House of Eratosthenes

Two short weeks ago I was pitching a hissy-fit that our “news” services were kind enough to tell us that boy oh boy, that gas crisis, it’s a really bad one because in some places it’s going for three dollars, regular unleaded. Where would that be? Silly you. Somewhere, that’s where! And it’s really bad, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. Just wanted to know you how bad it was, tune in at eleven.

And I was raising the question, what kind of news is this?

Now, sometimes I run off on bunny trails and sometimes I don’t. I’m looking at that one and thinking, well that’s sort of right on the line isn’t it. Because it was not my intent to challenge that gas cost three dollars a gallon, or that it was on the way up — I was questioning whether what we call “news” is a product being offered to serve “our” own interests, in this case, the interests of gas consumers. I do still have substantial questions about that…and it IS what I wrote about.

But it’s probably fair to level a charge at myself of coloring-outside-the-lines because offer Sacramento as a model for high gas prices, I did. And dispatch myself to go look at local gas prices, I did. And revise my prediction at the time, by a dime a gallon, I did. And have something to do with my original point…well, it kind of didn’t.

I bring it up now because it’s kind of interesting. They apparently like to name the towns now, and what the prices have done in the last seventeen days…hoo boy.

Take a look at this. It still doesn’t affect me worth a damn because of what I drive. But all the rest of you have a serious problem. And…you know, when this is all over, we need to revisit that original point. What does news do for us? Is it supposed to tell us what’s going on, or is it supposed to get us all huffy and puffy when it wants to, like a tail wagging the dog?

Gas Prices May Rise As Much As 40 Cents Wednesday
State Consumer Protection Urges People To Report Suspected Gauging

The cheapest unleaded was settling at $2.99 for most of the area Tuesday night. That’s a jump of 20 to 30 cents a gallon, but that may be just the first shockwave.

WISN 12 News has learned that the price gas stations pay for their gas is jumping about 40 cents Wednesday, which would make $2.99 seem like a bargain.
:
“Sometimes, I wonder if people are living under a rock because they’ll come in and yell. They’re yelling at me, and I’m like, ‘You know, we don’t set the world oil prices at Brass Ball Mobil. We don’t have a little red switch in back that says this is what it’s gonna be today,’” [gas station owner Tom] Koenecke said.

More…

I feel sorry for all of you — except the retards who yell at people like Tom Koenecke. You’re just jerks. Here’s an idea, jerks. Get an SUV that — just to shake things up a little — doesn’t have a stepladder for you to get in. Sell your kids on the idea of basic cable instead of premium so you can pony up the extra hundred bucks a month. Stop yelling at Tom.

People are spending the night in a stadium with no electricity and foul-smelling water everywhere. They’d love to bitch and yell about gas prices, if only they could care.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Memo For File
Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

Memo For File

A lot of the posts that go into my blog are for my own benefit, not that of the many people who never read it. I’ve decided to call these “Memo For File” so they can be called what they really are. Although nobody ever reads this blog, for some reason I still place a premium importance on the time invested by those nobodies whenever they don’t show up. I was referred to this Mark Steyn article by means of Newsblog Central, noticed the link doesn’t work, and found thoughout the vast universe that is Google there is only one (1) copy and that’s the link that is somehow not there anymore. That’s the nature of the Internet, it seems. Some things are lying there, waiting to be read by nobody who never happens along to not read it; some things are there to send your attention off to some distant corner, where nothing awaits you, only a shadow of what once was.

Interested readers, as if there are any, will note immediately from the content what makes this a precious find, and why I thought it was important to fetch it out of Google Cache and put it where I can get to it later.

Those who have some attention span and memory-retention, and are just a little on the media-savvy side, will understand what the font is all about. Without further ado…

Islam does incubate terrorism
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 12/07/2005)
“There are no Muslim terrorists. There are terrorists,” Father Paul Hawkins of St Pancras parish church told his congregation on Sunday. “The people who carried out these attacks are victims of a false religion, be it false Christianity or false Islam.”

Oh, dear. “Britain can take it” (as they said in the Blitz): that’s never been in doubt. The question is whether Britain can still dish it out. When events such as last Thursday’s occur, two things happen, usually within hours if not minutes: first, spokespersons for Islamic lobby groups issue warnings about an imminent backlash against Muslims.

In fairness to British organisations, I believe they were beaten to the punch by the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress whose instant response to the London bombings was to issue a statement calling for prayers that “Canadian Muslims will not pay a price for being found guilty by association”.

In most circumstances it would be regarded as appallingly bad taste to deflect attention from an actual “hate crime” by scaremongering about a non-existent one. But it seems the real tragedy of every act of “intolerance” by Islamist bigots is that it might hypothetically provoke even more intolerance from us irredeemable white imperialist racists. My colleague Peter Simple must surely marvel at how the identity-group grievance industry has effortlessly diversified into pre-emptively complaining about acts of prejudice that have not yet occurred.

Among those of us who aren’t Muslim, meanwhile, there’s a stampede to be first to the microphone to say that “of course” we all know that “the vast majority of Muslims” are not terrorists but law-abiding peace-loving people who share our revulsion at these appalling events, etc.

Mr Blair won that contest on Thursday, followed closely by Brian Paddick and full supporting cast. If “of course” Mr Blair and Mr Paddick and the rest do indeed know that “the vast majority of Muslims” do not favour terrorism, is that because they’ve run the numbers and have a ballpark figure on the very very very slim minority of Muslims who do? And, if so, what is it? 0.02 per cent? Or two per cent? Or 20 per cent?

And, if they haven’t run the numbers, why do they claim to speak with authority on this matter? If it were just a question of rhetorical sensitivity, I’d be happy to go along with Mr Paddick’s multiculti pap and insist that “Islam and terrorism don’t go together” - events in Beslan, Bali, Israel, Nigeria, Kashmir, etc, notwithstanding. But the danger in separating “Islam” from “terrorism” is that it leads the control-freaks of the nanny state into thinking that “terrorism” is something that can be dealt with by border security, ID cards, retinal scans, metal detectors. It can’t.

Terrorism ends when the broader culture refuses to tolerate it. There would be few if any suicide bombers in the Middle East if “martyrdom” were not glorified by imams and politicians, if pictures of local “martyrs” were not proudly displayed in West Bank grocery stores, if Muslim banks did not offer special “martyrdom” accounts to the relicts thereof, if schools did not run essay competitions on “Why I want to grow up to be a martyr”.

At this point, many readers will be indignantly protesting that this is all the fault of Israeli “occupation”, but how does that explain suicide bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where there’s not a Zionist oppressor for hundreds of miles? Islam has become the world’s pre-eminent incubator of terrorism at its most depraved. Indeed, so far London has experienced only the lighter items on the bill of fare - random bombing of public transport rather than decapitation, child sacrifice and schoolhouse massacres.

Most of us instinctively understand that when a senior Metropolitan Police figure says bullishly that “Islam and terrorism don’t go together”, he’s talking drivel.

Many of us excuse it on the grounds that, well, golly, it must be a bit embarrassing to be a Muslim on days like last Thursday and it doesn’t do any harm to cheer ‘em up a bit with some harmless feel-good blather. But is this so?

Why are we surprised that “Muslim moderates” rarely speak out against the evil committed by their co-religionists when the likes of Mr Paddick keep assuring us there’s no problem? It requires great courage to be a dissenting Muslim in communities dominated by heavy-handed imams and lobby groups that function effectively as thought-police.

Yet all you hear from Mr Paddick is: “Move along, folks, there’s nothing to see here.” This is the same approach, incidentally, that the authorities took in their long refusal to investigate seriously the 120 or so “honour killings” among British Muslims.

Just as the police did poor Muslim girls no favours by their excessive cultural sensitivity, so they’re now doing the broader Muslim community no favours. The Blair-Paddick strategy only provides a slathering of mindless multiculti fudge topping over the many layers of constraint that prevent Islam beginning an honest conversation with itself.

Unlike Malaya or the Mau-Mau or the IRA, this is a global counter-terrorism operation across widely differing terrain, geographical and psychological. We need to be able to kill, constrain, coerce or coax as appropriate.

Kill terrorists when the opportunity presents itself, as 1,200 “insurgents” were said to have been killed in one recent engagement on the Syria/Iraq border the other day. Constrain the ideology behind Thursday’s bombing by outlawing Saudi funding of British mosques and other institutions. Coerce our more laggardly allies like General Musharraf into shutting down his section of the Saudi-Pakistani-Londonistan Wahhabist pipeline.

But the coaxing is what counts - wooing moderate Muslims into reclaiming their religion. We can take steps to prevent Islamic terrorists killing us, most of the time. But Islamic terrorists will only stop trying to kill us when their culture reviles them rather than celebrates them.

There are signs in the last week’s Muslim newspapers, in London and abroad, that some eminent voices are beginning to speak out. At such a moment, Britain should be on the side of free speech and open debate. Instead, the state is attempting to steamroller through a grotesque law at the behest of already unduly influential Islamic lobby groups. One of its principal effects will be to inhibit Muslim reformers. Shame on us for championing Islamic thought-police over Western liberty.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Nerd Bigot
Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

Nerd Bigot

There are people who think your ability to contribute productively to a civilized society is directly proportional to your “Gift of Gab,” so to speak, and if you happen to be one of the creative-introvert types, you’re a freak.

I’ve met these people. It’s generally been my experience that they hold professional positions where expertise is expected, but not quite absolutely required; and their personalities are such that if expertise is present, it’s not manifested quite as quickly as the previously-mentioned “Gift of Gab.” They strike me as insecure people. They seem to want to live in a world where Gift of Gab counts for a lot more and everything else counts for a whole lot less.

Now I can’t prove this is what motivates these people, and I can’t prove that Carol Costello is one of these people, or that this is what sparked the brief altercation caught on live TV during the graveyard shift on CNN. But I’ve seen the clip, and I don’t understand — even in the slightest — what came out of Chad Myers’ mouth that has to be “translated” for Costello. Honestly, the appearance to me is that they’ve been playing hide-the-weenie. That, or Costello is a Nerd Bigot. Maybe both.

Katrina: CNN’s Carol Costello & Chad Myers Yell At Each Other On Live TV

Transcript:

Chad Myers: It has filled in a little bit, filled in with some air, but this lower portion, but…

Carol Costello: Chad, Chad, Chad…

Myers: Let me talk Carol!

Costello: Translate that for us, I don’t know what that means, what does that mean–

Myers: Well if you would let me talk!

Costello: [Laughs] Go ahead.

Clip.

Is it “air”? “Portion”? “Filled in”? What needs to be translated?

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Keep Writing It
Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

Keep Writing It

Jenny McCarthy had a book ready for publication about marriage, and then a funny thing happened. Take a look.

�Jenny was deliriously in love with her husband and her book, which is hilarious, was going to be a [part of a] series about marriage,� says a source. �Jenny was going to be the spokeswoman for a generation of young, sassy, married women. But just as the contract was being signed, Jenny filed for divorce.�

Irreconciliable Differences is the cited reason for the divorce. I’ve got a gut feel, which I can’t actually prove, that the “sassy” thing has something to do with the Differences. I don’t know as much about happy marriages as some other people might, but to me they don’t appear to have a lot of room for sass.

But hey. Happily married people, to the extent I can see, can only dish out a little bit of information about what makes their marriage happy. The happier their marriages are, the more reluctant they appear to be about describing “one size fits all” methods of reproducing the same enviornment somewhere else. To get some passionate, energetic opinions, it seems you have to go to people who haven’t been happily married. Or people who haven’t been married at all. Hoo boy, nobody has more opinions about marriage, than people who’ve never been married. And few people have more entertaining opinions about marriage, than the people who have been married unhappily.

So I think she should keep writing it, especially if it’s supposed to be “hillarious.” Marriages that truly are going to last awhile, have little entertainment value. They aren’t necessarily supposed to be entertaining. Maybe that’s why they last.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

The Polite Word For This Is “Nonsense”
Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

The Polite Word For This Is “Nonsense”

Yesterday toward the end of Rush’s second hour, he made mention of this story. Those listening at the time will recall it to be about the f-word quota, where if you’re a student at this secondary school, you get to swear up to five times per lesson. You can even use the f-word, but the teacher will keep score and if you go over that five-time limit, you’ll get — oh, the horror! — a lecture that you shouldn’t be doing that.

The school in question is Weavers Secondary School in Wellingborough, UK. The most informative link I could find, is here.

The rule allows kids to use the f-word against their teachers five times a lesson. Which means, the poor kids can abuse their teachers just about 30 times a day. No more.

Parents of children who attend the Weavers School in Wellingborough were told about the policy through a letter, the Daily Mail reported. The letter says: �Within each lesson the teacher will initially tolerate (although not condone) the use of the f-word (or derivatives) five times and these will be tallied on the board.�

So not only does the teacher have to take the abuse, he or she will also have to keep the score � and �speak to the class� if the tally is high. This is effective next week.

The school says that it is part of a policy of containment, aimed at a particularly profane bunch of 15-16 year-olds. Headmaster Alan Large defended his stand (and his students) saying: �The reality is that the f-word is part of these young adults� everyday language�.

I’m entirely unclear on whether the five-utterance quota applies to the class, or to each student. This is somewhat important. If it applies to the class, and you and I are in class together, and you use it four times, then I can only use it once before we all have to get that painful lecture, you peckerhead. If it applies to each student, then a substantially greater part of that blackboard will be taken up with the tallying, and what’s even better is we can wait until the teacher turns around to write something on the board and squeek out the f-word with a little voice-throwing effect, and oh think of the disrupting power that would have over today’s lesson.

Knowing how young boys work, I’d be worried about one who didn’t try this, or wasn’t at least tempted to.

This would be much less damaging to the learning atmosphere if they just made a policy that said the f-word was allowed unconditionally. You can break a rule five times and it doesn’t matter until the sixth time? What kind of world are they preparing these kids to get into?

I’ve never been in the UK. Maybe I’m learning something. Hey Bobbies, can I come over there with my stupid yankee driving, and make five laps in the round-about in the wrong direction before you pull me over?

Ooh, do I get to own up to five handguns?

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Hating the French
Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

Hating the French

Here’s a challenge. I want you to find a fictitious, entirely made-up, demonstrably false reason for hating the French. Something that would make you extra mad if they did it, but at the same time, something they have, according to verifiable facts, not done. Okay?

Use your imagination. Take your time.

Dum dee doo…doh doh dee doh.

Remember: You can’t say “They endangered the world by refusing to pass a resolution against Iraq’s old regime after it was shown to be in material breach of Resolution 1441 in exchange for billions of dollars in Oil For Food money.” Only a concocted reason will do. Need more time?

La la dee la…la la la.

Okay, time’s up! What have you got?

Let me guess. It was using cute little puppies and kittens to fish for sharks, wasn’t it?

Aw gee, today just isn’t your lucky day.

A six-month-old puppy was found last month with hooks implanted in its snout and one of its legs.

The French Society for the Protection of Animals (SPA) told the daily the dog was the victim of cruel fishermen who attract sharks by throwing puppies or kittens into the water, tied to fishing lines, and wait for the predators to swallow the thrashing animals.

“We don’t see that every day, but it’s not the first time, either,” Marie-Annick Chantrel, the vice-president of the R�union branch of the SPA, told Clicanoo. “We’ve already seen cats six or seven months old with hooks in them.”

Back to the drawing board for you.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Questions for Charlie Daniels
Monday, August 29th, 2005

Questions for Charlie Daniels

This is just plain funny. “Thirty-Nine Questions for Charlie Daniels Upon Hearing ‘The Devil Went Down to Georgia’ for the First Time in 25 Years.”

1. The Devil won that fiddling contest, right?
2. Because isn’t that totally amazing fiddle feedback thing the Devil plays (which sounds like Hendrix gone bluegrass) a hundred times better than that high-school-band piece-of-crap tune Johnny plays?
3. I mean, come on, right?
4. And since the Devil is so clearly better, why does he lay the golden fiddle on the ground at Johnny’s feet?
5. What kind of one-sided bet was that anyway, your eternal soul for a fiddle?

All the United Nations Men
Monday, August 29th, 2005

All the United Nations Men

As I type this, I’m halfway through my second viewing of All the President’s Men (1976) starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. This is the movie that created the Government-Entertainment-Complex as we know it today. House Democrats made sure nobody could follow the news without knowing about Watergate, then Hollywood made doubly sure. An electorate that had so recently been agitated against a judicial system that flooded America’s streets with mass murderers and sexual predators, suddenly became jaded and cynical toward all sides. They ended up putting a Democrat in the White House when they were entirely unable to explain why, and the rest is history. Runaway inflation. Double-digit interest rates. An energy crisis out of control. Hostages, a demoralized military, and the birth of militant radical Islam. A bond was forged between Hollywood and the liberal side of our government. And print journalists were put on notice that if they wanted to make a name for themselves nailing someone’s hide to the wall, they’d better make sure it’s a Republican hide.

I was watching it for the first time, a couple hours ago, and near the end I had a funny thought.

Take out the word “White House” and substitute “Iraq”…

…take out the phrase “burglary at the Watergate” and substitute “Al Qaeda”…

…pretend the “Washington Post” is the “United States” and “Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein” are “the George W. Bush administration.”

Do those things, and the entire movie is a rehash of what we’ve been seeing the last two years. Guilty people hiding behind innocent people, who keep secrets on behalf of the guilty because they don’t want to be hurt. High-tension arguing about whether there is “enough meat” to run with something or not, and what the stakes are if things can’t be backed up later. Haughty and indignant spokesmen who insist there is no connection between A and B when they know there damn well is one, only, it was only almost proven and not completely proven and they think they can drive a wedge in there. Money trails that lead nowhere, until you really start to follow them. Then they lead somewhere, but by then, anybody who could tell you anything, has a stake in the status quo, so you can’t learn anything, and you can prove even less.

Right-minded and altruistic seekers of truth and defenders of liberty, being attacked by those they answer to, for exposing their institution to derision and ridicule by seeking that truth and defending that liberty.

The natural condition of uncertainty being used to defend the indefensible.

What’s worse? A President who authorizes burglary to enhance his strategic plans for re-election? Or a murdering madman, known to seek nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the past, who thinks its worth his while to spend billions of dollars in bribes, just to get weapons inspectors to look away — while he does God Only Knows what?

What’s more precious? The national security of the United States AND the stability of the Middle East as we know it…or the competitive advantage of the Washington Post over the New York Times?

Update: Here’s the quote that really got me to thinking. Clark MacGregor, speaking about the story that broke in the Washington Post, just fifteen minutes before the end of the movie.

Using innuendo, third-person hearsay, unsubstantiated charges, anonymous sources, and huge scare headlines, the Post has maliciously sought to give the appearance of a direct connection between the White House and the Watergate. A charge which the Post knows, and half a dozen investigations have found, to be false. The hallmark of the Post’s campaign is hypocrisy, and its celebrated double-standard is today visible for all to see.

Let’s replace just a few choice words and see how close we can get to very-recent-nostalgia with just a minimum of revision, shall we.

Using innuendo, third-person hearsay, unsubstantiated charges, anonymous sources, and huge scare headlines, the ~~Post~~White House has maliciously sought to give the appearance of a direct connection between ~~the White House~~Iraq and ~~the Watergate~~Al Qaeda. A charge which ~~the Post~~George Bush knows, and half a dozen investigations have found, to be false. The hallmark of the ~~Post~~Bush Administration’s campaign is hypocrisy, and its celebrated double-standard is today visible for all to see.

Doesn’t seem to be to be at all different from what we’ve heard over the last two years. Ah, well. Maybe I’m imagining the whole thing.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

One Question is Answered, Another One is Asked
Monday, August 29th, 2005

One Question is Answered, Another One is Asked

Coalition troops have been in Iraq for twenty-nine months now. That’s two and a half years that there has been no practical purpose, none whatsoever, as to debating whether or not they should be there. They’re there. That there are people who still want to debate this, is meaningless. The only way out is through.

Iraq’s new Constitution has been passed through the Parliament and now goes before the voters on October 15. Logic has spent two and a half years recognizing the irrelevancy of asking whether we should, or should not, be in Iraq; I expect in the next three months popular opinion will catch up to logic. If that’s the case, we will soon stop seeking an answer to this irrelevant question. If there is bandwidth freed up for pursuing another question, and we’re still in the mood for asking them, I have a great idea.

I notice lately the anti-war left has chosen to attack any notion that our troops in Iraq are fighting for our freedom. They tell me they support the troops. Okay, so you support the troops and you think their mission has nothing to do with fighting for freedom; how much priority would you then give to this project of disavowing any notion that our troops are fighting for freedom, anytime and anyplace you encounter that notion? If I really believed the things these people say, and I thought our troops were just wasting their lives and their time, but at the same time I supported them, I wouldn’t put much priority on “getting the word out” — none at all. It would go into my file of opinions-that-aren’t-very-important. I don’t like Mustangs. The word “totally” has no use in our spoken language among honest people. Star Wars is better than Star Trek. Things I’ve absolutely made up my mind about, but probably mean nothing.

So I’m utterly unconvinced how, if our troops aren’t fighting for our freedom, it can be worth anyone’s time to disseminate that message in a propaganda campaign — if those disseminating, do indeed support our troops. But okay, the left disagrees with me, and somehow it is worthwhile to broadcast that our troops are not fighting for our freedom. My point is, now that that question’s been raised, useless as it may be while we’re in Iraq, it may be quite productive to study it after we’re done there.

I expect both sides will agree to this. Saddam Hussein’s old regime may have been connected with Al Qaeda, or it may not have been. But it’s a done deal we will have to deal with more bad guys if we want to do more damage to Al Qaeda. And we can’t leave Al Qaeda alone and hope they go away.

So I’d like to put the call out, to whoever reads this blog — nobody ever does — to rise up and request an answer to this question. These last two and a half years, this has been the star around which the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and “Fighting for our Freedom” planets have been orbiting, although nobody has wanted to talk about it.

The question is this. And it should emphatically, categorically, unequivocally, be beyond any dissent, dispute, or disagreement whatsoever, anywhere, that this has to do with freedom.

How are resolutions, such as United Nations Resolution 1441, enforced?

What exactly does it mean when the United Nations “authorize[s] Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement” what is dictated in previous resolutions? Does “authorize,” in this context, mean something different than what “authorize” is supposed to mean?

Was a second resolution, after 1441, needed? If so, needed to do what? What would a second resolution have done that 1441 didn’t do?

Does the United Nations even have a role here? If so, what is it? If not, then what else should it be doing? And whether the UN is involved or not, how do we go about defining international law, what violates it, who is guilty of violating it, and what can be done to ensure there are consequences for violating it?

How do we protect ourselves when violators bribe members of the United Nations Security Council, and other lawmaking bodies tasked with legislating and enforcing international law? Link, Link, Link, Link.

After all, and as the anti-war crowd is so fond of reminding me, there are a lot of other bad guys in the world besides Saddam Hussein. Better to figure out what to do with them sooner, than later.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Scientists Unhappy Being Scientists
Monday, August 29th, 2005

Scientists Unhappy Being Scientists

If anybody ever actually read this blog, which of course nobody does, they would recall a long-standing theme of challenging science, particularly the “thou shalt think…” brand of science which dutifully instructs the lowly unwashed non-scientists on what opinions they should properly have, and when pressed to back it up, replies with some variation of “that is for scientists to know and you’re not a scientist.” We’ve had an up-tick lately in this type of science, which prohibits the Little People from asking common-sense questions like How? Why? What? Where?

Scientists have begun to feed on their own, effectively excommunicating peers who don’t tow the line. Is there man-made global warming? Are homosexuals born that way? Did design play a role in the creation of the universe? Increasingly, science has been indulging in the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy: Man is destroying the environment, and there is a homosexual gene, and intelligent design is entirely invalid, because all scientists agree this has been proven. And then if you come back with so-and-so is a scientist, and he disagrees, or he holds that it is not yet proven, then you are told so-and-so doesn’t count. All real scientists agree these things are true.

I find this to be strange, because when I was in school I was told science was all about challenging things. Now that I’m an old fart, it seems science is all about not challenging things. It’s kind of like a church. Bishops may not contradict what the Pope says, and priests may not contradict what bishops say. How do we know it to be true? Well, who in the world are you to ask such a question…you’re just showing how little you know about science.

Now I see that not only is science going through a change in method, it’s also going through a change in scope. Scientists aren’t happy being scientsts anymore. They want to do something else. Star Trek used to have episodes where the actors played characters out of Robin Hood, when they got tired of doing science-fiction. Fonzie jumped over a shark when he got tired of being a cool guy who hung around a hamburger stand. James Bond went after drug kingpins when he got tired of fighting SPECTER. It’s in the nature of all living things, called upon to do something within a constrained scope, to get tired and want to branch out eventually.

I have no qualm with that.

But if you want to become a dictator and a goo-gooder and a tut-tutter, clucking your tongue endlessly about people’s social habits, shouldn’t you renounce the scientist title?

Doesn’t it cost some money to go out and inspect how much housework men do?

Where does the money come from? Who pays it, and why? What do they want? And what was the mission statement offered when the money was requested?

The Institute for Social and Economic Research at Essex University has calculated that men, on average, do tasks for 146 minutes a day.

That is well up on the 1960s estimate of the 83 minutes.

Somebody wants something. I don’t know diddly-squat about who it is, or what exactly it is that they want, but I’ll guarantee somebody wants something, and whatever it is, we shouldn’t like it. How in the world would this possibly matter to science?

Overall, Sainsbury’s Bank estimates it would cost �11,920 to pay someone to do the jobs men carry out for free each year.

David Pickett, life insurance manager at Sainsbury’s Bank, said: “Much has been written about the rise of supermums and how they juggle careers with raising a family.

“However, there are also many superdads who as well as holding down jobs, also do a lot of work around the home - from DIY to cooking.”

I’ll tell you one way this matters. People read about a certain amount of money being needed to pay someone to do the same thing, and they get resentful. Over nothing, I might add.

If you live alone, you need to do what men in this article do, and you need to do what the women do in those other articles that bitch and piss and moan about all the housework women do. These are things that need to be done. They’re part of living. So it costs ten thousand dollars, or twenty, or thirty to pay someone for that much work. Make it a million. Who the hell cares?

It has to be done.

Here we go with the same questions I had about the “women doing lots of housework” articles. While Mister Mom is at home mopping the floor, what is his honey doing? She’s at work, probably. Is she making at least �11,920 at work in a year? Almost certainly. Okay then, she’s contributing. As is he.

Two people contributing to a household. So what’s all this bullshit about measuring things? Starting a fight where none existed previously, that’s what.

All in the name of science. I’d be willing to buy that, sure. But what kind of science? What were the researchers trying to find out?

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

For The Anti-Death-Penalty Types II
Monday, August 29th, 2005

For The Anti-Death-Penalty Types II

One of the arguments for capital punishment, for which it’s dang-nigh-impossible to get a reasoned, passioned, well-thought-out counter-argument from the anti-death-penalty crowd, is the premise that there are certain people who lack compassion and morals. If you’re on fire, they think nothing of pulling out a stick, putting a marshmallow on the end, and waving it around over you. They’ll even put some extra lighter fluid on you if it’s not cooking quick enough.

It makes complete sense. History proves this, and the police who get to look at the ugliest parts of our society, vouch for this. There are some among us who lack outie-belly-buttons; there are some among us who lack skin pigment; there are some among us who lack eyebrows; and, there are some among us who lack any sense of right and wrong, any sense whatsoever. I’ve been unable to ever get a response to the argument posed above. Many rejoinders are possible to articulate, but there are none among them that can be taken seriously, to the extent that I can see.

Nah-hah! There are no people like that!
There are people like that, but they can be rehabilitated.
There are people like that who can’t be rehabilitated, but we can lock them up forever.
There are people like that but we owe it to them to tolerate them just as they tolerate us.

I don’t have any idea which of those the anti-death-penalty types would like to use. I’ve never been able to get a handle on what their attitude toward this is.

If they opt for the first bullet, though, this one is for them:

Angela DeLettre returned home Thursday afternoon to find her back door open, items missing and kitchen sink overflowing with water.

She was able to find one of her dogs, a 6-year-old shi tzu named Pepper. But she was unable to find her other dog, a 1-year-old rat terrier. Police later found the dog burned to death in the oven, which had been set to 400 degrees.

Just amazing. Those people don’t scare me. But I’m terrified of the people who want to insist they don’t exist, or refuse to grapple with the logical conclusions that must be reached once you acknowledge they do indeed exist.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Can’t Make It
Monday, August 29th, 2005

Can’t Make It

Today’s August 29th, and Hooters on Challenge Way is supposed to (according to the banners that were posted outside the building) have a Grand Opening today.

Nobody ever reads this blog, but I did get one concerned e-mail from a sweet young lady in Davis who — I’m taking her word for it — is not afraid of going to extra mile to make her man happy. Katharyn, your boyfriend is a very lucky man. At work, rest or play, in love and in war, attitude is everything, and your attitude seems to be one of the best ones.

I am a 23 year old female college student living in Davis and I was trying to determine whether the new restaurant was actually opening tomorrow or not. You see, unlike the unfortunate Sacramento women you have met, I do like to please the men in my life, and, regardless of men, I love Hooters. I get my boyfriend to drive me to Dublin or SF every couple of months to get those wings and enjoy a nice beer in a nice, relaxing atmosphere. I declare proudly my love for the place and bring girls there on occasion. I can’t wait for the Sacramento location to open. Maybe I’ll see you there.

I haven’t been making any updates lately because I’ve been sick as a dog. I’m in recovery mode now, probably not contagious, but I don’t want to risk it. After all, if I went down to Challenge Way and infected someone, who exactly would I be infecting? Pretty girls who look good in short-shorts and want to work at Hooter’s; women like Katharyn with good attitudes who aren’t shy about pleasing their men; men who aren’t afraid to let their women know they like to be happy, and what makes them so. Sacramento, as I’ve noted, suffers an acute shortage of all three of these. We need you people to be well.

Enjoy the hot wings. I’ll be along as soon as good health permits.

Update: Today is August 30th. Sometime within the last three days or so the 1785 Challenge Way address has been added to the company’s website. Looks like it’s official. A little bit o’honey for the Sacramento vinegar.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Regulation Is the Opposite of Science
Saturday, August 27th, 2005

Regulation Is the Opposite of Science

This is good reading material for those who are opposed to Intelligent Design being considered a valid scientific theory; specifically, those in favor of using the police power of the state to ensure that it never is.

First of all, take a look at the “About” page from the official website for the New Hampshire Board of Medicine.

What is the Board of Medicine
The Board was created by the Legislature in 1897 to ensure that all physicians had the training and skills necessary to practice safe and effective medicine for the people of New Hampshire. Originally, the Board was comprised of 5 physicians. Later, a paramedical representative was added to the membership along with 2 members of the public who have no relationship to the medical profession. All members are appointed by the Governor and serve 5 year terms.

The Board is an independent decision making entity. It employs a full time administrative staff and contracts with other state agencies to provide investigation and legal support. The Board is served by an advisory committee for physician assistants as well as a disciplinary review committee. All expenses are paid for by license fees.

So for a hundred and eight years the Board has been ensuring physicians “practice safe and effective medicine.” We’re all clear on that being the mission statement, right? Well, on the recommendation of this Board, Dr. Terry Bennett is under investigation by the state attorney general’s office for counseling one of his patients that she needs to lose some weight.

Dr. Terry Bennett says he tells obese patients their weight is bad for their health and their love lives, but the lecture drove one patient to complain to the state.

“I told a fat woman she was obese,” Bennett says. “I tried to get her attention. I told her, ‘You need to get on a program, join a group of like-minded people and peel off the weight that is going to kill you.’ ”

He says he wrote a letter of apology to the woman when he found out she was offended.

Her complaint, filed about a year ago, was initially investigated by a panel of the New Hampshire Board of Medicine, which recommended that Bennett be sent a confidential letter of concern. The board rejected the suggestion in December and asked the attorney general’s office to investigate.

Bennett rejected that office’s proposal that he attend a medical education course and acknowledge that he made a mistake.

Is the Board acting in fulfillment of its mission statement? I don’t know. I’d need to review the patient’s medical chart to make that determination, and before I did that, it couldn’t hurt to get a medical degree first. But could it not be taken as a safe assumption beyond reasonable disagreement, that this kind of censuring and censoring is probably out-of-harmony with the Board’s stated purpose? And couldn’t most people agree that in all likelihood, this is a contradiction to the Board’s stated purpose? After all, when you’re a fat tub-of-lard who can inspire your doctor to say “you need to peel of the weight that is going to kill you,” it’s probably not good for you to be cloistered and sheltered from people who are going to say that.

I’m giving the Board the benefit of the doubt here, assuming that their actions are being undertaken in pursuit of their stated mission. Common sense, though, tells us this is more likely to be all about feelings. And that’s the trouble with regulation. After awhile, it tends to be pursued out of concern for people’s feelings, and when it is, nobody ever takes the trouble to write that down. Nobody ever writes a charter, or a mission statement, or a constitution, to define intensive bureaucratic endeavors to preserve and enhance people’s positive feelings. The Feelings-Mission-Statement has a way of just kind of creeping in as time goes along.

Science is not about feelings, it is about fact. And the last feelings that cause any loss-of-sleep to real science, are the feelings of scientific professionals sympathetic to whatever is being challenged. Science is also not about predictability. You buy a quart of vegetable oil or five pounds of sugar, you know exactly what you’re getting; if a dead roach is in the oil or a disembodied finger is in the sugar, then we need some regulation. You visit your doctor, and in the world I live in, things work a little different — if you’re due for a surprise, you get it. But the New Hampshire Board of Medicine apparently figures it should work more like a food product. Pay your money, go in, no surprises. Just pasteurize

House of Eratosthenes

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Community Members

Site Admin

Can You Feel It Yet?Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

Memo For FileTuesday, August 30th, 2005

Nerd BigotTuesday, August 30th, 2005

Keep Writing ItTuesday, August 30th, 2005

The Polite Word For This Is “Nonsense”Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

Hating the FrenchTuesday, August 30th, 2005

Questions for Charlie DanielsMonday, August 29th, 2005

All the United Nations MenMonday, August 29th, 2005

One Question is Answered, Another One is AskedMonday, August 29th, 2005

Scientists Unhappy Being ScientistsMonday, August 29th, 2005

For The Anti-Death-Penalty Types IIMonday, August 29th, 2005

Can’t Make ItMonday, August 29th, 2005

Regulation Is the Opposite of ScienceSaturday, August 27th, 2005

Can You Feel It Yet?
Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

Memo For File
Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

Nerd Bigot
Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

Keep Writing It
Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

The Polite Word For This Is “Nonsense”
Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

Hating the French
Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

Questions for Charlie Daniels
Monday, August 29th, 2005

All the United Nations Men
Monday, August 29th, 2005

One Question is Answered, Another One is Asked
Monday, August 29th, 2005

Scientists Unhappy Being Scientists
Monday, August 29th, 2005

For The Anti-Death-Penalty Types II
Monday, August 29th, 2005

Can’t Make It
Monday, August 29th, 2005

Regulation Is the Opposite of Science
Saturday, August 27th, 2005