Yesterday, on Easter morning, millions of little Christian kids around the world woke up to chocolate bunnies in nests of green plastic grass, surrounded with candy. But out in Nerd Country, we woke up to real bunnies in a nest of real grass! Now, granted, they were surrounded by horse apples instead of the more edible kind, but still, the analogy holds.
Annie found the perfectly round little nest of freshly-born bunnies when she went out for the evening feeding. The placement of the little hollow was a bit of a problem, as it was right underneath our big horse Dylan (giant hooves plus tiny bunnies equals less than secure lodging), so she carefully scooped up the nest and moved it into the hay stall where it would be safe. We worried that the mother rabbit might smell us on the babies and reject them, but this morning when I checked back in they were covered up all snug and tight. One of them immediately poked its head out of the nest as if to challenge me, even though it couldn't even open its eyes yet. He also didn't waste any time kicking back his siblings who were also trying to come up to see what was happening. Those legs aren't just for hopping, you know!
Anyway, I couldn't resist taking some pictures of our little Easter bunnies. I like the first one particularly because he looks so grumpy.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Easter Bunnies!
Saturday, April 07, 2007
A White Texas Easter
Yesterday it was sunny and grand. Today it's snowing.
In April.
In TEXAS!
Our uncle George took this photo of snow falling on Texas bluebonnets. It's a once in a lifetime kind of image, I think, and I thank him and Aunt Sharon for sharing it with us. 
Whether you're religious or not, the Easter holiday coming up on this suddenly frosty Sunday is a good time of year to think about renewals, rebirths, and second chances. And a late snow like this is also a good reminder to take nothing for granted -- even the early hopes and promise of spring, sometimes, can fall victim to an unforeseen frost. Enjoy every moment you're lucky enough to see and be ready to take whatever comes.
METAPOST: Yet More Changes
I'm considering changing the template (again ... this is Time Number 8 Bazillion) because I think the current one is just too boring and I don't think it really represents all the different things I put on this blog. In a startling change of policy and good sense, however, I have tried out the new changes on a test platform before just springing it on you.
So for anyone who's willing, please take a look at the test site and let me know what you think of that proposed look versus the current one. Or any of the 8 bazillion previous ones for that matter.
Thanks for any feedback you're willing to provide!
Friday, April 06, 2007
The No Longer Invisible Dog
Sometimes I see myself in the dogs we foster, and I don't mean that we're both hairy, stinky, and poorly trained. Animals have personalities, and on occasion I see my own basic type reflected in one of the dogs we have in our temporary care.
Mombo is one of those dogs.
When Annie first pulled him out of the shelter and brought him home, his main goal was to be invisible. He stayed in the pantry room where we'd made a bed up for him, and didn't say much of anything. He cowered if you tried to touch him or take him by the collar. That, combined with the sun-bleached condition of his fur, led us to believe he'd been neglected at best, abused at worst. Whatever the case, he responded by trying very hard not to make any waves.
The quiet ones get to me the most. That type always has, ever since I was a kid. I sympathize intuitively with the reserved, shy people who seem to hover on the margins of a group. I can feel their discomfort, their lack of confidence and self-esteem blaring at me with every movement. Mombo was like that, just beaten down by poor health and abuse.
The thing about those kinds of people or animals, though, is that once you finally get through to them and they start to trust you, it's a gift beyond measure. It's special. I don't begrudge those who bestow their affection willy-nilly on everyone and everything they meet, love and happiness beaming forth like the rays of the sun. But I'm not like that, and when I see a kindred spirit I know how much courage and effort it takes to let someone else into their circle of trust.
That's why the first time Mombo put his paw on me after I had petted him, silently saying "Hey, that's pretty nice, you can keep doing it if you want", I felt just wonderful. Mombo will never be one to leap into your lap, tongue and tail wagging to beat all, bestowing kisses with abandon. But he lets you know in small ways that you're all right with him. He might still hover on the edge of a group but you know he's watching out for you anyway behind those silly bangs and the impossible mullet.
I remember the first time I heard a strange sound like a cross between a bark and a washing machine on the fritz when Annie and I were taking the other dogs for a walk. I headed back to the house, expecting that something was about to explode, only to discover that it was Mombo. He of the sore hips and pudgy belly, who had lain quietly for close to a month without making a peep, was letting us know in no uncertain terms that he did NOT want to be left behind.
So we took him with us, both on our walks and in our hearts. When you get a rare gift like the trust of a dog like Mombo, it's not something to be treated lightly.
That's why it was so hard for us to say goodbye to Mombo today as he rode off with his new family.
We were taken a bit by surprise -- Mombo's been with us for three months now, longer than most other foster dogs, and I think in the back of our minds we had sort of assumed no one would ever adopt him. But suddenly this great family's application (a young husband and wife and their toddler) was approved, and they were on the phone determined to come and meet the dog they'd already fallen in love with online. Before we knew it they'd met, agreed that they'd all like each other, and Mombo was in the car heading down the road, Annie and I left a bit bewildered behind.
Now that he's no longer trying to be invisible, it's right and fitting that he's got three people dedicated to loving him full time, but darn it ... I let Mombo into my circle of trust, too, and I'm going to miss him terribly.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
American Idol Prediction
This seems to be "Inane Pop Culture Crap" day here in Nerd Country, so I might as well give myself over to it whole hog. Below the fold, my reactions to and predictions about last night's American Idol.
Who's Staying: The Divas (Melissa Doolittle, LaKisha Jones, and Jordan Sparks) were all great as usual. At some point they're going to start cannibalizing each other's votes, but they're all strong enough at the moment not to worry too much about going home.
I also don't think Blake Lewis (The Scatter) has much to worry about for quite a while. He's cute, hip, and different, and goodness knows that's in short supply this year.
Who's Going: Your bottom three this week will be Phil Stacey, Haley Scarnato, and Chris Richardson. With Howard Stern on vacation and the judges being nice to Sanjaya, there's a possibility that the Pony-Hawked One will replace Richardson in the bottom, but I doubt it. He's too evil to be killed off this soon, he's destined to linger for weeks more, until finally, mercifully, the producers rig the voting to send him home.
Phil has stayed alive thus far due to the very powerful "Extraterrestrial Alien" vote, but eventually this jug-eared google-eyed bald-pated freak is going to frighten enough Americans to be given the boot.
Haley has great legs and has learned that the only way she can hang on week to week is by dressing in less and less, but she has a certain "Kathie Lee Gifford" vibe, and if there's one thing Americans are sure of, it's that they don't want to see Kathie Lee Gifford scantily clad. Haley's body can only get her so far before the "Kathie Lee Gag Reflex" kicks in and prevents the horned-up teenage boys who make up her main voting bloc from reaching the telephone.
Finally, I believe that Chris Richardson is going to suffer from having to split the "cool young hip guy" vote with Blake, and Blake's simply a better singer and entertainer. Unlike the judges, I thought Chris' performance last night was flat and uninteresting and the vocals were average at best. Plus I hate the way he looks like his neck vertebrae have all been fused into one unmoving column, forcing him to rotate his entire upper body to look around as if he's some sort of grotesque Frankenstein.
With those as my bottom three, who will will be going home? The answer is ... Phil Stacy! Sadly, immediately after being rejected Phil will incinerate the audience with his alien death-ray eyes, and that will be the end of American Idol.
$25K a Month Per Child?!
According to this MSNBC story, Britney Spears has agreed to pay Kevin Federline $25,000 per month PER CHILD in child support payments:
Spears will pay $25,000 a month in child support for each of the couple’s two children until they reach 18. He also gets custody of the boys four days a week.This doesn't even include the salary that K-Fed would earn for working, should he ever actually work. Or should that work ever be of high enough quality to qualify as "earned" which, given how crappy his music is, may never actually happen.
Furthermore, he's only having the kids for HALF THE WEEK! That would mean in essence that these white trash refugees are spending $600,000 a year PER CHILD to raise them.
And you wonder why people in Hollywood seem out of touch with reality. I bet if you added up all the money my parents spent raising all seven of their children, it wouldn't add up to $600,000. Total. For all seven, to get them from birth to 18.
If that's how much raising babies costs in Hollywood, I can't blame Angeline Jolie for carting her clan to Africa -- it's GOT to be cheaper.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Somebody Messed With Texas
We drove from the Austin area to the Texas coast this weekend for a mini-vacation, and along the way I got to see my favorite Texas sign of all time:
I love this sign because it's so utterly pointless. If someone's not observing warning signs, then guess what? They're not going to observe this warning sign, either!
I weep when I think of the time and money spent first proposing and passing this idiotic law, and then having to make and erect the signs which only those who are already looking at signs are going to see.
Now, it would be easy to simply leave this entire issue with "What a dumb law", but that's not why I get paid the big blogging bucks. Oh no, my friend, I get paid the big blogging bucks to think beyond the first level of idiocy, to explore how this kind of thing reverberates throughout the idiocracy, to examine every possible permutation of how stupid can infect everything around it, even unto the last generation.
For instance:
- If this is in fact a completely separate law, why doesn't everyone who breaks a traffic ordinance get two tickets, one for breaking the first law and one for not observing the sign warning them about the law they were breaking?
- If we didn't have the law about observing traffic signs, would it then be legal to violate the laws marked by the signs?
- Is the law only that you have to observe the sign, but not actually obey what it tells you?
- "You were going 110 in a 35, son, didn't you see that speed limit sign?"
- "Why yes I did, officer, since I am a good Texas citizen I always make it a point to observe every warning sign. I ignored it, but I definitely observed it."
- "Ah, well then, have a good day." - Does this law apply to blind people? After all, they can't observe the signs at all. Of course, if you have a bunch of blind people driving around, probably their lack of sign observationing is the least of your worries.
In any event, it was difficult not to swerve the truck onto the shoulder to smash the sign down, just to see if the arresting officer would give me one ticket or two when I said, "Gosh I'm sorry, sir, I just didn't observe it there."
Saturday, March 31, 2007
On Being a Whore
When you live out in the country you learn how to pronounce things differently, which is how I learned I was a whore. And believe me, it's not as glamorous as it's been portrayed in movies, and I should know because today was my "first day on the job", so to speak. It really kills your back, and now I've got callouses on my hands like you wouldn't believe. I got quite a workout, that's for sure, but I came up with some pretty good techniques.
For instance, to really get the most out of it you need to grasp the shaft firmly, then really get your arms and legs into it. Don't be afraid of hurting yourself or you're going to do it wrong, and that's definitely not good.
Other people probably do it differently, I've read and heard about others using toys and devices, and hey, I'm all about everyone living their lives their own way. I don't mean to judge anybody, after all, that's not what I'm here for. But for me, if you're going to be a whore there's really only one good way to go about it and that's the old-fashioned way. I know I'm a lot happier for it, callouses and sore back aside. Luckily I picked the perfect time of year for it, because it seems like everything is just bursting with that Spring spirit, if you know what I mean.
Anyway, that's the update from Nerd Country for today.
Edited to Add: Darn it, spell checker let me down again!
See, out here in the sticks we pronounce it with two syllables -- "HOH-er", and that threw me off. The correct spelling above should have been "hoer". I guess hacking out all those weeds from the lawn wore me out worse than I thought. But there's no way I'm using a Weedeater or gas-powered tiller, if a traditional hoe is good enough for real country boys, it's good enough for me!
Friday, March 30, 2007
Global Warming Denialist George Gilder
I'm not a smart man, but I can tell the difference between a bull and a heifer at ten paces with the best of 'em.
Or put another way, I'm a cranky, skeptical old bastard and my friends like sending me nonsense and foolishness to get me all worked up at the idiocy a perverse humanity seems determined to foist on us.
As an example, I offer the following message from something called "The Gilder Technology Report" sent to me by a colleague, who wondered what I thought of it. Nothing like a rousing game of "Skeptic Bating" to get the blood going in the morning, and being an obliging fellow I dove on in.
First, the actual post from Gilder:Friday Feature / Politically Correct Science
Gilder Technology Report Subscriber (3/9/07): George, please weigh in on Gore and global warming.
George Gilder (3/10/07): The disabling flaw of the Al Gore movie is that nearly all the details ( Kilamanjaro, the Chad lake, the spread of diseases and on and on) dissolve as soon as you investigate them.
(It s been colder than usual on Kil; the lake is a few feet deep and disappears cyclically; the diseases are unrelated to GW.)
The key to his scientific argument is the famous Academy Award extrapolation of CO2 increases to the skies, as dramatized by his elevator lift scene.
But far from an exponential, CO2 does not even have anywhere near a linear impact on temperatures. If he compared the increase in CO2 not to existing CO2 but to the gyrations of other greenhouse gasses, particularly water vapor, which is 130 times more voluminous, he would have had to crawl along the bottom of the chart with a magnifying glass.
The idea that CO2, which is absorbed by plants and sustains them (to the extent of a 28% increase in foliage in recent years), is a pollutant of any kind will be regarded by future scientists as the looniest notion of our increasingly innumerate media culture. Nick Tredennick did a great short essay on this.
As Richard Feynman pointed out about adjectival "sciences," environmental science probably isn't. It's science for rich upper class dummies like Bobby Kennedy and Sharon Rockefeller who think they should be able to push around current wealth creators because their own wealth is "well seasoned" by time and refined by Ivy "liberal arts." They themselves are intellectual pigmies compared to their forbears in business whom they depend on for their trust fund support and disdain in politically correct fatuities.
A few red flags go up at once upon reading this. Any time someone says something like "nearly all the details ... dissolve as soon as you investigate them", you should be wary. Yes, it's certainly possible that hundreds or thousands of researchers from across the globe are all wrong -- it's happened before -- but if "nearly all the details" really did "dissolve as soon as you investigate them", don't you think that someone else would have noticed it first? Like, maybe, all of those rival teams of researchers out there who are all looking to make their mark, or a jealous colleague who wants to get published first?
You see this kind of claim all the time, whether it's people denying the Holocaust happened, or that Einstein's theory of relativity was wrong, or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and evolution is a sham -- "All of these so-called experts are wrong in every way and even I, a layman, can easily show you how!" If it sounds like the guy could be on a late-night infomercial hawking spray-on hair, then the odds are good that he's a crackpot.
As I said, though, sometimes it does happen that the one lone voice in the wilderness is right, and The Establishment is wrong. That's why although this kind of over-the-top rhetoric should make you cautious, you still have to pay attention to the actual claims being made. Which is where George Gilder really falls flat.
For instance, he claims that global warming is wrong because it's advanced by liberal, old-money rich people:It's science for rich upper class dummies like Bobby Kennedy and Sharon Rockefeller who think they should be able to push around current wealth creators because their own wealth is "well seasoned" by time and refined by Ivy "liberal arts." They themselves are intellectual pigmies compared to their forbears in business whom they depend on for their trust fund support and disdain in politically correct fatuities.
Well what the heck does that have to do with anything? Either the data are right or the data are wrong. If increased carbon in the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise, it does so regardless of the motives of those who point it out. If the scientist has skewed the results out of some kind of political or personal agenda, then that will be evident to other scientists who try to recreate the data. Gilder's making an ad hominem attack here, saying that the data is wrong not because the data is wrong, but because he doesn't like the people who published it. And that's not just a formal logical fallacy, it's incredibly stupid. It's like saying "You are wrong that it is raining, and I know this because you're ugly."
Finally there was his statement that:The idea that CO2, which is absorbed by plants and sustains them (to the extent of a 28% increase in foliage in recent years), is a pollutant of any kind will be regarded by future scientists as the looniest notion of our increasingly innumerate media culture.
Besides the unnecessarily histrionic language, the basic idea he's advancing is foolish. There are all kinds of things that "sustain" us and are necessary for life, but which can become deadly in the wrong concentration. Here, let's try it with another important chemical:The idea that H2O, which is absorbed by humans and sustains them (to the extent of a 28% increase in global population in recent years), is a pollutant of any kind will be regarded by future scientists as the looniest notion of our increasingly innumerate media culture.
That will be a great comfort to the thousands of drowning victims across the globe, or to people who die of excessive water consumption (it's called hyponatremia). Too much of almost anything can be bad. We need nitrogen in the atmosphere to breathe, too, but too much nitrogen would eliminate all life on Earth. We need and ingest all sorts of trace minerals that sustain us, like iodine and iron, but eating too much of either of those will kill us too. It's just a silly argument. Amounts matter, relative quantities matter, time and location matter. Making a blanket statement like "CO2 helps plants grow so it can't ever do anything harmful!" is silly.
After I wrote all of this as an initial reply to my friend, I decided to do some Googling to find out who this George Gilder guy was. Unsurprisingly, he's not just a crank, but his idiotic takes on technology caused thousands of subscribers to his newsletter to lose their entire fortunes. Even worse (at least in my book), he's one of the co-founders of the terminally misguided and pathologically dishonest Discovery Institute, an organization whose stated goal is to do away with methodological naturalism (i.e. science as we know it).
Now look, I don't know enough about climatology to know one way or another if global warming is real, and if so whether or not it's caused by human activity. But when I look at the people who say that this is correct on both counts, they're scientists and agencies from many different nations, many different cultures, and many different disciplines. They cross the ideological spectrum, and they have hard data and computer models to back up their claims.
On the other side are people like Gilder and Exxon/Mobile, who make idiotic arguments like "But CO2 is a friend to plants!!!1!". "By their friends shall ye know them" isn't the best way to make either science or policy decisions, but I do think it's enough (especially combined with an absolutely dreadful polemical style and logically ridiculous arguments) to show that Mr. Gilder, at least on this issue, is completely untrustworthy.
Hobbesian Friday: Kids Edition
(Copyright © Universal Syndicate)
Annie and I don't have kids of our own, and this causes some consternation among other people. Most people are too polite to just blurt out "Well why on earth not?", but a few hardy souls over the years have gone there. I'm tempted to give either a smart-alec response, like "Well we had a few, but then decided we didn't like them and got Angelina Jolie to take 'em off our hands." Or with something brutally tragic designed to make them back off, like "I lost my testicles in a bad tractor accident."
But mostly I try to be honest. The pat answer I've come up with at this point is as follows:
Being a parent is one of the most important jobs there is. It's so important that we feel if you're not 100% committed to it, if you don't want it more than you've ever wanted anything in your life, then you've no business taking the job in the first place. So far, we don't feel like we want it enough.
The full answer's more complicated than that, of course, but usually that satisfies most people. I imagine in the back of their minds they're thinking "I get it -- you're a selfish bastard." And that's true a little bit, probably. It's also true that the idea of being a parent is scary, and that we're both afraid of some of the trouble lurking in our respective gene pools (alcoholism, schizophrenia, depression, etc.). I think we were both also had some pretty rough spots growing up, and we don't want to visit that on any of our own kids.
But at the end of the day, it really does come down to what I said initially -- being a parent is the most important job in the world, and unless you're willing to treat it like that you don't have any business having kids. And we aren't willing to do that. I respect the hell out of people who do, but we're honest enough to admit that we're not in that group.
We like kids a lot, and love having our nephews and nieces and goddaughters over to visit. We just don't want kids, and we're pretty OK with that decision. Society wants to make it more complicated than that, I think largely due to an understandable fear that if that choice gets too socially acceptable, we'll somehow run out of people to keep civilization going.
To those people, all I can say is "I offered to get a dog instead, and Annie agreed."
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Worst. Logo. Ever.
Courtesy of "Clicked", I bring you a link to "The Worst Logo Ever". It brings whole new -- and disturbing -- meaning to the phrase "Jiggle your mouse":
(Edited: The original image got taken down for some reason, this is an expanded thumbnail.)
Not a Christian?
James Dobson, no longer content with rejecting Christ's admonishments to avoid material wealth and to render political power unto Caesar in his role as head of the immensely wealthy and politically powerful "Focus on Family" group, has now decided to also deny Christ's teaching that "Wheresover two or more of you gather in my name, there too am I" by saying that potential GOP Presidential candidate and Church of Christ member Fred Thompson, is "Not a Christian":
"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added ...
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Thompson, took issue with Dobson's characterization of the former Tennessee senator. "Thompson is indeed a Christian," he said. "He was baptized into the Church of Christ."
In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson's claim. He said that, while Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith."
"We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added.
I wrote a few days ago about being careful to not redefine a word like "Christian" into meaninglessness by expanding it to cover basically "anyone nice whom we like", but Dobson is guilty of doing the same thing in reverse. He's decided that he gets to decide who's a Christian and who's not by defining the term downward; apparently it's not enough to believe Christ was Lord, that He rose from the dead, that he was the Son of God, or any of that other nonsense.
No, what's important to Mr. Dobson is that you be an evangelical Christian. All of you who foolishly follow Christ's advice to shut yourself in your room and pray devoutly there rather than braying out your dogma on a street corner, well, you're no Christian. I mean come on, will devoutly praying by yourself and remaining private get a Presidential advisor to visit you and ask for your approval of a potential Supreme Court nominee? I think not.
Catholics, Mormons, Church of Christers, you might as well just turn in your crucifixes, because according to Mr. Dobson you're not really Christians. I bet that comes as a shock to you, seeing as how you were believing Christ is Lord and all. Feel free to take a few moments to recover as you're ushered out of mainstream religion and politics by Mr. Dobson and his Dogma Police. Luckily we atheists will be here to give you a hug -- we've been outside the mainstream for so long we've got the place nicely decorated. It's not so bad, really.
I don't know what's more appalling here, Dobson's utter betrayal of the very philosophies he built his vast political and material fortune on, or his complete lack of shame at claiming to be the keeper of "Family Values" while endorsing the thrice-divorced serial adulterer Newt Gingrich for President at the same time.
Wait, that's no contest -- "Deeply offensive, self-indulgent, arrogant power-mad money whores who blaspheme their god" is definitely more appalling. I never thought I'd say this, because I didn't think Newt Gingrich could ever come off looking morally superior to anyone, but he's really slumming it by sucking up to the likes of Dobson.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
METAPOST: More Tweaking
Still unhappy (the curse of the designer) with the new blog layout, I have introduced a revamped header with some of the elements from the old one, and generally reduced the clutter a bit. I think I'm getting closer.
Plus, Annie missed the pictures of the dogs and other animals in the old header, and if your wife isn't happy, YOU'RE not happy. So now I'm happy. Happier. Getting towards the happy end of the scale ...
Oh who am I kidding, I'll probably change some more stuff tomorrow. Sigh.
Quick American Idol prediction (TiVo-ing it, haven't started watching yet):
Your bottom three will be Chris Sligh, Haley, and the other Chris (the one who doesn't move his neck and sings like Justin Timberlake). Going home? Chris Sligh!
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Conservatives for American Freedom
I know the more conservative readers of this blog will simply roll their eyes and think this is "Just another knee-jerk hysterical over-reaction by a Democrat who wants to undermine Republicans", but at last even conservatives have come to appreciate the warnings long sounded by liberals and libertarians.
This week a group of conservative thinkers has formed the American Freedom Agenda, a group committed to restoring fundamental liberties threatened under Bush's leadership. As Ed Brayton describes the group behind the effort:
It's an interesting group: Bruce Fein, former DOJ official under Reagan and prominent legal scholar; David Keene of the American Conservative Union; Bob Barr, former Georgia Congressman; and Richard Viguerie, who may not be a well known name but is probably the man most responsible for the election of Ronald Reagan and the formation of the modern conservative movement.
This is not a group you can dismiss as America-hating defeatocrats who are nothing more than unhinged Bush bashers, desperate enough to exaggerate any incident into Orwellian proclamations of Doom. These are sober-minded, thoughtful, intelligent, deliberate movement conservatives, who have finally come to share the same understanding as many liberals and libertarians that the Bush Administration has governed in a way that is a genuine and urgent threat to our basic civil liberties.
This group is asking all 2008 Presidential candidates to sign their pledge, which outlines the following ten commitments:
I, (candidate), hereby pledge that if elected President of the United States I will undertake the following to restore the Constitution's checks and balances, to honor fundamental protections against injustice, and to eschew usurpations oflegislative or judicial power.These are keystones of national security and individual freedom:
1. No Military Commissions Except on the Battlefield.
2. No Evidence Extracted by Torture or Coercion.
3. No Detaining Citizens as Unlawful Enemy Combatants.
4. RestoringHabeas Corpus for Suspected Alien Enemy Combatants.
5. Prohibiting Warrantless Spying by the National Security Agency in Violation of Law.
6. Renouncing Presidential Signing Statements.
7. Ending Secret Government by Invoking State Secrets Privilege.
8. Stopping Extraordinary Renditions.
9. Stopping Threats to Prosecuting Journalists under the Espionage Act.
10. Ending the Listing of Individuals or Organizations as Terrorists Based on Secret Evidence.I will issue a public report annually elaborating on how the actions enumerated in paragraphs 1-10 have strengthened the ability of the United States to defeat international terrorism, secure fundamental freedoms, and preserve the nation's democratic dispensation.
I make a lot of jokes about being a baby-eating liberal, but the fact of the matter is that in the non-partisan sense of the word, I am at core quite conservative. I believe that the Constitution is the greatest template for a government ever devised, and that its principles of freedom, liberty, and suspicion of power (particularly to governmental power) are absolutely vital to a truly great nation. That is the main reason I have, over the last seven years, become so much more actively partisan than I have ever been before -- I believe that the policies of the Bush Administration are the gravest non-military threat to the core principles of the Constitution and individual liberty our nation has ever faced.
I applaud the actions of this group of true conservatives, who recognize that duty to country is far more important than a misguided loyalty to party or person. Long after George Bush is no longer our President, we're going to have to live with the results of his tampering with the fundamental levers of our government.
I would encourage my Republican readers to think about what Hillary Clinton would be like if she could simply wave her hand and dismiss any Congressional oversight, could put you and your family under FBI surveillance with no warrant or recourse to court, could disappear your friends and political colleagues -- even US citizens -- to foreign countries to be tortured without due process or habeus corpus rights, or any of the other items on the list above. This is not an argument that no Republican should have these powers, it's that no President at all, ever, should have them.
Power begets power, and if we let the principles of the Unitary Executive and the removal of checks and balances settle in, we're never going to be rid of them. The time to demand a return to the proven methods of governance that have shielded our nation and our liberty for 200 years and more is now, before our leaders (of either party!) become too comfortable with the garments of power. That is true conservatism.
Monday, March 26, 2007
META: A New Look
I haven't ever been happy with the old look of the site, but also didn't like any of Blogger's default templates. This morning while looking around, however, I found this one, which I think is much, much better. For one thing, it's called "The Hobbit", and how can a fantasy geek who's living in the country NOT use a template with that name?!
But I also like all of the elements around it. I think it's the perfect blending of bubba and techy, which is really what this blog is all about.
Let me know what you think -- if enough people hate it, I can always switch back to the old one.
"I Command You to WANK!"
This may be the funniest post on comics I have ever seen on the Internets. Evil Richard at YesButNoButYes.com has compiled some of the greatest accidentally funny comics panels of all time, things that are hilarious today but not in the way the creators intended (except maybe for the Wonder Woman writer, that was one seriously messed up dude). If you only click one link this year, it should be this one. Here's just one sample:
Go to YesButNoButYes now, before I command you to wank again!
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Almost Identical
On behalf of my brother Jimmy (who is easily one of my three favorite male siblings), I am happy to announce the birth to his step-daughter Chrisy of twin baby boys! They are the first twins in our extended family, so that's pretty cool, and of course we couldn't be happier for the whole clan. My brother reports that to be considered identical, twins have to share 9 antigens on a blood test and the boys only share 8. So technically they're fraternal twins, but they're as close to identical as fraternals can get!
Which reminds me of another Annieism, and the occasion is so perfect I can't help but tell it.
We were out with her brother and the young woman he was dating at the time. We'd not met the young lady before, so of course we set to grilling her during the drive to wherever we were going.
"Do you have any brothers or sisters?" Annie asked.
"Just one, I have a twin brother," she said.
"Neat!" Annie said. "Are you identical twins?"
Pause. Pause.
"Well, except for the penis, yes."
Friday, March 23, 2007
An Upcoming Bush Bounce
I generally avoid discussing politics here because, let's be honest, I don't know squat about politics. But I am going to go out on a limb and predict that President Bush's approval ratings will improve over the next 6 months from the currently abysmal low 30's to the still bad but not epic upper 30's/low 40's.
I say that because the Democrats now control the Congress, and so can actually start doing things rather than being forced to just flap their gums. That will give President Bush the opportunity to attack everything they do, and if there's one thing Republicans love, it's attacking liberals. It's practically the entire party platform. If they had a "Make a Liberal Look Like an Idiot" show on television it would have huge ratings.
Oh, wait, they already have that -- it's called "Hannity & Colmes". My bad.
In fact, I will go so far as to say the foundation of the Republican Party is not lower taxes, smaller government, banning abortion, or "defending marriage". It is now, and has been since I've been of age, simply this:
Hating Liberals.
Now the enemy is once again on the radar, and the Liberal Bashing can begin. That will whet the bloody appetite of the fiercer partisans, and bring them back to the fold. You can tell this is true because I have the same qualifications as the guys who get on cable television to analyze this stuff -- none. Not knowing jack squat guarantees me a spot on some 24 hour news channel show. I'm not saying I could make one of the biggies like The O'Reilley Factor or Countdown, but maybe something like The Glenn Beck Show or Paula Zahn, who are desperate for someone -- anyone -- to book as a guest.
Remember, you read it here first -- Bush at 41% by September. You can trust me because I'm ignorant.
444,100
The first version of HeroMachine, version 1.0, has been downloaded a total of 444,100 times, making it the 25th most-downloaded file in history on all of Simtel.
In celebration of that feat, I have redesigned heromachine.com to be a little cleaner, meaner, and up-to-date, including an FAQ, a link to my heroic illustration portfolio, and some spiffy new graphic elements.
I never imagined when I laid out the first concepts in Visual Basic in 1998 that so many people would find it a useful and fun little gizmo. That they're still willing to put up with the truly embarrassing artwork in version 1 is a testament to the power of the concept -- give people a way to express their creativity and they'll run with it.
Now if only I'd used that insight to found YouTube instead of HeroMachine ...
Slashdot
I expect to find the occasional bug when cleaning my computer out, but a gnome? That's a little much. Maybe if I post him here he'll quit bothering me.
Actually, this is an illustration I did just for the fun of it a few months ago. I've always wanted to play a gnome illusionist/thief, but never got the chance. I think he's about as cool looking as a two foot tall critter with a big nose can be, but I guess that's not saying much ...
