Matthew ...

I am in need of your mad mathematical skills. Actually, this is probably a very dull exercise for your most excellent cranium, but I am in need none the less.

Assume that I have a graph with six data points. I am needing to plot a "line of best fit" for those six points and calculate its slope so that we can extrapolate data into the future.

This will be an ongoing need, so I don't simply need the "solution" to my current data. I need to know how to do what I need to do.

Can you help? And if so, how soon can you send this info my way? Thanks brother.

A distraction from politics, and crazy people at the office:

The Evangelism Linebacker

Insanity: Trying something over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

Now that I've been working in a nearly 100% female environment for the past 2.5 years, (and about 10 years in a vastly female profession)--in many ways, I've become an honorary chic. And I've come to some conclusions...

Maybe Banky was right--at least to some extent. (I'll let your mind remember the quote cited.) It just seems that, as a general rule, dudes seem to handle conflict better than the chics. Nothing personal, hobbetts--I'm sure this doesn't apply to you. But the chic-conflict-drama just does not reside in dude-land. He may call me a dick. And me him. Maybe we have a brief go. Done.

Dudeland doesn't have the extreme extent of vicious gossip either. (And that's one of the roles that I frequently play--reigning the girls in. Bringing them back. No need to go there, so let's just not.) I see the students interact with each other--and the passive aggressive (for lack of a better word) viciousness astounds me from time to time.

And the best example of recent is my crazy ex-boss. (Note: I know she's nutty, hobettes She's not a good representation of you people.) She got publicly demoted and disgraced; she's tried to find a position elsewhere--but nobody will touch her (as her reputation precedes her). Don't get me wrong, it must suck to be her. (Although--what she is in denial about is that her lifestyle chose this path for her.) Anyway--it's to the point that my very presence instigates a massive visceral response in this nut job. She'll see me, (silently) flip out, storm out of the room and slam the door. At this point, it's kinda hard not to laugh--but I keep it in alright. (She's also not talking to a secretary.) (Because I hold the ex-boss to the same standards as everyone else, I am disrespectful--at least in her eyes.)

So I am just in awe of nutty ex-boss's gross ineptitude at emotional processing and vast amounts of denial. I don't think about her at all, but when she acts like a little baby--it's hard not to watch her like a cartoon.

So back to Banky. Yeah--I'll go out and say it. Chics needs dudes. If chics completely ran the world--I shutter to think. (Naturally, us dudes need chics too... so don't play the genderism card. This diatribe is about chics needing dudes. The contrapositive may come at a later date...) I can definitely see a divine design to gender balance...

Ok--just had to get that off my chest...

P.S. The "you people" reference is a personal joke... a grad student got embarrassed when asking a question about stuttering--because she used the term "you people". The class busted out laughing--it was priceless.

A couple of bloggers/talking heads have answered my Question #3. First Scott Johnson from Powerline:

For John McCain to prevail against Obama, McCain will have to deploy an intellectual rigor in exposing Obama that he has yet to display on the campaign trail.

and Tony Blankley, via RCP:

If Obama can be defeated, it will not be with a meat cleaver but with a surgeon's scalpel. This is difficult in a national campaign in which the public, almost of necessity, must be communicated with by slogans. But Obama is the master responding to blustery charges with wry, dry irony.

The Republicans must systematically make a hundred tightly argued, irrefutable critiques of very specific examples of Obama's policy being wrong for at least 60 percent of America.

America may be going through one of our episodic style shifts. In 1932, FDR's conversational style trumped Hoover's old oratory. In 1960, JFK's coolness and wit caught the emerging post-World War II sophistication of our culture. Twenty years later America, tired of sophisticated cynicism, was ready to return to Reagan's old-fashioned sentiments and values.

Obama is tapping into a curious alchemy of youthful idealism tempered by Internet edginess. Republicans must communicate their values and policies through that prism, or they will not communicate at all.

"Intellectual rigor"? "A hundred tightly argued, irrefutable critiques"?!? Again, I'm afraid--how can I say this with humility--that strategies that would hold water with me would bore the average voter to death. People don't want a cogent, well-written essay--too much reading! They want a symbol. They want soundbites. They want to be made to feel good. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.

You guys may or may not be a fan, but it's good to hear someone support my views on the sheer idiocy that congress passed--forcing me to break the law use compact fluorescents in year 2012.

In other news, my wife's hormones has mandated me to begin any number of home improvement projects--and I'm really amazed how much easier woodworking is when you have the proper tools. One of my mandates is to install customized shelves in all the girl's bedrooms. (Including a girl who currently resides w/in the womb.) So as long as I conceptualize what I want to do, it's really pretty dang easy to get the job done (with professional standards) provided you've got a decent miter-saw and circular saw. (The better tools just allow for wicked precision cuts. Although I kinda wish I would have spent a little extra on the ones with the laser markers...)

In honor of Scott's comment--the Bo will now be known as Captain Vapid. Perhaps we can abbreviate it to CV, for future reference.

Any ideas on the Maverick, John McCain?

For Hillary--I vote we refer to her as, "The irrelevant Hillary Clinton."

Nader's in... Is he still relevant to our interests?

Post Update: A bunch of pointy-headed intellectuals are citing that obesity is more dangerous than global terrorism. They negate to mention, however, that these "lifestyle diseases" are by choice--and getting murdered as we go about our daily lives is not.

Farrakhan endorses the BO. Reason alone to note vote for the guy...

Just awful.

So let's assume that the two nominees are McCain and Obama.

Question 1: Who's your man? (I don't want to presume anything.)
Question 2: How much do you care?
Question 3: I think the common wisdom is that it would be the Democrats' election to lose, what with so many so sick of Bush and all. Some people have observed the Obama-mania and said that he appears to be impervious to traditional criticism. That his supporters don't really care that he has no experience, prefers to speak in platitudes, etc. So what's McCain's strategy in the general election? Who does he try to appeal to? The conservatives, who would rather write in their preferred candidate? Or the moderates, who might actually be truly undecided between the two?

Here are my answers.
1) McCain.
2) I would have preferred Thompson or Romney, but despite what I hear a lot of conservative talking heads saying, there are plenty of ideological differences between McCain and Obama--enough for me to actively root for McCain. So my answer tot he question is, "a great deal".
3) I have no ideer. I do think McCain has a shot, if he can show the country that the Emperor has no clothes. But he has to do so without coming off as mean or condescending; he has enough of a "grumpy old white guy" feel to him already. He just needs to be the mature adult, politely pointing out Obama's green-ness.

Then again... maybe that's what he would need to do to win me over. I have no idea who these actual Undecideds are, or what they want to hear.

Anyone else?

Maybe I'm callous. Maybe I'm a typical evil white male. Maybe this is an offshoot of conservatism, which only enhances my evil white male status. But I am just not getting it.

If people choose to act like savages, that is their choice. I believe that they can rise above their savagery, if they so choose. But if they choose not, then they are not my concern. And this is based on the principle that life changes occur from the inside out, rather than the outside in.

So the notion of disdaining a private education or a gated community--that's just a premise that I can recognize, but one that I do not really understand. It seems to presume that children within such an environment will grow up to have appalling values and without the ability to appreciate the challenges of socio-economic diversity. And I don't buy such a presumption, tagging myself as evidence to the contrary.

Conversely, I see such savagery as limiting the potential of those that want to choose a different path. It's been my experience that the progress of content within the classroom can be largely dictated by the lower 25%. The slow are slowing down the quick. And that, to me, just seems counter-intuitive. Yes--I understand the argument that the quicker 25% may speed up the slower 25%... but is the fundamental role of education: (a) personal education; or (b) a socialist agenda attempting to equalize educational output.

I myself, choose the former. Little Bobby (who is developmentally delayed and has overt behavioral problems, living with his poor single-mother, over-populated and otherwise crappy environment) shouldn't have the power to limit my child's life opportunities.

Succinctly stated: Just because I have the calling and drive to help people help themselves out of such plights does not mean that I am obligated to live in that environment or subject (and subsequently hinder) my child to it. (I could go on, using my niece that got bussed into a thug-high-school because she was a high-performing minority as an additional example...but at some point, I have to get to work. Stories that she's told me about her ex-school are legendary.)

Update: My wife broke up yet another fight yesterday. This time, no lesbians or guns were involved. So before we went to bed last night, she looked really exhausted and I asked her about it. She simply said, "I just wish I could go to school and teach." It's like all her kids watched Fight Club and decided to reenact it live.

Interesting premise. And it's a great start, but I think it could be improved upon.

Premise One. Happiness suffers across the board as a result separation from God secondary to the Cardinal Sin. It's an equal-opportunity phenomenon.

Second point--use of the word "happy" needs a clear operational definition. It's too ephemeral and temporal in nature. I think what you're trying to get at is more long-term. Contentment of the soul--although that's not quite right either.

Second Premise: The best approximation toward (happiness) is through the pursuit of Christ as explained by God's Word. (In other words, the Bible serves as an instruction book towards salvation...but not only that--it's an instruction book as to how best get the most out of this flawed life.)

A perfect example... My ex-chair is tenured, and will be on my tenure committee. She has tried to intimidate me in the past--which is comical; you can't really intimidate a stutterer. But I digress... Earlier this week, she sent me an email threatening to tank my tenure review.

I was able to laugh it off; it didn't affect me one bit. Why? Because my God is much bigger than the influence of a nutty woman. If God is creative enough to use a giant fish or whale to get the job done (despite Jonah's best attempt otherwise), then this is a pre-determined and moot issue. Life hurdles are ultimately up to God; man just thinks they have an important role in all of it.

Now here's an interesting question--is (what I have described above) faith? (I'm currently thinking about the whole concept of faith, and what faith actually is...)

Since giving birth to our third son, A, my wife has been back to school for a grand total of 10 days. In that time, she has been physically hit by a student, she has broken up two fights (both of which , oddly enough, involved lesbians), and a student has brought a gun to school with the intent of threatening another student. In this last case, the student in question (who is in my wife's physics class), "chickened out" - so to speak - and left the gun in her car outside the building. She was, nevertheless, handed over to authorities.

This lead to a discussion in which I asked my wife whether she anticipated being able to retire (20+ years from now) without a Columbine/Virginia Tech/Northern Illinois type of situation occurring within her district. She answered "no." I then suggested the very real probability that "good" students would begin arming themselves as a means of protection. I give you the following article off of cnn.com....

Utah students hide guns, head to class.

Premise One: Non-Christians are unlikely to be happy due to their decision to live in open-defiance of God's Law.

Premise Two: Christians are unlikely to be happy due to:
(1) the cognitive dissonance that comes with living in sin against a personal belief that sin is to be rooted out, and
(2) outside oppression from non-Christians who continue to denegrate:
(a) those that attempt to live within the absolute confines of God's Law, and
(b) the need for or presence of absolute authority

Ergo ...

It is unreasonable to expect a general state of happiness amongst the masses.

It is finally here... A blue-tooth enabled CB radio for your car. (Such an interesting mix of digital and analog technology...)

So I just purchased The Gum Thief by Douglas Coupland. You may remember him from my previous recommendation of his last novel, jPod.

What's interesting here is the backstory I uncovered. After finishing the book in a rather brisk four hours, I went hunting for reviews of the novel. Mostly, I was just curious to see what others saw in this particular work. Anyway, I was digging through material, I discovered that Coupland is both a monotheist and an openly gay individual. And it is the later discovery that truly shocked me.

Now, please understand that I have been reading almost everything by this guy (minus a few inconsequential travelogues) since 1992. And over the course of 10ish novels, I never once would have guessed that he was gay. Certainly, issues of gaynesss arise from time to time in his novels, but they do so in the same way that anything modern eventually finds its way to the surface in his works. That's the whole point of his writing: an intense fascination with how secular modernity collides with the religious.

So I went back through his works and I jotted down a list of prominent themes in each novel: storytelling, loneliness, alientation, fascination with death, disposable nature of modern society, feelings of disconnection, changing values, changing one's station in life and lastly: how all these things relate to religion.

And that's when it hit me. Perhaps, inadvertently or otherwise, Coupland has been writing about the nature of being gay. Only, instead of giving us the standard I-love-being-gay line of PC-thinking, he's actually giving us a portrait of what it means to struggle with being gay in light of transcendent values. Wouldn't that be something? An honest portrait of the sadness that actually pervades the lives of many gay men and women.

Any of you guys get into Richard Feynman? I've listened to some of his (introductory) physics lectures in the past, and have more recently starting listening to his other (non-physics-lecture) books. (He has quite a remarkable career as a physicist, starting his career at Los Alamos all the way through serving as a professor emeritus at Cal Tech.

Truth be told--I'm kind of envious of that time. How cool would it be to be straight out of grad school, working with the best and brightest at Los Alamos? Talk about being born into the right field at the right time--But I digress...

I couldn't help to think of M when RFP was describing how he would do physics for the sake of physics. (The sheer enjoyment of the process.) The best example is when he noticed how the stream of water actually gets smaller the farther it is from the spout. He then calculated the arc of the curve of water, just because. (Similarly, he calculated the math behind how a frisbee can wobble in flight.)

If any of you guys find that kind of life observation interesting, it may be worth a read or listen...

The latest attempt at religion-less religion: The American Ethical Union.

I tend to be snarkier about people like this than I ought to, so... here goes an attempt at snark-free commentary.

They're so careful to avoid any statements of absolute truth. But you form a group like this because of a common belief. And you believe that your beliefs are true, and that the opposite is not. And it's okay to say so!!! Sigh.

That's all I got for now.

Any of you guys any good at tracking down rare songs to download? I'm looking for something that is unreleased and I can't find it.

On the subject of music, any of you hear Malonee's new tune? I actually broke down and listened after the umpteenth desperate email. Completely forgetable.

Anyone find MH's little trip to Grand Cayman just a bit interesting?

Was Jesus an authority on Hebrew micro-brews?

Alternate topic: Yet another reason why Billary shouldn't be president:
PUTIN RIPS HILLARY: 'At a minimum, a head of state should have a head'...

Discuss.

At the risk of sounding sentimental, I miss you guys. I miss living in close proximity. Hobo Signs is a great alternative; and certainly a much better solution than our early attempts to keep in touch. But I miss hanging out. Sometimes, I'd just like to grab a beer with you. Know what I mean?

To my fellow Hobos ...

I think the difficulty with this position lies with the practical realities of a situation like Africa. For so many years, Africa was a colonized continent that was stripped of its natural resources, stripped of its population, etc... Clearly, some of this was self-inflicted as tribe fought with one another and sold the losers into western slavery. I'm not denying any of that.

But ultimately, this is a continent that has been ravaged by Western society, the climate, etc... To expect someone to rise up on their own is a massive expectation. If they succeed, kudos to them for triumphing over the odds. But what about the millions that lack the education, medical resources, financial accessibility, etc...?

I guess what I'm contemplating is the difference between poverty in the US and poverty in the Developing World. Here, in the US, I think its much harder for someone to honestly say that they were beaten down. Are the odds stacked against certain races, classes, genders, etc...? Absolutely. But I guess what I believe is that these odds are NOT insurmountable. Daunting? Yes. Insurmountable? No. So here in the US, its easier to subscribe to a conservative position and argue for a pull-yourself-up mentality.

But abroad, the situation is must different. So how do you maintain the dignity of the individual by encouraging them to rise up while at the same time recognizing that it may be a practical impossibility for an entire generation?

Greg -

Read your last comment under the whole MH discussion and I think there's something there. Broadly speaking, liberals are defined as being people who care about the "have nots," while conservatives are defined as being people who care about the "haves." But is it possible that the liberals, by catering and pandering to the "have nots" actually have a lesser view of them as people? Is it possible that what is passed off as concern in actuality comes closer to condescension due to an unspoken belief that the "have nots" can't make it without their handouts.

Of course, there are systemic issues as well. Japan, for instance, was in no place to rebuild itself following WWII. There was a needed intervention. But at some point, once you reached a critical threshhold, it is possible that the "conservative" position is actually the one that holds human beings in higher regard?

Just a thought.

In other news, the German Green party has begun to use "kitlers" in their promotional literature. Funny? Or scary?

Hey Greg,

I saw your response to my buddy's "post," and to be honest, I was a bit disappointed. Certainly, this isn't personal; and if you would like me to drop the subject, I will gladly do so.

But as for your analysis of his thoughts, I thought you took some shots that were, in your own words, "intellectually dishonest." I think my primary struggle with your analysis came down to the fact that you slammed him for being theoretical, when the whole point of the post was to suggest how it is possible, from a conservative perspective, to believe that MH could potentially govern as a President in a fashion that is different from how he governed at the state level.

In the end, the bulk of your argument came down to repeatly citing the fact that he has raised taxes to support his social causes. My buddy wouldn't dispute any of that. His argument is rooted in a constructionist belief that a state is empowered (and perhaps even encouraged) to govern in a particular fashion that the Federal government itself is not. So repeatedly citing Huckabee's record doesn't get at the issue.

Moreover, in your post, you write:

If MH is pro government expansion/entitlements for his social causes at a state level, then he will be included to sign such tripe in a federal office as well. I just can’t see how anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty can believe otherwise. It's as if to say that a fox will change it's nature (and not eat the farmer's livestock) if the fox is somehow given a new job title; reality suggests that the nature of the fox will remain a fox.

In writing this, you completely ignore his point about Reagan having governed in one fashion (e.g raising taxes) in CA, while governing in another fashion (e.g. lowering taxes) at the Federal level. So in the end, I found your analysis to be far more "theoretical," while ignoring the very real historical example that he gave to support his position.

In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter if we agree. And please hear me when I say, once again, that this is not a personal issue. You and Matt typically label yourselves as far-right conservatives, and I was merely interested in why conservatives have written MH off as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

P.S. Apart from this one sticking point, however, I thought the rest of your post was solid. I too find it hard to say "I didn't know" in age of information. And I too think that he ultimately brings this down to the "stink-test" as you so aptly put it.

It’s been busy as of late, but I’ve got 5 articles currently in review. And that is an impressive feat, to say the least. If this school doesn’t’ give me tenure, I think I’ll be OK with that; I wouldn’t want to be here anyway.

Now that I’m taking a breather, I’ll look at this MH argument and assess it for it’s quality.

In the first paragraph, the author makes the argument that the nature of the office will overshadow the values of the person in it. And I still don’t know how to respond. The alcoholic will often change jobs or even move to new cities to try to flee from their problems. However, since they (themselves) are the problems, their location or position in life is entirely moot. I can’t see how the author’s argument is all that different. If MH is pro government expansion/entitlements for his social causes at a state level, then he will be included to sign such tripe in a federal office as well. I just can’t see how anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty can believe otherwise. It's as if to say that a fox will change it's nature (and not eat the farmer's livestock) if the fox is somehow given a new job title; reality suggests that the nature of the fox will remain a fox. Further, the author espouses conservative ideas in theory, but there’s no way that they can be applied to MH, given his well-documented record of governmental expansionism and entitlements (which I have documented in a previous post).

The second paragraph is an ivory tower argument. (And as a member of such tower, I can smell my own.) Citing theoretical dynamics is quaint, and great for intellectual masturbation—but ultimately fails the vast majority of the time. (Only to be “fixed” with another layer of “fixes”.) Yes—in theory, the federal government should only be responsible for a select few responsibilities, but liberalism is increasing its entitlements as a means of expanding their voting base. MH has a history and reputation of government expansionism and entitlements. To deny this correlation is intellectually dishonest.

The third paragraph cites that since the author hasn’t heard about any of MH’s expansionistic behaviors, they are moot. I guess since I haven’t heard about an influenza outbreak at my church or workplace, I've got nothing to worry about...

The final paragraph seems to be the stink test. (i.e., which candidate stinks the least?) This one has a bit of merit in that its, at least, founded in realism. However, why face reality now?--when the past 3 paragraphs are theoretically based? In theory, why can’t the conservative movement produce a decent candidate? I want someone I can vote for, rather than candidates I will vote against.

The funny thing is that ALL the candidates, on both sides of the isle, are fatally flawed. BO is the essence of vapid inexperience. Billary is billary. McCain fingers conservatism and republicans for decades, only now to cite his “Reagonism”. MH has great one-liners, but fails to demonstrate that he understands the principles of fiscal conservatism. The mormon had issues of his own, which I cant begin to account for either. It’s just one big disappointment—which gives me a sense of freedom, because it’s crap no matter how it turns out.

To me, the interesting question is the VP. If BO is nominated, who’s the VP? It won’t be Billary, as she would likely knock off the sitting president in a matter of months. (Vince Foster, anyone?) McCain—heck, that would probably be Liberman. Billary would likely choose Richardson for the Hispanic vote.

And I shall digress…

I'll make some time to think and respond to this position a little later this weekend. In the meantime, I have a few quick comments:

I have not heard any specifics regarding the taxes Huckabee raised, nor have I heard any specifics regarding other taxes he may have lowered while raising some.

Is this the same as someone plugging their ears with their pinky fingers and saying "La La La La La La"? In the age of instant data acquisition (i.e., the interwebs), citing lack-of-knowledge seems to be a symptom of purposeful denial rather than a legitimate response to valid concerns.

So please allow me to educate, at least a little, on his fiscal values, immigration values, and other such stuff...

I dropped a note to my friend regarding Huckabee, and rather than try to recreate his argument, I have copied his reply below. What do you think?

It is not that he will suddenly govern differently because of a different belief system, but the office itself is Constitutionally different (Gov. to Pres.) There are powers properly delegated to the state that are not delegated to the federal government. For example, as a constitutional strict constructionist I don't believe there is any ability for the fed. govnt to pass a law providing for federal unemployment benefits, but any state wishing to pass such a bill would be well within their constitutional right to do so. Therefore, I believe that there should be limited, robust government at the state level, but purely limited government at the federal level.

Such a governmental dynamic should, in theory, result in a higher tax burned at the state level rather than the federal level. Without respect to what the federal government is or is not doing a govn const. obligation both federal and state is to ensure the financial viability of the state and the programs deemed worthy of funding.

I have not heard any specifics regarding the taxes Huckabee raised, nor have I heard any specifics regarding other taxes he may have lowered while raising some. Simply because a governor raises taxes does not mean they are not fiscally conservative. It depends upon the context. What was happening in the state at the time? FYI Ronald Reagan the standard barer for conservatism raised a number of taxes in California as governor yet pushed through two tax reductions while in office as President. I would agree there is no "revenue" problem for which any tax should be raised at the federal level. At the federal level a number of things need elimination and taxes could easily be lowered dramatically while paying off the debt. However, I cannot necessarily say the same for each individual state; I simply don't know. And I have yet to hear M.H. critics explain their criticism.

Moreover, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate for President, until I run. So in the meantime I will choose the lest offensive. McCain and Romney have serious credibility issues, yet from many things I have heard about M.H. as Gov. leads me to believe he has a high level of integrity and credibility. That goes a long way with me even if I don't agree with you on all the issues.

So I read Greg's comment regarding my Huckabee post and I wanted to push the issue just a bit further. I'm not saying that I "buy it." I'm simply saying that I have heard various conservatives make the argument that much of Huckabee's fiscal policy was motivated by his belief in what a Governor should do -- not what a President of a Federalist nation should do. Perhaps an example from "my world" would help illustrate.

As you know, pregnancy center workers hold a strong core belief that all life (regardless of geographic location) has an innate value that ought to be protected. Now, in most circumstances, that core value is strong enough that these workers believe that they ought to take every opportunity to speak out against the horror of abortion. This might include demonstrating in picket lines, participating in "life-chains," etc.... But, if you look around, you will find very few center employees actually do these kinds of things. Why? Because they also believe that their current vocation specifically targets women seeking to make an informed decision. If a woman considering abortion were to regularly see a center employee picketing, shouting on the news, etc..., the woman in question is not likely to have a favorable response to the worker when the time comes for counseling. So, consequently, many center employees actively choose to not participate in a manner that they normally would because such participation might (or might not) impact their ability to function in a different arena that deals with the same core value.

So again I ask: is it possible that Huckabee's values caused him to act as a Governor in a fashion that would be different if he were President? And like I said, I'm not sure I "but it," I've just heard a two very conservative, very politically astute friends make this argument.

Lastly, for whatever it is worth, I never would have considered picket lines etc... My own suspicion is that often people become caricatures of themselves as they participate in these things; and rather than contributing to the solution, they add to the already-shrill nature of society (thus limiting their ability to impact it in a positive way). No offense to any who have participated in such things because I do believe there are good people involved in such events. I just believe that the overall impact is ineffective and perhaps even detrimental.

Gee guys, I skip reading for 24 hours and you all have written a novel on our presidential candidates. Personally, I'm voting for Perot.
Greg asked how we (or me) was adapting to the new parenting role earlier this week. I'm not sure I *have* adapted. I feel like I'm always running at 100%, I'm missing out on sleep even though Beth is the one who gets up with him for feedings during the weekdays, and I can't always figure out why he's crying. When it's time to feed him does he want 2 sips, 1 oz? 5 oz? Who knows? I sure don't. Most of the time Beth and I are so tired that we're basically slap happy. Between doing homework and watching Josh just stare at me in that 'wide-eyed wonder' way he does, I'd rather have the staring contest.
Anyway, I haven't read the paper, read the news, or watched the news in...who knows how long. So, not sure I can say I've adapted yet. I get more presidential info from you guys than anywhere else - how's that for scary. :)
And while I may not have adapted, I'm certainly being trained. I know the cry I'm hearing right now is the "You put me down?!? Why?!?" It is time for me to retrieve the snuggly so that I may hold him and continue being productive. I'm sure Josh will be interested to hear the last chapter on WiFi hacking I need to read.

-Tim

And what about Huckabee? My sense is that McCain is attracting one type of Republican while Huckabee and Romney have been splitting another type. Any chance Huckabee begins to surge with Romney supporters moving his way.

I know that you guys have labeled Huckabee a liberal, but a case can be made that the role of a state governor is functionally different than the role of a President who heads a federalist nation. Perhaps -- just perhaps -- Huckabee might not be as tax-happy as a President as he was as a governor. This is just a thought. What do you think?

So ... now that Romney is out of the race, its down to McCain and Huckabee. Ann Coulter swears that if the race comes down to McCain/Clinton, she's voting for Clinton because Clinton is more conservative. How about guys? Any Clinton takers?

Hey Friends,

Wanted to take a few moments to address Greg's response to my question regarding McCain-Feingold. But before I do, I wanted to say thanks. This is one of those bills that I find to be "intriguing." As I said in a previous post, I think it was a well-intentioned effort to stem corporate lobbying that is slowly killing the system, but in the end it may have created more problems than solutions. Nevertheless, I appreciate the response. Additionally, I wanted to comment on something you (Greg) said because I think there is a flaw in the argument.

The problem in which MF was supposedly addressing was the corruption on politics. And that's precisely the problem. Corruption can't be regulated; corruption is a reflection of one's spirit.

Now certainly, I am not an expert on the subject of politics, but if I read my US history correctly, the central thesis behind democratic government is that corruption CAN be regulated. Consider the three branches of government. Each is intentionally limited in its scope and power and it is hindered from taking absolute power by the checks and balances of the other two arms. Implicit in this structure is a belief that man is corruptible and thus should not be allowed access to unlimited power. So while I agree that corruption is a reflection of one's spirit, the whole system of democracy is designed to inhibit the level of corruption that any one individual is able to achieve. In a lot of ways, democracy is the politically-realized recognition of Augustine's/Calvin's doctrine of total depravity.

Given this understanding of democracy, I actually believe that one of the primary purposes of government is the restriction of cultural evil (e.g. abortion), which in turn provides an environment that is maximally suited to the presentation of the Gospel.

Thoughts?

Haggard prematurely leaves rehab, New Life Church says.

Post Update: There's a client here who is in his late 40s and deaf. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the guy, yet he continues to come for treatment. The kicker is that his lack of personal and emotional development (i.e., adult self-sufficiency) lies wholly in the hands of his family--that even today, continue to treat him like a child.

So every Tue / Thur, he comes and searches me out. (I'm one of the few that can sign, and actually hold a conversation. His own family can't even sign--or chooses not to learn, more accurately stated.) And it's really tough--because I'm busy; now more than ever. And I feel like I don't have :30 to :45 minutes to piss away twice weekly. (Once he sees me, he just won't leave.) Yet, when I look at the big picture--this guy's life has been robbed by an ignorant and selfish family. He's a late 40-something child. So maybe I need to donate my time to him accordingly--as immediately frustrating as that is. I can't change the course of his life, but maybe I can help increase his quality of life. Or at least, that's what I tell myself anyway.

It's hard to hide your disdain toward the willfully ignorant and selfish.

Ok--rebuttal time. First off--Matt. "You don't turn down offers of freedom in favor of daily beatings of the course of years without principles of some sort." I'm not sure how this one got out, because (at least to me) it reads like a straw-man argument (at least to some extent). McCain does not show consistent political principles. I don't know how else to say it. And reviewing his senate history is the best evidence of it. People believe what they believe--and that's fine. I don't care. But their beliefs are consistent and linear, thereby driving consistent rhetoric and behavior. McCain has none of these qualities; ipso facto, he is politically unprincipled.* (*qualification: his principles are not driven by ideology, but rather some other inconsistent or self-serving force.) And for that matter, McCain is going the way of John Kerry--who, by the way, served in Vietnam. Any question of McCain's behavior or stance seems to be interpreted as a massive personal attack which somehow invariably includes his wartime service. So what? Who cares? Reagan served during wartime, Bush I served during wartime, Dole served during wartime. For these elder statesmen, it was a non-issue. McCain seems to be using it as a crutch or deflection from the issues at hand.

Now let's move on to Scott. "I'd actually be interested to hear what you think about McCain-Feingold." The problem in which MF was supposedly addressing was the corruption on politics. And that's precisely the problem. Corruption can't be regulated; corruption is a reflection of one's spirit. Secondly--money is like water. If the corrupt want to find it, it (money) will find them. And MF is a perfect example; the creation of all the 521s, along with the goofy rules relative to getting out one's one message has essentially turned the MF act into the incumbent job security act (in that it gives incumbents, who have better access to the media, an unfair advantage.) Let's go on... donating to a political candidacy is an act of free speech--or at least it is in my book. And the extent in which I donate is likewise, free speech. It's my choice and my business to whom I donate and how much I donate. Or at least, it used to be--before the government told me how much I could contribute.

So let's recap. The problem was corruption. And the cause of the corruption (per McCain) was the money. (As opposed to one's moral character.) So in order to fix this corruption, they limited the extent in which I can support my candidate who in term can support my interests. Does anyone else see how this is so painfully wrong?

In reality, MF only increased the money in politics--as there are more loopholes now than there were before. (521s being only one such example) Candidates, especially up-start candidates, are limited in how and when they publicize their message before election time. The government now tells me how much I can give. And the problem (i.e., political corruption) remains. If the candidates really wanted to clean up the system, they would remove all rules and regulations relative to political donations--except for 1. And the one remaining rule would be---every single donation is public record. From whom, to whom, and for how much. The money trail from it's origination to termination is 100% public knowledge. (And even this will not solve all problems--but I see it as the best possible alternative.)

But what annoys me the most out of this debacle is the entire premise. The premise is that government legislation can change behavior and values. That, somehow, the government can save us from ourselves. And it's hard to think of a larger myth, sans the tried and tested myths that satan continues to use on humanity.

My second biggest annoyance is the liberal recognition that MF only made matters worse--but they overlook the gross policy failure by suggesting that "we tried". "We had good intentions." Sorry. Don't care. Change for the sake of change (as stated in a previous post) is dumb. One's worth as a politician should not be measured by intentions, but rather measurable results in the reduction of governmental involvement of personal freedom and liberty.

You ever notice how politicians extole the virtues of "change," but little is said as to what this "change" will look like. Oh, certainly, vague assurances are made and broad sketches are proposed. But the crux of the message is: change for the sake of change is good. And I find myself wondering how people got this notion stuck in their head.

Changing a bad situation just for the sake of changing it may not make it a better situation. In fact, said change could actually worsen the situation (thus creating the perfect context for the next candidate to suggest that he/she is the one for "change"). Bush was asked about this the other night and he actually made a very funny joke. He said something to the effect that if he was running this year against the record of his own administration, he'd be arguing for "change" too.

So anyway, I'm listening to Obama's speech last night and the only thing he really said was "change." And this guy is supposed to be the next great orator. I don't get it. Certainly, he's less stiff than the other candidates, but his talks lack any real substance.

I too am interested to hear what you have to say after last night. By "you," of course, I mean Greg and Tim. After all, Matt, why would I want to hear what you have to say? :-)

Seriously though, I am honestly curious as to why you guys dislike McCain so much. Is it the McCain-Feingold bill? Or is the McCain-Kennedy bill? Or is it just a dislike of his willingness to work with Democrats in general?

Wicked busy at work. Just popped in to say...

I live in a town divided: Newton, MA. Our results last night:

McCain: 2,345
Romney: 2,356

and

Clinton: 12,084
Obama: 12,101

That's all I have for now. Greg, your take on yesterday's results?

You guys think that terrorists are taking out the undersea (data) cables over in the Med?

So what was your favorite Superbowl commercial?
Mine was the Doritos Mouse Trap.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

I can't think of a more frightening thing that a politician of her stature has said outright. Your money really isn't your money. Why? Because it's the government's money. Why is it the government's money? Because you (we) are too stupid to know what to do with it. Our intelligence and our values are inadequate. But the government, which is apparently infallible, obviously knows better than I do about what's right for me. So they (the government) will take what is ours, because they know what is better for us (and we cannot care for ourselves).

A few quick things...

This Audible service is the real deal. Last month, I "read" Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance; this month, it's Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! It has been a real enjoyment on all accounts--with the exception that the large file sizes aren't too conducive to the iPod Shuffle.

Secondly--I was talking with a dept. secretary and some students yesterday, and the girls were giving me a hard time because I didn't know the exact date of Valentine's day. Recognizing that the girls were right, and that life is only going to get more complicated with an additional child and job... I finally did it. I finally bit the bullet and signed up for the service of all services...

Finally--I thought I had seen it all. I thought I knew the extent in which the nanny state could invade personal liberties. I was wrong. And in my own state, no less.

Update--I know this has been previously covered--but Scott, you really need to check out PandoraJam. Matt and Tim need to buy a Mac.

Sorry--heavy news day. Ok--that's it. I *have* seen it all...