Always a lot of stuff to post about, but never the time to do it well. As such, a quick stir of the pot to get things going...

Apparently, a Sea World Orca got a little pissed at the trainer and played with him a little. The trainer is expected to survive, but it got me to thinking. First--an intelligent carnivore wouldn't let the trainer live if it (he/she) didn't want to. The second, third and fourth points are common sense as well...

We're members at the Memphis Zoo for E's sake, but I really don't like the place. So I did a little research, and as nice as they try to make the enclosures, they're always a far cry from nature. And keeping these animals in artificial enclosures results in significant social and health problems, and significantly reduces their life span. You can't keep a wild animal in a dixie-cup and act surprised when they go a little nutty.

I understand that I've been exceedingly fortunate to see what I've seen and traveled where I've been. And perhaps there is some merit in sacrificially enslaving the lives of a few to perhaps help protect the lives of many; a rather utilitarian view I would say. In any event, the whole process just rubs me wrong.

P.S. The Original Ad upset the Player. So the Directors Cut is out, and is freakin' funny...
P.P.S. Can someone please explain this to me?

saying he had renounced all earthly cares

Would eating be an "earthly care"? I mean seriously.

I'm guessing he waited until his toga-tent had subsided before hacking away... otherwise I imagine he'd have bled to death.

...

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!!

Happy Tofurky Day guys... And Check This Out; cool--definately worth your time. (You'll shoot your eye out, kid!)

And here's a little something for all the Hobos and Hobettes out there...

Guys... A moment of silence... WWBD? And a very tragic series of events. But while watching the clip, the first quote that came to mind was: I'm sorry I had to fight in the middle of your Black Panther party. (Quote's Link.)

This makes me want to join this.

Whites are bad. Americans are bad. Therefore, we deserve terrorism.

What the heck, I'll bite.

We don't know if a good sex life makes good marriage or good marriage makes good sex life. We can't prove which way it works but we know they go hand in hand.

I don't think it necessarily has to "work" exclusively one way or the other. I think they strengthen, and depend on, each other. If one (for whatever reason) gets better or worse, the other will tend to follow.

And that's... all I have to say about that. Oh, except this...

Statistics show that 20% of married couples have sex just 10 times a year or less,

... for which I have no words.

Except "I LOVE MY WIFE."

We don't know if a good sex life makes good marriage or good marriage makes good sex life. We can't prove which way it works but we know they go hand in hand. A good marriage and good sex life go hand in hand...

In response to Scott’s Moral Pickle… What’s interesting to me is that, for the first time, I made the connection between the pseudo-scientists and one with relative morality. They both kind of make crap up as they go along. There are no pre-conceived predictions or standards on reality; everything is operationally defined after the fact in such a fashion that it coincides with their dogma or preferred style of living.

As such, it’s no wonder that you didn’t have much to say. What can you say? Anything coming from your mouth is one ultimately contrived in a world of absolute standards. Anything that your client is willing to hear (or accept as valid) must fit into his model of selfish moral relativism. The two are mutually exclusive.

It almost reminds me what occurs every time I present research. (As it did just a few days ago.) My ideas are well beyond the established or accepted norm. (Or popular pre-paradigm, one could say.) So every time I present my research, from my perspective, I get a handful of A-holes trying to show how smart they are by explaining my results from their pseudoscientific perspective. And at first, I tried to debate them. Then, I went through a phase where I would just tell them to go pontificate on their own dang research project and leave mine alone. And now, I’m to the point where I behead their perspective even before they’re out of the box. (I guess I have the added benefit that you can’t hide form the data.) There’s a funny story or two from Miami, if anyone cares to know… Preemption is oh so the way to go…

But the thing about morality is that the standard is relativism. And there is no discussion relative to when relativism sets the ground rules or the agenda. And as Scott points out, there are no do-over’s—although that is what abortion purports to provide. My only thought would have been to suggest the situation from a 20 or 30 year perspective. In 25 years, and faced with the dichotomy between an adult or an aborted fetus (i.e., nonviable tissue mass)—is there certainty that the aborted fetus would have been the correct decision? But then again, that could have gone either way in selfish morally relativistic perspective.

Yeah—I got nuthin’. Sorry.

Hey—are we still talking about that Chinese article?

For those that may be interested, I wrote a little bit on the Gallaudet debacle. Feel free to reply or comment if there are any questions or clarifications needed.

Moral Pickle ...

I'm sitting in my office the other day, and my Center Director comes in to ask whether I would be willing to sit down with the boyfriend of a girl she has just counseled. The girl wants to keep the baby, but the guy wants her to abort. I agree to meet with him, but almost immediately, the problem is far more complex than I had envisioned.

The guy -- let's call him "David" -- is not a believer in Christ; he has not been raised within the Church. But he does have a very unique moral code that seperates him from many of the other guys that come through our doors. For most of the guys, morality boils down to "what is easy is right, what is difficult is wrong." Not a lot to hang your hat on, but that's how they see it.

As for "David," he is 31 and he has made some mistakes in life. For instance, back in high school and in his early 20s, he used to "mess around" a lot because "Hey, why not?" But somewhere around 25, he wakes up one morning and realizes that this behavior is tearing away at the fabric of his dream. You see, he wants to find the "right woman" and he wants to have a house full of kids. And the more he degrads sex by sleeping with anyone who will "spread 'em," the less likely it is that he will have something unique with his wife. So he decided to go celibate; and for 4 years he is successful.

But then he meets a girl; his hormones start screaming; and he gets weak. To top it off, the girl is extremely horny (by her admission as well as his) and constantly pressures him to have sex. On four different occasions, he gives in only after fending her off for hours (again, by her admission as well as his). On the last occasion, as he is losing the battle against his own moral standards, he asks her where she is at in terms of her cycle. Because he is aiming for celibacy, he doesn't have any birth control around. She tells him that she is at her "least fertile" time of the month. Six weeks later, she tells him a different story. Turns out, on the night they had sex, she was actually at her most fertile time of the month. And now she is pregnant.

To complicate matters, their relationship was already starting to disintegrate. Clearly, she didn't respect his convictions and thus he really couldn't see how she respected him. So he was openly contemplating ending the relationship, and she was desperate to hold on to it.

End game. He believes that she intentionally lied to him in the h0pes of getting pregnant so that she would have something to use as a "glue" to keep them together. He, in turn, believes
that anyone who would do such a thing is clearly unstable in terms of mental make-up; and thus he wants her to abort. Not because he does not believe that the fetus is a child, but because he knows "the system." And the system will award custody to the mother with nothing more than visitation rights to the father. If mom is mentally ill and he has no chance to parent the kid full-time, he believes that it is actually more humane to kill his own kid than it is to allow his child to grow up in a difficult home with a sick mother.

As I sat there listening to this guy, I truly didn't know what to say. On the one hand, he violated his own moral code; and he is paying the price of his own sin. And to compound one sin with the active commision of another is clearly not the answer. But what an unbelievably crappy place to be. Yes, you failed on a moral level. But because of that failure, your child is going to be raised by a woman who you personally believe to be manipulative and ill.

That ticks me off! You see that kind of stuff, and you wonder how people can behave like that!

But here's the real question. What does that do to us and our spirit of charity. It's like the homeless guy begging on the street. Do you assume that every one of them is going to use your charity for alcohol; and thus decide against giving to anyone? And if you do, what about the one that really is destitute and wants to get back on his feet? The easy answer is to refer him to government programs, but that is a total crapshoot, especially when one does not have a permanent address.

I don't know ... On the one hand, I read that article and want to scream and these jokers for contributing to the erosion of people's willingness to extend a hand. And on the other hand, I don't expect anything more from them. People have wicked hearts and they look out for number one. No big surprise.

Fraud.

Why, Moriarty is a Professor of Mathematics, of course! Aren't all evil genuises? :-)

As for the posting that started this discussion, I must admit that I am starting to wonder whether the fine detective may actually have been on to something. Yes, I can see immature minds using this as an excuse. And yes, I do believe that in their youth, children are capable of absorbing fantastic quantites of information, filling attics that are much larger than they would presume to possess. But I honestly think the principle stands. Rigid walls with defined limits as to what can be retained. And given that, his approach to learning that which is useful to him and ignoring that which is not is certainly interesting.

Having said that, this approach does not, categorically, rule out a breadth of knowledge. If one's chosen vocation is such that he/she requires a breadth of knowledge, it is well within reason to expect that he/she can acquire it. What it denies is the possibility (with the extreme exception) that one can reasonably expect to acquire both breadth and depth of knowledge.

Finally, I don't think this argument really applies to kids still in high school. I think that no matter what the chosen vocation, there is a basic competancy in core areas that must be acquired before one can hope to either specialize or broaden. Math, as it is predicated upon logic, is critical for practicing those faculties. Likewise, English/literature is necessary in order to gain sufficient communication skills as to comprehend anything else that one would wish to study. So while a high-schooler may try to exempt out of math by using Holmes' argument, I don't really think it applies to him/her.

In the end, what I think it is, is the practical recognition that human beings are finite and limited in their capacities to intake data. And this, is a very surprising stance, given Holmes' status as an Enlightenment figure.

Speaking of Sherlock Holmes... Anyone happen to know what his nemesis, Professor Moriarty, was a professor of?

One guess... ;-)

Oh, and I'm about 50 pages into JPod, and am finding it annoyingly hipper-than-thou. He got off to a poor start by including a reference to himself in the first line. Yes, it was self-effacing, but... just way too "clever". And none of these residents of JPod are anyone I'd want to hang out with for any prolonged period of time. I find myself sympathizing with Kaitlin: Get me out of here!

Well, it's not something I normally have a lot of opportunity to think about. At first glance, I think he says a lot of things that are new to me, but ring true. So... I'll buy. For now. :-)

As for Inspector Holmes, what I hear when I read that is my students using it as an argument for NOT having to learn math, since they don't plan on ever actually using it in "real life".

At this age, their "little rooms" do have "elastic walls". They are still making neural connections in their brains. If I don't help them stretch those walls, then their brains—and their abstract thinking and reasoning abilities—will not develop to their fullest capacity.

But even with the math education bit aside, I still don't agree with the good Doctor. I believe there's value in the breadth of one's knowledge as well as its depth. Too much of either one—or too little—is a bad thing.

Came across this in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (who was an avid cocaine abuser, I might add), and I thought it interesting.

His [Sherlock Holmes'] ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing ... My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Coperican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to be to me such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realzie it.

"You appear to be astonished," he [Sherlock Holmes] said, smiling at my expression of surprise. "Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it."

"To forget it!"

"You see," he explained, "I consider a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, or that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilled workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something thtat you knew before. it is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."

Read the post on American Christianity ... All in all, some interesting observations. I'm hesitating before saying anything else because I honestly want to know what you think, Matt. Do you buy what he's selling? And if so, what does that mean?

Have I mentioned or linked to either The Internet Monk or The Boar's Head Tavern before? The latter is the group-blog "hangout" of the former, a.k.a. Michael Spencer, a teacher and chaplain at a small Christian school in Kentucky. A recent blog post of his is Do Chinese Students Need An American Jesus? He says a lot of things that are unpleasant but true about America's brand of Christianity.

Anyway, I wanted to recommend that post in particular, and the two sites in general. The BHT in particular is a little bit addictive. It's like a soap opera, in that once you start to be able to keep track of who's who, and you get a sense of personalities (and which ones usually conflict), it's fun to keep up with the ongoing drama. And it's NOT like a soap opera at all in that it's a bunch of (mostly) guys, usually (but not always) talking about theology.

I'll be MIA for a few days; all my best to ya'll.

Don't know if you guys saw this, but "The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die."

Thoughts? WWBD?

Highly Classified Trade Secrets

I don't know if I've ever told you guys some of the burlesque (trying someting new: not sure if that's the correct use of the term or not) that goes on in Egypt. Like the time we were at the Suez Canal, and armed military guards forbade us to take pictures of it due to national security. As such, I proceeded to take pictures of it, just because I could. No, it wasn't difficult "outsmarting" the egyptian soldiers. As if American spy satellites or stealth aircraft couldn't do the same (with better results).

So fast forward to modern day, when Courtney, Ella and I were at the Wild Oats. This place is pretty cute, because they have a customer in training program--which Ella loves. Give her an opportunity to push something, she'll jump at it. And if that something is important, even better. She'll even push other people's carts around if left unattended...

So she's pushing around her customer in training cart, and I'm taking pics and video of it. Cute is an understatement. Right up until the manager of the Wild Oats informs me that I can't take pictures. At first, I ignore him, because it doesn't even register that he's talking to me. Then it registers--but it registers as a joke. Ha Ha, I can't take pictures of my daughter--very funny. Then it registers that he's being serious; he honestly doesn't want me to take pictures of his store. So I look at him with a wtf face, and point to my darling little customer in training be-bopping around his store. He then acquiesced, and asked that I minimize the backdrop. Ok--fine. [And for the record, I honestly got the feeling that he felt like a butt trying to enforce said rule; and was just doing so to follow 'regulations'.]

So what's the deal? Is the organic supermarket industry that cut-throat where secret shoppers will collect data in which to undermine the competition? I just never would have expected that Egyptian security policy would mirror that of Wild Oats.

Ha... that Rangel bit is priceless. I can see an aide rushing into his office saying, "Um, sir, almost 3 million people live in Mississippi. Oh, and there are people who read the New York Times who don't live in New York. And the internet exists."

As for the other story... Greg, you've explained why you would never do something like that. People are capable of some pretty unbelieveable stuff. I mean, it's wrong of the anchorette to be reporting news and tinge it with insinuations of guilt, but... there's nothing "obvious" here to me. But I did only skim that article.

Keep talkin' Chuck... Keep talkin.

In other news, I don't know if you guys are familiar with this case. As it turns out, my dad knows the lady; I think he even testified relative to the case in some fashion. I just thought it interesting, as I saw it on a news show tonight. The news anchorette painted the N.A. as completely guilty, which to me seems to defy all logic. If I'm going to rub somebody out, it won't be in the recovery room under my care. My faith in global common sense died just a little bit today. Just a little bit.

Hey, remember that guy Tim that was on Traber 5 with us? The ROTC guy? The guy from Las Vegas? who roomed with that looney Asian dude? Computer games? T'Pau?

Whatever happened to him?

I think what may encapsulates this discussion best is the traditional value-based differences between liberalism and conservatism. Conservatism is based on the notion of opportunity, but not necessarily outcome. Liberalism appears to be based on the notion of equal outcome. Further, gains in liberal prestige isn’t predicated on actual successes, but rather intent. A great example of this was the debate with Walter Mondale and Norm Coleman; Coleman had just listed all of Mondale’s lofty ideals and intents—and Mondale sat there glowingly… then followed by the bomb drop—which was the reality that all of those ideals accounted to no evidence for positive change. Similarly, blowing the American budget even worse than it is already blown in attempts to save Africa, despite the reality that past economic efforts have largely failed… is a great intent, but low on evidence-based data. This may be one area in which we disagree.

[From your postings, it appears that you believe that if a man protects a portion of his earnings from taxation, said man should not say anything about how taxes are spent.] If this is your continued interpretation, then I have inadequately expressed the perspective, or there has been another failure on some level; as this is not what I’m saying at all. To desire higher taxation on others, but not yourself, is hypocritical. But I digress.

So in a sense—I just wish that more people within the liberal mind-set would simply admit to this reality. And there are too many micro and macro examples in which to provide. One such example: Yes—it sucks to be poor. As such, I want to raise the minimum wage for the poor. Sure I know that raising the minimum wage will create inflation, thus keeping the same poor people just as (functionally) poor as they were before… but at least I tried. And because I tried, I’m a good person; nay, a better person than those evil conservatives. Personally—I just don’t buy into the notion that intent is as good as result. I’m just not buyin’. The only person that can truly change the living conditions of the poor are the poor. They work their way from poverty; and this may take generations. (And people such as ourselves are benefiting from the fruits of our ancestor’s labor. And for that, I am grateful.) At least in America, the impoverished are provided an opportunity just like everyone else; the opportunity may not be recognized, and it may require tough decisions and life choices, but it is there. A great example is a lady, from the south side of Chicago, that shipped her kids to live w/ their aunt in the deep south such that they could have a better education and quality of life. A tough choice for the mother, but one that is likely to be better for the children. Dissimilarly, every attempt at (instant gratification) equal outcome (i.e., communism in the truest sense of the word) has failed every time it’s been tried.

And to the very best of my knowledge and experience, there are no short cuts from poverty to non-poverty, and hand-outs do not seem to change the values or ethics of those being affected. Even many (poor) people that win the lottery still retain their impoverished value and ethical system; as such, many end up broke and in debt—exactly like they were before. It’s almost as if poverty (in the American sense of the word) is a state of mind, not a state of checkbook. If this is inaccurate, please enlighten me with data indicating otherwise. I would very much like to change this world view. But until then, Saint Bono’s pet project will remain (at least in my mind) a pet project. Past attempts at saving Africa haven’t seemed to be all too effective; why on earth will this most recent effort prove differently? I heard his speech on how this would be “targeted aid”, but I’m just not buyin’. Show me some evidence-based data, and then we’ll talk.

And we could get into the big government / limited government debate at some point; but suffice it to say that conservatism does not readily support the notion of federally funded international welfare programs. If there’s poor people out in the world—that’s the church’s responsibility. And it is my view that the church has largely dropped the ball on that one. Conservatism views the role of government as a business; not as a social reformation program. Why? Because social reformation programs notoriously do not work. And conservatism values results over intent. Churches do not excel at building a highway infrastructure; similarly, the government does not excel at changing the hearts and minds of people.

As such, you’re currently refusing to admit that today’s American government will not reallocate resources (i.e., cut programs) to increase categorical spending of African welfare by some 468%. Is it possible on paper? Yes. Does it have even the faintest chances of becoming a reality? Hell no. We can’t even balance the budget; let alone balance it by increasing one category by 468%.

Further, one could even make the (strong) argument to suggest that it would be better for the US to get it’s own fiscal stuff in line (i.e., balance the budget, get out of debt), so that an even larger impact on global social reform could be made in the future. Ask pretty much any fiscal advisor, and they will likely cite the same concept: truly effective giving can occur once debt is relieved. And do I ever look forward to that. How nice would it be to be able to act as a philanthropist with my monthly mortgage payment. Giving large sums of money while in large amounts of debt is living on borrowed time. Pure and simple

To what end ...?

You say you want to continue the conversation, but I ask you: "To what end?" We disagree, plain and simple. I believe it is possible to reallocate funding to allow for the increase expenditure on foreign aide. You are ... how to say? ... less optimistic that such a reallocation could and/or will occur. Thus, in Bono, you see a foreigner asking the government to raise your taxes to fund his "pet project." I see a man making a moral argument grounded in the idea that "From everyone whom has been given much, much will be required." (Luke 12:48) I see a man who recognizes that the US - a country that has certainly been given much -- does not necessarily live up to its call to give much (certainly not by comparison to other "Developed Nations). From your postings, it appears that you believe that if a man protects a portion of his earnings from taxation, said man should not say anything about how taxes are spent. I believe that most conservatives try to rightfully limit the amount of taxes collected by their government, but I also believe that they still have a right to exercise their voice in arguing for how the money is spent.

In the end, I guess I would say this. I believe this man to be a born-again believer in Jesus Christ. Do I agree with everything he says or does? No. But I am not terribly inclined to tear down those that I believe are actively trying to live out their faith (however flawed those attempts may be from time to time).

Uhm... the thread change was a joke. I'm still waiting around for Scott to continue his denial that increasing a categorical expenditure by 468% within a political budget would not destabilize a budgetary income vs. expenditure ratio. Let alone that Saint Bono feels that increased taxation is acceptable for me, but not himself. The image of Saint Bono mustn’t be tarnished. *taps finger tips together* Excellent.

In other news, I think a lesbian student “outed” herself tonight in class. Yeah—that was, er… fun. A little context—I have been using the Popperian example of a chicken and farmer relative to discussing the implications of inductive vs. deductive reasoning relative to true science (vs. pseudoscience). I’m thinking that if it’s good enough for Popper, it’s good enough for my girls. Well—it wasn’t. The example never took. So I modified it to include two girls unknowingly dating the same guy. Well, that one worked. Anyway—tonight, I made reference to that example (“you know, the girlfriends and their boyfriend”) and this student blurts out “or her girlfriends.” There was an awkward silence. In which I terminated with, “not that there’s anything wrong with that…”

And for the record, I didn’t see that one coming. No, I just didn’t see that one coming. Sometimes, knowing one’s sexual preference orientation whatever isn't hard to imagine; and often times, it's just plain and obvious common sense. Just like all those people in Takoma Park. But no, not in this case. It was kinda like Portia de Rossi. And I still refuse to believe the rumors about Salma Hayek. If we lose her, then perhaps the heterosexuals just may have to regroup like the republicans. But I digress.

Matt may get a kick out of this; last week I was exceedingly proud of my Type I vs. Type II statistical error example, which included the dilemma of a girl being set up on a blind date. She can either: go on the date and run the risk of being with an ugly boy (type II error), or ditch the date and run the risk of missing out on a hot guy (type I error). It should be noted, however, that I will start to use non-gender-specific examples...

I can live with a new thread. In fact, why don't we use Matt's?

Here in Illinois, we had a choice between two potential governors. Option A, the Democrat, is currently being investigated by the federal government for corruption charges. Option B, the Republican, is not a "values" Republican, meaning she claims to adhere to the fiscal plans of the Republican party (an assertion that is doubtful at best) while rejecting conservative social values (e.g. the sanctity of human life, etc...). Oh, and lest I forget, Option B is also a close former associate of Illinois' former governor who is currently a convicted crimial for his activities in office. So, to put it bluntly, a choice between suck and suck.

I haven't done this in awhile, but yesterday, I looked deep within myself and cast a vote for the Green party. I just couldn't get behind either one of these criminals. And I'm starting to get ticked about it. Why is it that my state can't seem to put up a descent candidate in either party?

You ever cast a quote-unquote protest vote?

I'll do it! Although this will largely just be my venting...

The girls at my school are simply giddy at the fact that Deval Patrick will be Massachusetts' next governor. I would not be surprised to find pictures of him inside their lockers. (There are non-Democrat girls here too, but I think they're doing what I did today: laying low and saying little.) I'm trying to not think about how the dreaminess factor might have come into play.

We are absolutely enraptured and gushingly self-congratulatory about having elected a black man as governor. Really—that's what the newscasters were saying last night, ad nauseam. Every time they said Patrick was the projected winner, they followed it immediately with "making him the first black governer in the state's history." It got really old, really quickly. Aren't we supposed to not care about race? I mean, I can understand it a little bit, knowing a little more than I used to about Boston's history. It's understandable for people who were here thirty years ago to feel like they now have a little closure. So now can we start not letting race be an issue now? Please?

Also, I want to see all these jubilant Patrick fans in a few months, when they say, "Whoa, wait a second... why are my taxes going up? And why is my tax money going to in-state tuition and subsidized housing for illegal immigrants?" Um, that's what you voted for, people. This Mencken quote seems to fit well: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it, good and hard."

*dawns catcher's gear; mask included*
So when can we abruptly start a new thread, thereby confirming wifely beliefs that we deny confrontation?

I'm running out of time today, so I'll just try to hit this point by point:

You wrote: [At no point did I ever suggest that you had ever "proposed the concept of no federal taxation."]. Your quote: So ... you did not want the government to take your money, but you did want a say in determining how the money that was collected would be spent. The "not wanting gov. to take my money" is where I got that interpretaion. If it is errant, I do so humbly apologize.

You wrote: [You raised the point of him being a hypocrite because he sheltered a portion of his own money while arguing that taxed funds ought to be spent in a certain fashion. And as I said before, you do the exact same thing. You believe in a certain tax structure and you want a say in how taxes are spent. There is absolutely no difference here.] Again--I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You don't see me stumping Irish politics for them to change their tax structure. It's none of my business. Similarly, it's none of Saint Bono's business how the American tax structure is designed or executed. If one is for minimal taxation--fine. If one is for pet projects--fine. But one cannot impose a pet project on another (in another country, no less) while trying to conserve minimal taxation for himself. If you don't see muck of this, then we'll agree to disagree.

You wrote: [It is quite possible to increase the spending in a certain given arena without increasing one's income. It's called reallocation of funding.] Yeah. I know that. But how likely is it to increase category A by 467%, thereby reducing categories B-Z to make up the difference in the American political climate. Last I checked, there's still funding for a bridge to nowhere in Ketchikan. Budget reallocation on this scale is highly unlikely to occur. (They can't even balance the dang thing--let alone do something that requires a fundamental shift in values such as this.)

You wrote: [“First, what do you mean by suggesting that Bono is using "forced coercion?"] Easy. Bono didn't ask me to donate to his pet project. He tried to convince my government to fund his pet project. And by American funding of his pet project, it would likely result in a significant destabilization of tax income/expenditure homeostatis. (If there is one.) He could have tried to raise the money by donation; instead, he attempted to reach into my pocket (via the IRS) in such a fashion that (if passed by my crappy government) I could not say no.

And for the record, I knew that Bush would never agree to such a goofy plan. The principle is what annoys me.

You wrote: [So I return to the original thrust of the argument. How can you call a man a hypocrite when you act in the same manner as he does?] I don't act like he does. I don't try to impose my pet projects on others, using tactics like white guilt, celebrity status (if I had any), and other resources onto others. If I see a noteworthy charity, then I anonymously support it. If I feel that others may want to also donate, I discretely provide them with the information as to how they can as well and let nature take its course. (Such as in this case.)

You wrote: [that is exactly what the ONE Campaign (of which he is one of the major authors) is attempting to do. But rather than asking people to pony up their money, they are asking them to become involved politically by exercising their power to vote for increased spending on Africa.] And that's fine. Enter into the arena of ideas all you want.

Just don't try to impose a higher rate of taxation onto me, while you do all you can to lower the taxation rate on yourself. Almost like the bisexual debate--you can't have it both ways. You either are ____ or you are not _____. You either are for big government / high taxes, or you are not for big government / high taxes. Don't try to impose big government on me (with all the taxation duties therein) while trying to shirk the taxation duties in which you claim to value.

I must admit, Greg, your post is really confusing. It's as if you didn't even read what I said. You state that you "perceive an obfuscation of the issue," but seriously, you're not even reacting to my post. Seriously, go back in read it. At no point did I ever suggest that you had ever "proposed the concept of no federal taxation." Your setting up a strawman and responding to an argument that was never made.

Secondly, you're not really responding to the thrust of the argument. The vast majority of this post has to do with your belief that the increased spending will necessarily cause a rise in your taxes. But that's not what I was talking about, or even what you originally posted about. You raised the point of him being a hypocrit because he sheltered a portion of his own money while arguing that taxed funds ought to be spent in a certain fashion. And as I said before, you do the exact same thing. You believe in a certain tax structure and you want a say in how taxes are spent. There is absolutely no difference here.

From what I can tell, what you appear to resent are two things: (1) that someone who is not American would use his celebrity influence to convince your government that they ought to do something with their national budget and (2) that increased spending on Africa will necessarily bring about an increase in your taxation.

To the second point, I would say you are incorrect. You are working on a faulty assumption. It is quite possible to increase the spending in a certain given arena without increasing one's income. It's called reallocation of funding. Slash something less important and pour those resources into the more important issue. Again, you may disagree with whether or not the issue is more or less important than other areas within the national budget, but that's not the point. You are assuming a necessary increase in taxation and that is a flawed argument.

As to the first point about a "a non-US citizen" having a say in how your government spends or allocates money ... well, I don't know what to say. If you don't have faith in your elected leadership's ability to listen to someone's argument and then make up their own mind, you must hold them in very low regard. As for me, I don't have an issue with a "non-US citizen" asking for a meeting and making an argument about effective policy. I guess I just assume that if the argument is sound, it will rightly persuade its audiance. If not, it'll be rejected.

Two more questions for you because you talked about making sure that we don't obfuscate the issue." First, what do you mean by suggesting that Bono is using "forced coercion?" You kept returning to that phrase, but you never spelled it out. What coercive force has Bono brought to bear that is so potent that our government can't resist? I just don't see it. What I see is polemical argument that is vague and undefined.

Lastly, as to why "Saint Bono" didn't "use his celebrity status and [white guilt] to appeal directly to the people"... Look it up, because that is exactly what the ONE Campaign (of which he is one of the major authors) is attempting to do. But rather than asking people to pony up their money, they are asking them to become involved politically by exercising their power to vote for increased spending on Africa. So they are appealing to the masses. They're just not doing that exclusively. They using all of the avenues available to them to make the change that they are seeking to effect.

So I return to the original thrust of the argument. How can you call a man a hypocrit when you act in the same manner as he does?

And Upon an Entirely Different Thread:
~There was scandal in the dept. today, as I showed the girls the Faith Hill video. Freakin' Funny.
~I want. What can I say, I'm stogie-curious. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar...

Santa Angelina > Saint Bono

Scott, you’re giving me too much fuel, and I just don’t have the time! First, I can’t speak for what I may have thought 10 years ago; I can only speak for what I think now. Secondly, I can’t speak on behalf of “republicans” or “conservatives”; all I can speak for is myself. Finally, let’s not obfuscate the issue; this isn’t about republicans, democrats, or libertarian views on taxation and national spending—it’s about Saint Bono’s desire to persuade my country to raise their “fund African corruption” campaign by some 467% via his celebrity status and [white guilt], while using a loophole within his own country to reduce his tax burden.

But since you asked… Yes, taxation based on consumption is the way to go. [http://www.fairtax.org/]. Second, I doubt I ever proposed the concept of no federal taxation; it’s just not possible. Limited (American) Federal Taxation for Limited (American) Federal Expenditures. With the exception of highways and national defense, you will not hear a peep out of me relative to my pet projects, as I have yet to see an efficient and effective federal program.

Saint Bono apparently believes that a country, in which he is not even a tax paying citizen, should increase their “Save Africa” campaign by 467%. (Don’t have the time to double-check my math, but I’m pretty sure that’s accurate.) And to suggest that Saint Bono never suggested that my taxes be raised for his pet project is a bit of a non sequitur. Budgeting, when done properly, is a zero sum game. You can't really control your income, but you sure as hell can control your expenditures. Saint Bono wanted the US to increase their “fund African corruption” campaign by some 467%. Any budget category increase of that proportion will have catastrophic consequences. Let's not deny reality here; either accept this reality, or call Saint Bono a fiscal idiot. I will derive different, albeit equal, pleasure from either outcome. No, I would rather you call Saint Bono a fiscal idiot; that outcome pleases me.

So when it comes down to the brass tax, Saint Bono attempted to use his celebrity status and [white guilt] to fund his pet project. He was doing so on an international level (albeit targeting the US), thereby impacting my bottom line. He chose the path of attempting forced coercion for me to fund his pet project through national funding (i.e., taxation). And all this without even being an American citizen.

And the funny thing is—why didn’t Saint Bono use his celebrity status and [white guilt] to appeal directly to the people. Bypass federal funding altogether, and collect money directly from fund raising. Saint Bono didn’t do that—perhaps because he knew it wouldn’t work. So instead, he attempts to control my pocketbook in a fashion that I cannot control. The IRS.

Saint Bono then goes and realizes that he can “protect his income” by using a loophole to bypass his own federal taxes. And again—I call shenanigans. Saint Bono is in favor of raising my taxes (the taxes of another country) for his pet project, while simultaneously being in favor of lowering his own. It seems like simple common sense, at least to me, that when one tries to coerce another into paying higher taxes for their pet projects, he should STFU when the same is tried on him. Do not impose on me what you do not impose on yourself, Saint Bono.

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one, because all I perceive is an obfuscation of the issue. This has nothing to do with my views 10 years ago, nor the views of any political party or that of a conservative or liberal movement. Your notion of fighting global terror via funding African corruption is an interesting one, but one that has not been supported with any data in which I am familiar. (And this is an entirely different discussion.) Saint Bono (a non-US citizen) should have no say as to how much I am taxed, nor should he have say as to how my tax dollars are spent; just as I have no say as to how much he is taxed, and how his Irish tax dollars are spent. But this reality does not apply to Saint Bono. Instead, he wants to incite my tax increase to fund his pet project, while using a loophole to reduce his tax burden. Shenanigans. Hypocritical Shenanigans.

And when you are done responding to my previous post ...

I still would love to hear your thoughts on Galladut.

Spending Other's Money ...

Well ... I'm not sure where to begin. You are off on a number of points. But let's begin with the big issue. From time to time, while we were together at Wheaton, you and your fellow "conservatives" in French House would argue with me that we ought not have a graduated tax that climbs as the individuals income climbs. To be honest, I see both sides of the tax rate argument, but for the sake of this discussion, I can actually say that I agree with you. It's not necessarily "fair" to ask more of certain people because they have been successful at earning money. So we are in agreement. We all disagree that the rich ought to pay more; and we all do what we can to protect that which we make because we believe that we have the capacity to spend it in better ways than the government has demonstrated (at least in terms of charity, local education, etc...). So we agree on that.

My problem with your post is that you and the other French House's "conservatives" would also make arguments for how the government should spend the money that it does tax. And as I recall, you were all in agreement that one of the few ways that ought to be considered legitimate was spending on national defense. So ... you did not want the government to take your money, but you did want a say in determining how the money that was collected would be spent. And you exercised your relativley anonymous voice by voting in the ways that you did.

No difference with "Saint Bono"; he just has a louder voice. He wants to protect his income, but still wants a say in how taxed monies are spent. The difference here is that you disagree on the execution of priorities. You believe that national defence is key. So does he. He just happens to believe that the best defence is defusing the anger of one's enemies by extending ideas like fair trade, debt elimination, etc... Now, you may disagree on whether he is right or wrong, but you are both acting in the same fashion: protecting what is rightfully yours while still wanting a voice in how collected monies are spent.

As for his wanting to raise your taxes, you are off on that. He has never once publicly argued for raising the taxes of the American people (or any other people for that matter). He has asked nations to consider how they are allocating what they have taxed; and he is asking them to commit a certain portion to fighting poverty in Africa.

Finally, as for your apparent admiration for Angelina's willingness to stay out of public policy, you may want to check again. Both she and her "significant other" are actively involved in the ONE Campaign, which is a grassroots movement in America that is arguing for the exact same policy that Bono is advocating through his DATA organization.

But again, these are details. My point is that you can't condemn a man as a hypocrit who acts in the same fashion that you do unless you are ready to brand yourself in the same fashion.

RESPONSE to Matt's post (below): As an ex-Cheaters addict, I rather love the self-imposed reality-drama format. Wicked people enjoy the fruits of their labor, and I get to enjoy nature taking its course. But for some reason in which I can't exactly articulate, Cheaters does not seem to be equivalent with To Catch a Predator. I've not spent the time to read up on all the chat transcripts that Perverted Justice provides, but I've looked at enough to suspect that all of PJ's actions are not passive. (Many, if not most, of their cases are pretty clear-cut, involving a perv that gets caught. I'm not talking about those--instead, I'm talking about those that are deviantly curious but still retain a shred of moral integrity.) If, indeed, all PJ does is post a profile and let nature take its course--then fine; let 'em fry. However, I've seen a few instances where they have stepped beyond that line; from passive to active ensnarement. One such example was to re-invite a guy over, when he didn't show on the first "date". (He must have originally thought better of it, but fell to the temptation upon a repeated request.) Somewhere in this continuum lies entrapment. I don't know where it is, but PJ actively lures and ensnares potential predators who (until that time) have committed crimes of thought and words. I guess I just have a hard time with the notion of convicting a crime of thought on the internet, in which the only reality is a pseudo-reality. However, I can also entirely see (and support) the notion that the guys shouldn't have even gone down that path--regardless of how far down that path they've gone. And there is no victimless crime relative to the chat-conversations that they thought they had; any step down that path is a sin.

I guess what's making me uneasy is the capture and the consequence. I don't have faith that these PJ people are passive. They come across (to me) as active vigilantes. And given the consequences of their charge (in which men are guilty until proven otherwise), I would hope that they would show better judgment. Leaking stuff to the local news when you didn't catch your guy is just suspect.

Perhaps this is somewhat analogous to my view on the Cardinal Sin. If I am not mistaken, satan was banished to Earth. he had an indefinite amount of time and opportunity in which to analyze Adam/Eve, and he probably (repeatedly) attempted to ensnare A&E until successfully executed. There's a big ass difference between not eating from a tree, and having some damn snake convolute your mind. Had there been no snake, would there have been sin? Maybe you shouldn't be talking to the snake in the first place? I just want some damn answers...

I'm not too confused about it. The police were doing their job, and I agree with the Sergeant: When someone decides to go that route, there's not a whole lot you can do.

Do you think that Perverted Justice is wrong in conducting their stings? I can maybe see an argument as to whether Dateline should be involved (even though I'm one of those dopes that's glued to the set every time one of their "To Catch A Predator" stories airs), but I have no problem with them doing what they're doing.

Is anyone else a bit morally confused about this one? There's a line out there, and it seems that it was "stepped upon" by both parties...

Totally Unrelated Update: A few of my students forwarded this vid to me; pretty dang funny.

Another Totally Unrelated Update: I went to a research thing on Friday, and read a poster about the Southern Tenant Farmers Union (STFU). After they dropped that acronym on me, I couldn't get past the first paragraph.

I didn’t know what to name this entry: the choices were Going Down with the Ship? or Putting out fires… And in all honesty, your (uncharacteristic) post confuses me. Either you’ve painted in incredibly huge strokes for brevity’s sake, or you may be ignoring some massive vulnerabilities in the perspective in which you support. Or am I just missing something? (And I thought I was going to spend this morning on a Gallaudet post…)

Your argument seems to suggest that the tax’ees should have the right to protect their income while having influence as to how their tax money is spent. And that's fine. Cryptically, you brought in national defense spending. (Which is orders of magnitude less than education spending or the so-called "war on poverty". And I won’t even bring up the JFK notion that a lower taxation rate increases governmental revenue by expanding the national economy--and idea that works each time it’s been tried.)

Suffice it to say that we do not agree on the Saint Bono issue. And the fatal flaw in your perspective (as viewed by my eyes) is that I don’t attempt to spend other people’s money--taxed or otherwise. Saint Bono, on the other hand, decided that all industrialized nations should donate .7% of their gross domestic product (GDP) to Africa. If we don’t follow Saint Bono’s plan of .7% gross domestic product, then we must be a nation of guiltless evil selfish uncivil industrialist racist bigot homophobes.

Sorry Saint Bono, I call shenanigans. Do not attempt to impose higher taxation on me, while you try to weasel out of less taxation for yourself. Sorry; I’m just not buying that; conversely, I believe in low taxation for all. At least Santa Angelina doesn’t try to sway public policy, thereby taking money out of my pocket to give to her pet charities. She bypasses the persuasion of policy and acts on her own. I’ve got no beef with that; she won’t buy her way into heaven, but at least her life appears to be consistent with her values. Saint Bono appears to value higher taxation on me, while he values less taxation on himself.

So let me get this straight, Greg. If I don't believe that the government should be able to tax me at obscene rates, I should not say anything about how the government ought to spend the money that it has raised through taxation. If that is the case, well ... I guess Republicans ought to shut their collective yappers when it comes to defence spending, etc...

Seriously, you don't have to like the guy, but for you to call him a hypocrit is a bit extreme in this case. You too attempt to protect as much of your income as you can from high rates of taxation (e.g. protected education savings plans for Ella, etc...), and yet you want a voice in your government and how it spends. You don't believe we ought to spend on a socialized medical industry, but you do believe in military spending.

Long a short. You guys are doing the same thing. You just have a different belief in how the taxed money ought to be spent.

Michelle and I just saw Borat. And, um, holy crap.

Sometimes I laughed my butt off. Sometimes I cringed until it was physically painful. It was definitely the funniest movie I've seen in a long time.

Although I recommend it, I think Greg will be upset with some of it. Christians do not come out well—which annoyed me—but the South is held up for particular ridicule. The thing is, it's the people themselves that are... just being themselves that serves as the ridicule. Some of the comments people make when they think they have a sympathetic ear... it's more than a little scary.

Anyway... I'd be interested in your review, should you decide to catch it.

Reason #286 million that Saint Bono ought keep his cake-hole shut. Don't do what I do; just do as I say.

I like to think of myself as musically "in the know" when it comes to new-ish music. I'm always on the lookout for sounds I haven't heard before. So to have only just recently discovered Frou Frou and Imogen Heap (the latter being one half of the former), whose "Details" and "Speak For Yourself" respectively came out over a year ago... well, I'm a bit disappointed in myself.

In particular, Heap's song "Hide and Seek" is pretty dang sweet. Then I discover that it was featured on "The O.C.". Sigh. Here I thought I'd found a kind of edgy diamond in the rough, and not only was it very popular for a time, but that time was July of last year. Where the heck was I?

Oh yeah. Getting engaged.

Anyway... I feel like Tim is the only other one of us who might enjoy those artists (who are, again, really the same artist). But just thought I'd share.

Funny.

"You could get it in cash."

Greg, I can totally imagine the feelings of guilt on your part. That sucks. All I can say is poop happens, and will continue to happen, and you could probably, in every poop-happening instance, find a way to blame yourself. So... like, don't. Or something.

Let's look for the silver lining. Did you catch it on video? Could be worth $10,000...