Monday, March 30, 2009

We're Communicating

My son just turned 19 about six weeks ago. Recently, I was dropping him off at the Kimo Theater (where, if you're interested, Christopher - my son, in case you aren't smart enough to deal with things like "context" - is a supernumerary in Lucia di Lammermoor, a fact which I throw in because, like much of life, this sentence isn't complex enough; plus, I'm reasonably proud of the boy, even if he is just a halberd carrier, a task which he performs masterfully, along with his duties as a sword carrier and occasionally a faggot carrier - which isn't as dirty as you make it sound - he is not, incidentally, a spear carrier, because there are no spears to be found in this production, which is probably for the best, since he and his two companions successfully make up the single worst set of guards in the world, and god only knows what they'd do with a set of spears)...

Where was I? Crap, I hate it when that happens...

Right, Walgreen's. OK, technically, I hadn't made it to Walgreen's before my train of thought was derailed by a Donizetti opera laying on the tracks, but that's where we'd been headed. We were in a rush, but I needed a couple of things, and because there was a small liquor section attached, I could get the bottle of brandy for my lovely wife at the same time. It was convenient.

Or so I thought.

We picked up a random collection of stuff; my son got a Coke, I got some makeup for the wife and a small bag of potato chips, if I recall correctly. And a bottle of brandy. We walked up to the counter, talking about various subjects (mostly the video game Fallout 3, but more on that later), and I put all the stuff on the counter, and obligingly had my driver's license ready for the tattooed mook behind the counter to see.

Said mook's reaction was to look at me, then look pointedly at Chris, and then say "I'm gonna have to see his ID, too."

I smiled my most engaging smile, considered batting my eyes in the off chance he was gay, and explained calmly "Well, you could, but it wouldn't do any good. He's my son."

"I'm still gonna have to see his ID."

I didn't see where this was likely to end well, but Christopher obligingly handed over his ID, whereupon the mook started typing his birthdate into the cash register.

Ever the optimist, I tried explaining again: "That won't do any good. He's 19. You can probably figure that out by the way that the birthdate says '1990'."

"Yeah, but he's in my department."

"Oh, is that the problem? Chris, go stand by the door."

It was his turn to try and explain things. "No, I already saw you together."

I wasn't particularly calm any more, because stupidity pisses me off. But I don't think it showed in my voice. "That would be because I'm driving him."

"Yeah, but that's the policy. Next time you should let him walk around the store over there." He waved in the general direction of cosmetics and gel insoles, where I had a fleeting vision of a milling crowd of teenagers waiting for Dad to buy a six-pack.

"So you're saying that because I didn't hide the fact that I have offspring, I can't buy this brandy."

"Yeah, that's the policy."

"That's a goddamned stupid policy."

It's a shame that I didn't have time to waste, because I would have quite cheerfully called over the manager and had him explain to me which law was being broken by the fact that my son was within ten feet when I bought a bottle of E&J (not, incidentally, the first drink of choice for the average teenager).

I hadn't seen any signs saying "no children past this point." (Not that a 6'3", 220 pound hairy behemoth like my baby boy really qualifies as a "child," but that would at least have stopped us). On top of which, the mook in question hadn't troubled himself to check Christopher's ID as we wandered past him; he just stared at us, cow-like, over the heads of his complete and utter lack of customers.

But this aforementioned goddamned stupid policy raises a few questions. For example, once a woman isn't breastfeeding any more, she can drink alcohol without endangering her precious little snowflake. But that particular snowflake probably shouldn't be wandering the store alone while Mama grabs a fifth of Jack (although God knows some do). So how does this goddamned stupid policy address this conundrum? Can Mama buy her perfectly legal adult beverage with a toddler in tow? Is there some magical cut-off where the child isn't going to burst into flame when their parent's hand brushes a wine bottle?

I realize the purpose of the goddamned stupid policy - they have to make sure that underaged kids aren't drinking alcohol. But there's no law that says that I can't buy alcohol just because I had the bad fortune to reproduce.

No laws would have been broken if I'd walked out of there with a legally-purchased bottle of brandy. And I would be happy to be hauled away in handcuffs if the cops had found me and my son swigging big gulps of a distilled amber beverage produced from wine; essentially, I was penalized because this store (or perhaps just this particular mook) felt that he was capable of reading the future.

Why does Walgreen's feel that, in a recession, that they don't want my business?
__________

So that was (with a few additional comments) the customer comment I just submitted at walgreens.com. The rest of this post is a comment I just sent to a software company. (OK, game company. Sue me.) This part probably won't be real interesting unless you're playing the game (and maybe not even then). I'll update this post (or make a second one) if I get a decent response to either email.
__________

Dear Bethesda Softworks,

I’d like to thank you for revitalizing one of my favorite videogames of all time, the Fallout franchise. It has a simple, relatively intuitive interface; hours of playable scenarios (plus available sandboxing); and a weirdly beautiful playing environment. Plus, the downloadable content has so far been excellent.

I would like to suggest a fourth download pack, though. The most important part of this would be a larger music library; there are thousands of hours of usable, free (no longer under copyright) music available in record stores around the country, and you could only find twenty songs? Even limiting yourself to pre-50s jazz/pop shouldn’t restrict you too much. The Library of Congress even has an on-line database of music (although I’m not sure how extensive it is, to be honest).

And really, how much would it cost you? Some time spent searching for music, a lawyer verifying that your minimum-wage intern properly checked copyright on the songs, and you’re done. You could even link it to a quest, where the player has to locate a cache of pre-war music for Three Dog.

A second addition that would improve the game would be a larger collection of randomized stuff to find – nothing major, but with the amount of stuff you can pick up, you get a lot of repetition in that area, too. The biggest expense here would be the design of the images. A few suggestions off the top of my head (offered, like everything in this email, free of charge):

- Metal flashlight (you could even make it a minor melee weapon, with a slightly redesigned Pip-boy light function)
- 1 gallon can of fuel alcohol (which could blow up like a fire extinguisher if shot)
- Chris Avellone Brand Dancewear (tights and a fringed leather vest - value of 1 as armor, but comes in multiple neon colors)

More food:
- Cap’n Scurvy Orange slices (a quick redesign of Dandy Boy apples, maybe)
- Dried fruit
- Cheezy Poofs (hey, they already used the name in Fallout 2)
- Base a few brand names off previous Fallout characters (Patrick the Celt could have marketed “Patrick’s Best Haggis,” for example)
- All the various food/drink items from previous Fallouts (the lumpy-apple looking “fruit”, Cherry and Classic Nuka-Cola, Afterburner Gum, etc – do you hold the rights to all the previous Fallouts?)

What happened, for that matter, to all the Jimmy Hats?

Homemade hooch: if you wanted, give each one a slight chance that it causes a few points of damage from a bad batch. Probably worth half or less the value of “regular” booze – although I’d say that moonshine would be worth more than vodka, just for giggles
- Homemade wine
- Bathtub gin
- Moonshine

Cosmetics seem to be left out entirely
- Miss Phyllis Brand Bobby Pins (adds 10 to your bobby pin collection)
- Comb
- Hairbrush
- Curling iron
- Various makeup items (can be generically labeled “makeup kit” – might get you a better reaction from females if you give it to them – possibly even female ghouls)

There’s got to be more mechanical/electrical bits that you can sell than conductors and sensor modules (OK, you have more than that already available, but still…)
- Power cords
- Electrical wire
- Fuses
- Burned-out fuses (worth almost nothing, if not less)
- Surge suppressor (probably important, with the irregular energy supplies available)

Tools:
- Soldering iron
- Pipe wrench (also usable a club; much like a tire iron, only heavier)
- Needle-nosed pliers
- Socket set

The possibilities are endless.

Oh, and I've got to say this. I realize that ammo is weightless for gameplay purposes, but Mini-Nukes? Really? Between the fissionable material and the shielding, these things should really NOT be weightless.

Maybe that's just me.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Saving Money in an Economic Downturn

I'm sure you've noticed by now, our economy has been healthier. We aren't totally screwed yet, but things have been better; I am noticing a lack of lubricant on the store shelves.

What can we do in this time of crisis? Well, we can all stick together, for one thing: the closer you are to your neighbor, the easier it will be to slash their throats when the time comes to eat them.

Well, learning to cook and to sew are both ways to save money. Sadly, they're also skills that have fallen by the wayside. (Learning to sew also takes in initial start-up cost, and takes up both time from your schedule and room in your living space. So if either of those is at a premium, sewing may not be for you.

(Incidentally, if you do buy new clothes, check the label. If it has special washing instructions, that should, by itself, be a reason to reconsider buying it: it's going to cost more in the long run.)

Cooking isn't actually that difficult, but it scares some people. (Best recommendation: watch Good Eats on the Food Network for a while. It's interesting, relatively funny, and you'll learn something at the same time.)

Eating healthy will also help you in the long run: those pesky medical bills can really eat into your wallet.

Some things just don't save you any money at all. I take the bus to work. For the last part of last week, I passed a sign advertising a yard sale (strange by itself, since it pointed into a group of apartments, but never mind). The sign was attached to the outside of a cardboard box (fairly common). But to weigh down the box, you know what they'd used? Not rocks or bricks - that would have been too ordinary.

There were three quart-sized jars of applesauce.

Sometimes, you need to give the kids very specific instructions before you turn them loose to do something for you.

(By the way, if you're shopping at Walmart, remember that, while you may be saving money in the short run, but most of your cash is leaving the country. So in the long run, you're hurting the economy. Things aren't going to get better over here anytime soon. But the people of China thank you. (OK, the people in charge in China thank you. Nobody else is really making more than slave wages. But, hey, it's your money. Do what you want.)

But really, anybody can cook. And if you do it for a while, you eventually get to the point where other people will eat it, too.

Now, let's look at how you can eat decent food, and still save money. First, let's go steal a recipe. We're going to a site called "bakespace.com," where we find:
Beef Stroganoff With Brandy

2 tablespoons olive oil
3 pounds beef tenderloin, trimmed, cut in 3 inch x 1 inch x 1/4 inch strips
1 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon black pepper
2 tablespoons unsalted butter
2 medium onions, chopped
4 cloves garlic, minced
16 ounces fresh mushrooms, sliced 1/4 inch thick
1 cup low sodium beef broth
1 1/2 cup low fat sour cream
1/2 cup brandy
6 tablespoons fresh parsley, minced

In a large nonstick skillet, heat the oil over high heat.
Brown the beef for 2 minutes, transfer to a warm platter, and season with 1/2 teaspoon salt and 1/4 teaspoon pepper.
Melt the butter in the skillet over moderate heat.
Add the onions and garlic and saute for 2 minutes or until onions are tender, then stir in the mushrooms, cover and cook for 3 minutes.
Uncover and stir in the remaining salt and pepper, and add the beef broth.
Bring to a boil, stirring to scrape up any browned bits, and boil, uncovered for 2 minutes.
Remove the skillet from the heat and whisk in the sour cream until smooth.
Stir in the beef and any juices that have collected on the platter.
Add brandy and place over low heat and stir constantly just until heated through (don't let the sauce boil).
Turn heat off and place Stroganoff in a serving dish and sprinkle with parsley.
Serve over whole grain pasta cooked al dente.
Now, let's break that down.

olive oil - OK, let's be real. You're frying meat in oil. And then it's going into a cream sauce. You aren't going to notice if the olive oil is changed with canola oil.

beef tenderloin - Oh, shut the hell up. Go look at the price per pound, and tell me how quickly you're going to change to a lesser cut. Now, the more fat you see on a cut of meat, the less of it you really want to buy for anything except stew. In fact, any part of the meat that isn't openly red and meaty, you only want it for stew. Or braising. Basically, any long, slow cooking method, where the non-meat stuff has a chance to melt and be absorbed into the food.

brandy - now, again, it's going into a cream sauce. The brandy is there because the meat (and some of the herbs) have some flavor compounds that dissolve best in alcohol, and not water. (Actually, tomatoes have more of those compounds, but this recipe doesn't have any of those, so go figure.) You don't have to use your best brandy. Trust me on that.

And as for mushrooms, you don't have to buy the best ones, either. White button mushrooms do just as well as portobello mushrooms (unless you're my wife, but she has taste buds and stuff).

Serve over whole grain pasta cooked al dente - OK, the standard is actually egg noodles, but serve on whatever pasta you like.

Now, have we cut the price enough?

OK then, here's a cheaper version. Replace the beef with ground beef, and everything else with a can of cream of mushroom soup (made with half the liquid). Dump it over some cooked noodles, drained. (If you really want to save money, serve it over ramen noodles, cooked without the flavor packet. (You might be able to use the flavor packet if it's beef ramen. And then you wouldn't need to add salt, either.)

While it isn't nearly as good (and it definitely doesn't have a whole lot of health benefits), it costs about a 27 cents a serving.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Oh, look. Another jackass

Well, I seem to have made another friend.

I went wandering on the Dark Side again this week, and found a guy who felt he knew what he was talking about. So I kicked him.

Here's what he wrote:
Obama Reverses Himself On Embryonic Stem cells..After Two Days!

President Obama, in a highly publicized bit of political theater signed an executive order last Monday, March 9th reversing a 2001 executive order that President Bush had signed that allowed federal funds for research involving embryonic stem cell lines that was already in progress using embryos that had already been destroyed, but denying federal funding for new research that required the killing of any additional embryos.

Since the current occupant of the White House is an avid fan of abortion, even to the point of mandating that babies who survive an abortion be allowed to die of neglect, this was hardly a shocker.

But then, a mere two days later came the old switcheroo, buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday.

Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it's been part of the annual funding for the Department of Health and Human Services for over a decade, and explicitly prohibits funding for "(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

It not only prohibits the government from providing tax dollars to support research that kills or risks injury to human embryos, it specifically mandates an all-inclusive definition of “human embryo” that encompasses any human life even if created in a laboratory through cloning, in vitro fertilization or any other technology.

Sooo..what is President Barry Zero up to?

I see three possibilities: one, he simply didn't realize that the Dickey-Wicker Amendment was part of what he was signing; two, this was a window to allow well-connected `friends of Obama' to dump some stock they held (or short it) in companies specializing in embryonic stem cell research at a profit after it was artificially pumped up by the highly publicized White House announcement and make a tidy profit; or three he's planning an attack on Dickey-Wicker in Congress.

As a matter of fact, there's nothing to stop the any two of these from being true.

For the record, embryonic stem cell research has been almost entirely a waste of time, although a great deal of significant and valuable discoveries have been made using ADULT stem cells. The embryonic stem cells tend to mutate quickly and be unstable, which is why this research has mainly been a means to funnel government grants and taxpayer funds at certain scientists and companies specializing in the area. In states like California, New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York, the treasure trove runs into the billions.It's almost as lucrative as global warming.
So, in the spirit of Truth, Justice and the American Way, I felt that I should set him straight.
Well, I guess it's good to see that you have managed to be completely ignorant on the subject that you are expounding on. I suppose that's a good thing.

The Dickey-Wicker amendment has been in every budget since 1996, and has no effect on stem-cell research.

To start with, Dickey-Wicker banned funding only on reseach conducted on embryos themselves. While this includes the process of creating stem cell lines for further research (since the stem cells are taken out of an unused, non-implanted IVF embryo), but it does not prohibit the use of stem cells themselves, only the embryos they were taken from.

See, what you remain blithely ignorant of is the fact that a stem-cell "line" is a continuously-maintained collection of cells in laboratory flasks, which are transfered to new flasks as they divide and grow. One of the unique properties of stem cells is that they can be grown permanently in this way, unlike most other body tissues.

The line is created by taking stem cells out of an embryo, but that only has to be done once for each new line; after that, it's just the individual cells themselves that are grown - they do not form embryos, and could not be implanted to create a pregnancy, while they are growing in the culture medium. "Stem-cell research" uses these separated cells, not developing embryos.

Dickey-Wicker has always been interpreted as permitting funding for stem-cell research, but not for the creation of new lines of cells. Scientists accommodated this by using private funding to generate cell lines, and federal funding for research on the cells. Bush not only banned that, but imposed restrictions on the usage of existing cell lines that choked off vast amounts of ongoing research.

We'll ignore your potentially libelous statements regarding allowing "well-connected 'friends of Obama' to dump some stock they held (or short it) in companies specializing in embryonic stem cell research at a profit" - see, research companies aren't set up, and their stock made public, overnight. But we can tell that you aren't a fan of Barack Obama, so we'll assume that God will judge you for your lies, and we won't.

Instead, let's look at the following fascinating paragraph:
For the record, embryonic stem cell research has been almost entirely a waste of time, although a great deal of significant and valuable discoveries have been made using ADULT stem cells. The embryonic stem cells tend to mutate quickly and be unstable, which is why this research has mainly been a means to funnel government grants and taxpayer funds at certain scientists and companies specializing in the area."
Wow. I didn't know that you could be that wrong, that many times, in only 50 words.

Let's see - "embryonic stem cell research has been almost entirely a waste of time" - gee, I dunno, since Bush banned research except in 22 lines (many of which are played out, and sometimes contaminated), do you think that might have had an effect on the amount of research that's been done successfully?

(On the other hand, three days after Obama was sworn in, On January 23, 2009, phase I clinical trials for transplantation of an embryonic-derived cell population into spinal cord-injured individuals received FDA approval, making it the world's first human-embryonic-stem-cell human trial. The results of initial experiments suggest an improvement in locomotor recovery in spinal cord injuries after a 7-day delayed transplantation of human embryonic stem cells that were pushed towards an oligodendrocytic lineage. So, despite the anti-science attitudes of the former Bush White House, science marches on.)

"The embryonic stem cells tend to mutate quickly and be unstable" - well, no, not so much. Look at my description above, regarding stem cell lines. The fact that they don't mutate and become unstable is the very reason that the research is viable, you moron.

So, let's see. You have no idea about the federal budget process, and you don't know anything about stem-cell research that you don't read in biased pamphlets cranked out by medical Luddites. But here you are, expounding on both subjects, as if you had a clue (which, clearly, you don't).

Keep up the good work, OK?
Despite the fact that he moderates his board, that comment made it through. Followed by a response.
Fascinating.

First of all, the failures involved with embryonic stem cells have been pretty well documented.

Try here, here, here, here... as a matter of fact, when you google 'failure of embryonic stem cell research' you get about 350,000 hits.

The link you provided is an article of yet another experiment, which might succeed..or fail like the others have. On the other hand, the use of ADULT stem cells has a fairly good track record of success.

And obviously the scientist quoted in the article hated Bush and loves Obama..because the money tap has been turned back on!

We have a saying here in Joshua's Army...don't BS the blog.It never works.

Likewise, your expounding on Dickey-Wicker, which clearly disallows the use of federal funds for the destruction of embryos. Click on the link in the article, read it carefully and take notes.

As for the possibilities of why the Chosen One reversed himself undercover, I think my three possibilites are perfectly valid based on common sense and the way this administration has conducted itself so far. Hey, it's the Chicago way..on a national level.

Oh, and look up the definition of libel sometime. Unfortunately, your legal knowledge is apparently on a par with your scientific knowledge.

Based on a quick look at your profile, your blog and your comment, we know a couple of things..you hate Christians and the Bible, are an Obamabot, suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome (admittedly, not my favorite president, but I never got foaming-at-the-mouth about it), are retired and so bored that your self-confessed hobby is trolling blogs you deem to be 'Christian' and 'Right wing.'

Seems pathetic to me, especially if this is the best you can do.

I suggest you find another blog to troll for your enjoyment. Joshuapundit might actually challenge your deeply held beliefs and I have a feeling that might be uncomfortable for you.

And if you wish to be taken seriously , I'd suggest you avoid the name calling and bitchery in the future. It just makes you look like an idiot without any class whatsoever. And who wants that, eh?

Oh, and one last thing BTW..in spite of the fact we disagree and your attempt to troll the board is pretty rank, thanks for your service to our beloved Republic.
( I assume your telling the truth about that)

We're all able to mouth off because guys like you were willing to pick up the rifle, and I respect that, if nothing else.It's why I spent the time and electrons responding to you that I did.

Regards,
Rob
But see, the problem is that Rob is intellectually dishonest. Because if he doesn't have an answer, he suppresses the question. I put in a followup, and he refused to let it see daylight.

Obviously, I should have kept a copy. But I think I can recreate it. (To be honest, the response I gave him was, while terse, relatively polite. If he thinks he can shut me up, the gloves are off. Not that the condition of my hands really matters at this point, but still. It's the principle of the thing.)
Rob,

Gee, where do I start?

Well, first of all, most of the links you gave for "stem cell failures" lead to "lifenews.com," which lists their mission statement as "LifeNews.com is an independent news agency specifically devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community... The topics covered by LifeNews.com include abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia, bioethics issues such as human cloning and stem cell research, campaigns and elections, and legal and legislative issues."

Got enough agenda there, Butch?

You know, it's strange. Among the issues mentioned there, I don't see "death penalty." Isn't death... like, the antithesis of life? You'd think they'd be there on the front lines opposing it, wouldn't you? Odd.
as a matter of fact, when you google 'failure of embryonic stem cell research' you get about 350,000 hits.
Yeah, and you google any three unrelated words, you end up with hundreds of thousands of hits. Try "cheese gun swan" - 524,000 hits. With something as controversial as stem cell research, I'm surprised you only got 350,000 results.

On top of which, since George Bush banned federal funding of anything involving embryonic stem cells in 2001, and the research only got started in 1998, I think we can all see why there have been limited successes with it, if we're honest with it. Can't we?
We have a saying here in Joshua's Army...don't BS the blog.It never works.
Why would that be, Rob? Because like attracts like? Because it would be like calling the ocean "damp"?
Likewise, your expounding on Dickey-Wicker, which clearly disallows the use of federal funds for the destruction of embryos. Click on the link in the article, read it carefully and take notes.
Well, I could suggest that you do the same yourself. Or perhaps, do a little research yourself. Or would that be asking too much?
In January of 1999, Harriet Rabb, the top lawyer at the Department of Health and Human Services, released a legal opinion that would set the course for Clinton Administration policy. Federal funds, obviously, could not be used to derive stem cell lines (because derivation involves embryo destruction). However, she concluded that because human embryonic stem cells "are not a human embryo within the statutory definition," the Dickey-Wicker Amendment does not apply to them.
But reality isn't your strong point, is it, Rob?
Oh, and look up the definition of libel sometime. Unfortunately, your legal knowledge is apparently on a par with your scientific knowledge.
Golly, gee. How about Stanford University? Would their definition be good enough for you?
Libel involves the publishing of a falsehood that harms someone.

Slander is the same doctrine applied to the spoken word. Collectively, they are referred to as defamation. Both fall under the jurisdiction of individual states, which usually require the falsehood to be intentional.
So there we go. You're also ignorant on the law and/or the English language. Any other subjects you want to expound on?
Based on a quick look at your profile, your blog and your comment, we know a couple of things
Oh, this ought to be good...
you hate Christians and the Bible
Uh, no. Obviously, I've read the Bible several times. It's hypocrites that get under my skin. As you, personally, should be able to tell...
(you) are an Obamabot
No, sorry. He's doing a good job, and God knows he's infinitely better than his predecessor, but I don't agree with everything he does. For example, why (in the words of Nancy Pelosi) is "impeachment... off the table"?
(you) suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome (admittedly, not my favorite president, but I never got foaming-at-the-mouth about it)
OK, one time I tried to talk about him while I was brushing my teeth, but that hardly qualifies, does it?

I wouldn't call it "foaming at the mouth," but when an intellectually untalented man consistently lies to the American people, destroys the economy, takes us to war for no reason, and supports the torture of prisoners (among dozens of other charges), what's to like about the man?

Speaking of “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” though, let’s look at a few of your statements (just in this webpage – no need to mine the rest of your blog. That would be too easy):
“since the current occupant of the White House is an avid fan of abortion…”

“Sooo..what is President Barry Zero up to?”

“…this was a window to allow well-connected `friends of Obama' to dump some stock they held (or short it) in companies specializing in embryonic stem cell research at a profit after it was artificially pumped up by the highly publicized White House announcement and make a tidy profit…”

“…the Chosen One…”

“…Obamabot…”
I wonder. Has the phrase “Obama Derangement Syndrome” been taken yet?

(Actually, yes it has. It even appears in a National Review article, so I’ll presume you’ve seen the term. Apparently, though, you’re blind to the warning signs…)
are retired and so bored that your self-confessed hobby is trolling blogs you deem to be 'Christian' and 'Right wing.'
Ah, no. If you'd actually been reading, you'd have noticed that my current hobby is Fallout 3. (Incidentally, the Experimental MIRV? Not worth the weight to carry it. And why do Mini Nukes not weigh anything? I mean, I understand that ammo is weight-free. But nuclear weapons?)
Joshuapundit might actually challenge your deeply held beliefs and I have a feeling that might be uncomfortable for you.
You certainly haven't managed that so far.
And if you wish to be taken seriously , I'd suggest you avoid the name calling and bitchery in the future. It just makes you look like an idiot without any class whatsoever. And who wants that, eh?
Well, in the words of that great philosopher Popeye T. Sailor, "I yam what I yam."

On the other hand, if you want to be taken seriously, perhaps you could make an effort to get at least one fact right. You know, just for the heck of it.

So, greetings from the fact-based community. As ever, I remain, the

Nameless Cynic
See? It's important to make new friends.

Update: (3/21/09) I seem to be banned from his blog. He got all cranky with me, called me a "libtard," and now he doesn't return my calls, he never writes, and we haven't been palling around in the lunchroom like we used to.

I'm so hurt that he would leave me like this. I don't know how I'll get through the day.

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Now, about that "evolution" argument...

OK, so I got lazy and took last week off. It's true. I've been involved in a couple of on-line arguments, and I've become addicted to an evil, destructive drug known as "Fallout 3." (Trust me, it's better than crack, and you don't have that whole pesky "you're under arrest" thing to worry about...)

Well, I was casting about for a new point to annoy people with, and realized that a guy named Brian Byrne made the point much better than I ever could.

(OK, maybe not "better," but at least "more succinctly." I mean, really, I have this unfortunate habit of rambling on for paragraphs at a time, simply because I'm in love with the sound of my own voice. I should be ashamed. I'm not, of course. But I should be.)

So I'm going to be lazy this week, too, and reprint his entire entry, fully attributed, of course.
The Holocaust AND Darwin in the Same Week?!?

The Vatican chipped a wee bit from the religious ignorance boulder yesterday when they acknowledged that Darwin was right about that whole evolution thing. In doing so, they officially gave the kiss-off to Intelligent Design, more or less dismissing it out of hand, as any thinking person has already done.

I'm not Catholic, and I don't want to fall into the trap of gushing on and on about how something I'm not now, nor have ever been a part of, is sooooo much better than what's closer at hand. That said, it strikes me as particularly powerful, the degree to which the Vatican seems to have actual scholars actually thinking about these issues, as opposed to the American fundamentalist Protestant approach of creating a think tank to generate misinformation that flies directly in the face of painfully obvious science.

Granted, the Vatican’s scholarship only goes so far in the face of their continued anti-straight-male rights positions, and I also seem to remember something about a coverup and some kids? Something. Still, let’s give them credit for cracking a book.

Another important point that’s brought up in the article:
Professor [Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian University] said that too many opponents of Darwin – above all Creationists – had mistakenly claimed that his theories were "totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality," as did proponents of Intelligent Design.
I would say I’m baffled by the fact that nobody in the American Taliban has stood up and acknowledged this idea (really, could all-powerful God have NOT created things He knew would evolve?), but doing so would remove a hugely popular bludgeon from their arsenal in the ongoing, completely fabricated culture war. The idea that Christian ideals and ideas are being persecuted by a callous Liberal Elite Establishment is key to keeping the wedge between fundamentalists and everyone else firmly in place. They keep their people feeling alienated, their alienation unifies them, and they flock to the polls when another W shows up on election day.