy to check facts online via iPod or laptop while the professor is still speaking. Students so inclined may challenge stated beliefs and have instant backup from numerous online sources. This will require the professor (and other students) to be able to logically defend their position. I think this is all to the good.
The rub for universities isn't just in recognizing the challenges of new technologies - and the predilection of students to adopt those technologies quickly and efficiently, then wonder why in the world everyone else doesn't use them - but in understanding how and when to implement them in the learning environment. I would argue that in many cases, technology should not be a mere supplement to traditional education, but should in fact be the means (and sometimes the ends) of future higher education. Like most businesses, universities that meet the challenge will gain new students and prosper. Those that do not, will indeed become irrelevant.
Higher education in America today is, for the most part, following in the footsteps of a few hundred years of traditional university-style learning. Hour-long lectures, with (more or less) occasional discussion interspersed. Outside the classroom, studying is done individually (online or textbook) and in small groups. What I find interesting is that this professor at BYU predicts the "end of the University" in its current format.
Wiley's work in creating Open Course standards and material is laudable. I am certainly of the opinion that "information wants to be free", and the ubiquity of instant information access from a variety of channels is fascinating to me as a lover of education and knowledge in general. And from this standpoint, Wiley is correct: the model of one lecturer standing and feeding information to pupils is increasingly going to be anachronistic. The iPod/laptop generation (which will give way in a decade or so to even smaller, ever-connected devices) changes what can be done in the educational realm. My university, I am proud to say, is on the bleeding edge of this paradigm shift. Certainly, it is not widespread on campus yet but the always-on lifestyle of students does have an effect, and that effect will grow to change things in the university world even further.
What I disagree with Wiley about is his thesis that universities will be irrelevant. Perhaps he means, universities that do not change to meet the times will be irrelevant. That is true. Universities, as businesses, must adapt and change if they are to continue viability.
Some things, however, I believe will not change. For one thing, college students are social creatures. The university campus is ideally suited for promoting and nurturing the creative common nature of college students. That is an aspect that can never, and should never, be replaced or subsumed in a pervasive online culture. The world is global, sure, but face-to-face interactions are very much local. Even the emergence of cheap teleconferencing technology (skype, webcams, etc) do not compare with sitting in a classroom or around a table or in a dorm room learning with (and from) experts and peers. The social aspect of learning manifests itself both in the sharing of ideas and in the sense of teaching social graces, independence, critical thinking, the importance of a diversity of ideas, and other unquantifiable lifestyle markers.
I do not want to get into the left-leaning politics of universities or the generally sorry state of primary and secondary public education. Those topics have been discussed at length before, and by smarter people. What I'm discussing is the need for the continued relevance of formal higher education. Universities, staffed by very intelligent people, should foresee the changing technology trends and rise to meet them: forging a link between the traditional lecture and the instant research available online. I would love to think that Socratic teaching methods will return, but Americans have been ingrained to avoid conflict and "hurting someone's feelings" - which equates to not debating ideas, which is the same as "what's right for me is not necessarily what's right for you". That being said, professors in the classroom no longer have absolute moral or factual authority, because it is very easy to check facts online via iPod or laptop while the professor is still speaking. Students so inclined may challenge stated beliefs and have instant backup from numerous online sources. This will require the professor (and other students) to be able to logically defend their position. I think this is all to the good.
The rub for universities isn't just in recognizing the challenges of new technologies - and the predilection of students to adopt those technologies quickly and efficiently, then wonder why in the world everyone else doesn't use them - but in understanding how and when to implement them in the learning environment. I would argue that in many cases, technology should not be a mere supplement to traditional education, but should in fact be the means (and sometimes the ends) of future higher education. Like most businesses, universities that meet the challenge will gain new students and prosper. Those that do not, will indeed become irrelevant.
Friday, April 17, 2009
You have got to be kidding me
1) Financial crisis occurs. Myriad, sundry reasons.
2) Reduce myriad, sundry reasons down to one: banks did Bad Stuff and are now undercapitalized.
3) Ergo, to reduce the damage to the American economy and reverse the Bad Stuff, give TARP cover to banks, ostensibly so banks can become profitable.
3a) TARP cover has strings attached, natch.
4) Demagogue that bank-caused financial crisis led to auto maker crisis.
5) Force banks to write off very significant loans now in default by auto makers.
Hm. Force banks into unprofitable banks further into unprofitability to save unprofitable auto makers.
See the logic here?
2) Reduce myriad, sundry reasons down to one: banks did Bad Stuff and are now undercapitalized.
3) Ergo, to reduce the damage to the American economy and reverse the Bad Stuff, give TARP cover to banks, ostensibly so banks can become profitable.
3a) TARP cover has strings attached, natch.
4) Demagogue that bank-caused financial crisis led to auto maker crisis.
5) Force banks to write off very significant loans now in default by auto makers.
Hm. Force banks into unprofitable banks further into unprofitability to save unprofitable auto makers.
See the logic here?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Happy Tax Day
Happy taxing day sucka! :) Okay, here are some words from Thomas Sowell, because he says it so-well. Get it? Okay go: readme
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Homosexuality Debate
Obama has recently appointed Harry Knox to the Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. You can read article here.
Below are some interesting debate videos between Harry Knox and Gino Jennings. Whether conservative or liberal, I think you'll find that these debates stir up some truth below all that murky water that is today's "progressive normality". I couldn't find all the parts to it, but here are the bits I could locate (not sure if they're in the right order).
Below are some interesting debate videos between Harry Knox and Gino Jennings. Whether conservative or liberal, I think you'll find that these debates stir up some truth below all that murky water that is today's "progressive normality". I couldn't find all the parts to it, but here are the bits I could locate (not sure if they're in the right order).
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Atheism vs. Christianity
In the spirit of our last post, this debate also promises to be a very interesting showdown between theist William Craig and atheist Frank Zindler. If the following debate interests you, the links below it may also be of interest.
Click here for a link to one of William Craig's more recent debates with Vannity Fair columnist and author, Christopher Hitchens.
If you're increasingly interested in this stuff as I am, then you may want to purchase the latest debate that just happened a few days ago between William Craig and Hitchens (sort of a "round two") at Biola University by going here: http://www.doesgodexistdebate.com/ I couldn't find it online for free.
Also, an article that was written in reference to that debate can be found here.
Click here for a link to one of William Craig's more recent debates with Vannity Fair columnist and author, Christopher Hitchens.
If you're increasingly interested in this stuff as I am, then you may want to purchase the latest debate that just happened a few days ago between William Craig and Hitchens (sort of a "round two") at Biola University by going here: http://www.doesgodexistdebate.com/ I couldn't find it online for free.
Also, an article that was written in reference to that debate can be found here.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Morality Debate
Dinesh D'Souza & Peter Singer debate on the question: Can there be morality without God?
You can watch the video by clicking here.
You can watch the video by clicking here.
A funny story about the advent of nationalized health care
Let's say you've got a massive organization (we'll call it "government", just for kicks) which has a monopoly on the health care providers and payment system of a particular country (which we'll call "America").
Now suppose you are in charge of running said health care monopoly. Now you got a degree in business from a prestigious school and you remember your professors saying the way to make a business grow is to exercise good financial management: to wit, hold down costs and increase revenue.
Increasing revenue is easy. Since the same "government" that runs the health care monopoly is the one that can raise taxes, just raise taxes and designate a portion of those taxes (less government employee salaries, kickbacks, bribes, and other related costs) to fund the health care monopoly. (For the sake of this argument, we'll assume that you went to an Ivy League business school where your professors didn't teach the Laffer Curve, the Austrian School of Economics, free-market capitalism, von Mises, Hayek, or Friedman. Plus, you work in an Administration that eschews such economic drivel, preferring to pursue an Agenda, and economics be damned.)
So. If you were going to hold down costs related to health care, you'd look at two places - the health care providers and the health care recipients. Now in an actual competitive business environment, you can't consider the health care recipients as a "cost", since they are the consumers - the source of revenue. But in a health care monopoly run by "government", health care recipients are a cost driver, not a revenue source. How do you lower costs associated with health care recipients? Easy: You want them to be healthy; you don't want them using the health care services. In a health care monopoly, how do you accomplish that? Two potential ways.
1) Raise the price of items, services, and activities that you deem "health-averse". Or mandate against (i.e. ban) items, services, and activities that you deem "health-averse". This would be anything from fast food (too fattening, leads to obesity, increasing the need for health care) to motorcycles (too dangerous, no seatbelts, higher incidence of accidents, increasing the need for health care) Since the health care monopoly is run by the same "government" that can pass laws banning such items (or heavily taxing "health-averse" items, services, and activities, making them so expensive as to essentially remove the consumer market for same), this course of action should be of primary importance. All you need to do is make a list of characteristics exhibited by habitual health-care users, then make a list of items, services, and activities that contribute (in one form or other) to said characteristics. Ban or heavily tax such items. Which leads to the second way to lower costs related to health care recipients...
2) Note that elderly adults are disproportionately disposed to need health care, and at a typically higher-level (read: more costly) version of health care than their less-senior counterparts. Ergo, advanced aging is bad, and should be discouraged. Since outright murder of elderly citizens is not politically efficient, in practical terms "discouraging aging" means withholding (or making so costly as to effectively prevent the use of) health care for certain "high-risk" health care recipients, the elderly being among those considered "high-risk". Also, diabetics, AIDS patients, and preemie (the so-called "Million Dollar") babies.
To summarize: a health care monopoly run by "government" is one predisposed to pick winners and losers (those who can receive a modicum of health care, and those who cannot, respectively). Winners being young, healthy, wealthy, and/or risk-averse citizens. Losers being elderly, chronically ill, low-to-moderate income, and/or thrill-seeking citizens.
A modest proposal? A brave new world? No. Look no further than the first paragraph of this AP article:
Not such a funny story is it?
UPDATE:
Heh. Hannity and British MEP Daniel Hannan discuss the topic. The Brit knows whereof he speaks.
Now suppose you are in charge of running said health care monopoly. Now you got a degree in business from a prestigious school and you remember your professors saying the way to make a business grow is to exercise good financial management: to wit, hold down costs and increase revenue.
Increasing revenue is easy. Since the same "government" that runs the health care monopoly is the one that can raise taxes, just raise taxes and designate a portion of those taxes (less government employee salaries, kickbacks, bribes, and other related costs) to fund the health care monopoly. (For the sake of this argument, we'll assume that you went to an Ivy League business school where your professors didn't teach the Laffer Curve, the Austrian School of Economics, free-market capitalism, von Mises, Hayek, or Friedman. Plus, you work in an Administration that eschews such economic drivel, preferring to pursue an Agenda, and economics be damned.)
So. If you were going to hold down costs related to health care, you'd look at two places - the health care providers and the health care recipients. Now in an actual competitive business environment, you can't consider the health care recipients as a "cost", since they are the consumers - the source of revenue. But in a health care monopoly run by "government", health care recipients are a cost driver, not a revenue source. How do you lower costs associated with health care recipients? Easy: You want them to be healthy; you don't want them using the health care services. In a health care monopoly, how do you accomplish that? Two potential ways.
1) Raise the price of items, services, and activities that you deem "health-averse". Or mandate against (i.e. ban) items, services, and activities that you deem "health-averse". This would be anything from fast food (too fattening, leads to obesity, increasing the need for health care) to motorcycles (too dangerous, no seatbelts, higher incidence of accidents, increasing the need for health care) Since the health care monopoly is run by the same "government" that can pass laws banning such items (or heavily taxing "health-averse" items, services, and activities, making them so expensive as to essentially remove the consumer market for same), this course of action should be of primary importance. All you need to do is make a list of characteristics exhibited by habitual health-care users, then make a list of items, services, and activities that contribute (in one form or other) to said characteristics. Ban or heavily tax such items. Which leads to the second way to lower costs related to health care recipients...
2) Note that elderly adults are disproportionately disposed to need health care, and at a typically higher-level (read: more costly) version of health care than their less-senior counterparts. Ergo, advanced aging is bad, and should be discouraged. Since outright murder of elderly citizens is not politically efficient, in practical terms "discouraging aging" means withholding (or making so costly as to effectively prevent the use of) health care for certain "high-risk" health care recipients, the elderly being among those considered "high-risk". Also, diabetics, AIDS patients, and preemie (the so-called "Million Dollar") babies.
To summarize: a health care monopoly run by "government" is one predisposed to pick winners and losers (those who can receive a modicum of health care, and those who cannot, respectively). Winners being young, healthy, wealthy, and/or risk-averse citizens. Losers being elderly, chronically ill, low-to-moderate income, and/or thrill-seeking citizens.
A modest proposal? A brave new world? No. Look no further than the first paragraph of this AP article:
Smoking takes years off your life and adds dollars to the cost of health care. Yet nonsmokers cost society money, too -- by living longer.
Not such a funny story is it?
UPDATE:
Heh. Hannity and British MEP Daniel Hannan discuss the topic. The Brit knows whereof he speaks.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Woodstock II: A Savior Among Us
It's rather interesting that people all need a savior and will turn to a wishy washy politician to be thier idol if they can't find the real thing? Here is a good place to start. It's more complicated than believing red string tied on your hand will ward off evil spirits (Demi Moore?), but it's also much more real.
Is it any wonder that a false savior will, in subtle ways, downplay the importance of two of the things that keep powerful "leaders" at bay and protect American families: God and guns. I don't promote using guns against our politicians of course. What I am saying, however, is that our ability to protect ourselves and our families from criminals as well as totalitarianism is important. Whether speaking about an individual or a country, having the firepower can deter the need for using it. As we learned from the Karate Kid, you do not learn karate for revenge. You learn karate so you don't have to fight, Daniel-san! The alternative of needing firepower or fighting power and not having it would be quite unfortunate, and as we see in every crazed school shooting, it always is.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)