Here is Dave Ramsey's suggested plan re: the banking bailout. (PDF format)

It's interesting, and it makes sense.

I have no idea if this kind of thing interests you guys at all, but let me take a second of your time and introduce you to Andrew J. May, the former democrat congressman from Kentucky.

His political career is best known for what is called "The May Incident", where he divulged classified (WWII) military secrets to the public (and thus the enemy) during a press-conference.

The short version is that our WWII sub operation wasn't (initially) all that successful, all things considered. (Non-aggressive skippers, torpedoes that weren't worth a d*mn, etc.) But the one advantage that we did have is that our subs could dive much deeper than the enemy thought possible. As a result, the enemy's depth charges were set significantly shallower than needed to inflict any damage on our subs. So when our subs shot off their dud torpedoes at enemy ships, they could dive deep and have a pretty good chance at surviving a depth charge attack.

Until Andrew J. May held a press conference publicizing this reality. As a result, the japanese reset their depth charges. Conservatively estimated, Andrew J May's bravado to divulge military secrets directly resulted in a loss of at least 10 boats and approximately 800 of our sailors.

He was also involved in some dirty war profiteering. I guess it just goes to show that stupid (democrat) congressman, especially relative to the military and national defense, is not a new phenomenon.

Hey Matt--off topic, but interesting.

Did you know that they're using Fractal modeling to try and better understand respiratory physiology? (the pattern of bronchiole bifrication, to be more precise.) It's all about increasing surface area while reducing friction.

God is in the math...

P.S. I have become such a nerd. Here are some notes that I was writing *for*myself*. (Realization of stupid-nerdy-self is highlighted in red.)

vi. Pleural Linkage

1. Lungs are covered with visceral pleura
2. Thorax is lined with parietal pleura.
3. These two smooth layers have fluid in-between, thus creating a (functional) molecular attraction or bond.

a. As a result, the Lungs and Thorax functionally act as one.
b. Two opposing forces—finding an equilibrium point of rest at REL

i. A détente, if you will.

Something that's really begun to disturb me during my fleeting quiet moments is how our democratic republic is fatally flawed. There is a bigger emphasis being placed on re-election (in the form of entitlements) as opposed to doing the "right" (i.e., tough love) thing.

Why is it that pretty much every other major car manufacturers have profitable factories in the states, except American automakers. And Congress has just agreed to lend them 50 billion. (Auto unions anyone?) Why is it that more money is being pumped into our failed public schools? (Teachers union anyone?) Why are we rewarding failure with increased subsidies?

And this most recent bank issue is another example. Government involvement encouraging sub-prime mortagages is just downright stupid. Let's help the poor (and minorities) by slipping a noose around their neck? Sorry--if minorities aren't well "represented" in your data, that's not discrimination--that's one of Enlow's laws.

And the dirty secret is that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 created the 'From mark to market' policy, which actually puts the government in a position to make a crap ton (dare I say, "windfall") off of this "bail-out". We're buying risk at a signfiicantly under-valued price--largely due to the media hype which those in the government are at least partiall to blame.

But this goes back to my original point. Assuming the government makes a crapton "windfall" off of this deal, it will likely go towards government expansion, as opposed to buying down our debt. Explansion to buy votes and stay in office, as opposed to doing the right thing--increasing our national security and securing our way of life for the future by living debt-free.

Sorry, nobody cares. I'm a politician, I'm in it for me, Screw the future. (So sayeth even the republicans who ran on term limits, and ultimately opposed them.)

Why Rep. Jeb Hensarling will be voting "No" on the latest version of the Paulson plan:

In my heart and in my mind, I believe that this plan is fraught with unintended consequences, would force generations of taxpayers to pick up the tab for Wall Street losses, and could permanently and fundamentally change the role of government in the American free enterprise system. Once the government socializes losses, it will soon socialize profits. If we lose our ability to fail, we will soon lose our ability to succeed. If we bail out risky behavior, we will soon see even riskier behavior.

I don't know if we can afford the time he asks for, but those words really resonate with this conservative.

Maybe the best way to put it is this. In the past, I used to think that I could control my circumstances. Now, I honestly believe that most circumstances are entirely beyond me, and all that is left is my ability to control my response to these often chaotic circumstances.

I had come to this very same conclusion back when I was dealing w/ all my PhD issues--of which I still find myself a more-or-less insomniac ever since those days.

The funny thing is how easily people can change. After a year or two at Gallaudet, life become much more stable--and I lost this perspective. Right up until our house deal (MD / MS) began falling apart. (Something that wouldn't have--and shouldn't have--happened, had I been following Dave Ramsey.)

And to a certain extent, I find myself not-that-far from where I was, as I'm facing tenure in a relatively unstable department. (The crazy ex-chair is the only tenured person, and it's widely accepted that she's out to get me.)

The thing that I've found--however--is that living in this state of mind is actually easier. Or at least, it feels easier to me. It is the great reprioritizer. It clarifies and focuses one's perspective onto a better facsimile of reality and (true) meaning.

Hey--if you guys watch the debate tonight, you'll be seeing my university and my new hometown. Turn it on, if you get a chance...

Today's been a busy posting day, and I'll take a look at all the entries as soon as time allows...

But check this out: Even a Lib pollster has written that this will be a 1980 repeat--a referendum against Carter/the-savior. (Note: usage of the term "savior" is w/ a little "s", and only reflects the published and frequently used terminology of liberals referring to their candidate.)

Jeez, what's gotten into me lately? Weeks of silence, then a flurry of activity!

Anyway, I just thought of another Enlow's Law. This one's in three parts.

i) To believe (or have a belief in) something means that you believe it to be true.

ii) The categorization of some beliefs as "religious" is a distinction without a difference.

iii) Everyone has beliefs, and wishes to "force" those beliefs on others.

Comments?

We've talked about how crappy national political debates are. Here's an attempt at improving them. What think ye?

I think it's a nice idea in theory--and sticking it to the media is a nice plus--but... have you visited the comments section of a politically-oriented blog recently? Do I really want "the people" deciding which questions are good ones? (Does that make me elitist?) Also, "online polls", in my opinion, are unreliable junk.

Time for a good old fashioned thread jack here.

Have any of you reached the age where you suddenly find the whole notion of "control" to be an empty illusion? Over this past year, we have faced ....

1. My dad's deteriorating health.
2. My newly arrived nephews renal issues.
3. My own health forcing me to come home.
4. My oldest brother being laid off at 27 years by the publicly owned firm that he once owned as a private partner.
5. My niece having a seizure of such magnitude that she ceased breathing.

And on and on and on ...

It's funny, for 14 years I chose to work in fields where people were regularly suffering all sorts of tragic circumstances. And every night, when I came home, I was able to push all that stuff out to arm's length, and I created a bubble of safety. But the thing is, that bubble never really existed. And I never really had control.

Maybe the best way to put it is this. In the past, I used to think that I could control my circumstances. Now, I honestly believe that most circumstances are entirely beyond me, and all that is left is my ability to control my response to these often chaotic circumstances.

Suggested Enlow Law #3:

Other people, or social / government entities cannot solve your problems. Only you can solve your own problems.

In many discussions about political and social issues that I've been privy to over the last, oh, few years or so, there's one fallacy that seems to be made over and over and over again, and it's really starting to drive me crazy. (Yes, I know, I'm probably close enough to walk.)

Let's call it Enlow's First Law. I want to shout it from the rooftops.

Equal opportunity does not guarantee, and thus should not be measured by, equal outcomes.

Beautiful in its simplicity, don't you think? (It also helps that it's, well, true.)

Case Study: Feminism

There's a Social Studies (a.k.a. History) teacher here who fits most people's definition of a feminist. She is quite liberal, and quite vocal about it. She took a sabbatical last year to work for NOW. Anyway, there is a bulletin board outside her classroom promoting something called E.N.G.A.G.E., which stands for--something, I forget what. But one of the pieces of paper on that bulletin board asks, "What is a feminist?" Finally today I had some time (and the hall was empty) to actually read it. It went to great lengths to talk about the different definitions there've been over the years, and how diverse a group "feminists" are, and at the end it summed it up that basically (and I'm paraphrasing here) a feminist is someone who believes in equal opportunity for women.

See, that I can get behind. But many of today's feminists--usually of the liberal variety--set about measuring "progress" in that department by how close to 50% the percentage of female __________s (computer scientists, lawyers, MD's, tenured professors, etc.) is. Which, as Enlow's First Law tells us, is bogus.

I am NOT saying that women DO have equal opportunity in all areas of life, ONLY that this is not a way to measure it.

A very close cousin to Enlow's First Law--and much better known--is that

Correlation does not imply causation.

... which I only bring up because I've been thinking about it, in relation to...

Case Study: The Mortgage Crisis

I've been trying to wrap my head around this whole financial poop-pile we seem to find ourselves in these days, to little avail. The explanations that make sense to me are, I'm sure, the most over-simplified. However, I will still relate one.

Somewhere along the line, the measure by which people were judged as credit-worthy grew beyond simply "What are your assets and how's your credit?" Studies were done that showed that minorities were being denied home loans at a greater percentage than whites. Well, it must be racism! Couldn't possibly be objective credit-worthiness! So not wanting to be seen as racist, banks would be a little more "flexible" with who they approved loans for, and lo and behold, more people were unable to make their payments. Thus, foreclosure-mania, etc.

There. That's all I really wanted to say. Just had to get it out!

Greg,

Am I a bad friend? Did you tell me sometime in the past year that you co-hosted a podcast? I mean, I had to resort to Google, but I found you!

Anyway, it's great to hear your voice, and to hear you talk about this stuff. It's quite interesting.

And you need items in your CafePress store for non-stutterers, maybe that say something like "I love someone who stutters!" (Or even better, "Someone who stutters loves me!")

Hey Guys,

I've been waiting and trying to find time to watch this Andrew Klavan interview--and today, I finally found the time. I'm not sure how to respond. I'm 100% entirely underwhelmed, and I'm trying to figure out why.

Recently, I had a friend/acquaintance (a person who stutters, gay, successful writer, flaming liberal) guy tell me that my podcast analysis of Joe Biden (relative to his impact on the stuttering population) was both "subtle and nuanced". Hillarious. What a liberal compliment. (And as an aside, the podcast's beginning to get pretty big. We average around 5k unique downloads a week.)

In any event, am I not subtle or nuanced enough to appreciate the interivew? Or was this new material to others? Or perhaps not new material per-se, but something that created and stimulated new thought in others?

Stated differently--what (content) makes this interview great? I'm trying to "get it". I want to "get it". I'm just not getting it.

You guys ought to check out the interview that National Review did with author Andrew Klavan. It's in five parts, and it's available here. It's always interesting the perspectives that former non-believers and liberals bring to Christianity and conservatism.

"Hey Matt--do you think the VEEP pick is really that important?" -- Greg, 8/28/08

Based on the last couple of weeks, I'm going to go ahead and say... yes. :-)

Did you guys read (his most merciful's) response to Sarah Palin's comment of: "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick" ?

His response.... 'You Can Put Lipstick on a Pig, But It's Still a Pig'

I mean--Can you imagine having such a tactless, insecure commander in chief? Further--this is *exactly* why he's going to lose (and lose big). You can't make school-yard catty comments like this and still be liked. He's not acting presidential; he's acting like a spoiled rotten little punk brat.

Update: The McCain camp responds. From a (politics as a sport) perspective, his most merciful is getting embarrassed and shamed up and down the playing field. It's like amateur hour...

It's always interesting to me how I gain additional perspective w/ maturity. Perfect example can be found in 1 Samuel 1. (1 & 2, I guess). I've known the passage since childhood, and I got what Hannah was talking about, yada yada yada. But I never appreciated the follow-through. What are the chances that I would let one of my kids be raised by an emotionally insensitive judge and his two punk sons? Very little. None.

Yet, she still did it. And it's making me reassess myself as a parent, as well as my faith.

This one made me laugh out loud: Is Oprah Biased? Host Won't Interview Palin. (Spoiler: She says that it was never discussed. *coughs something profane* Admits that she'd be a great guests. Says she'll have her on afterwords...)

It's just so funny. The libs can't stand not having their people as "First". Clarence Thomas, etc...

Ha! This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.

Just delicious.

For a non-political post, Sex Without a Condom is the new Engagement Ring.

You see, your most merciful, this is what happens when you paint yourself in a corner. (Not only that, but the corner in which you are painted is hoping for an American defeat.)

Now...What did we learn?

Hey guys--you think the day will come when people will look at the DNA of their future/potential spouses, and see if they have a genetic predisposition towards infidelity?

P.S. Twice as many (American) deaths in Chicago than in Iraq this summer. Scott--you're raisin' your kids in a war-zone, bro...

See--genetics can take reduce personal accountability and responsibility.

And while I'm here--the DNC is getting desperate.

Scott--just watched a few minutes of the speeches. Dang do I ever wish FT would have made it. He was *so* our best candidate. SP is a great speaker, and she's going to get the job done (at least politically). But FT was the most articulate, likable, persuasive person that the RNC had. I just don't know if he'll be around that much in the future.

If you guys haven't paid attention, the new gov of La (an Indian-American) is looking good. He'll be a player in years to come.

One much more personal reason I want to see McCain/Palin win in November...

At my school there is SO much talk about strong women, women in leadership positions, women role models, etc., that they will be FORCED to celebrate--not just acknowledge, but celebrate--the first female vice president, even though they'll all be thinking, "well, we didn't mean a pro-life woman..."

It would bring me great joy. Is that wrong?

My initial thoughts on the evening (open to reform) are as follows:

1. Bush's speech was awful. I don't know how you handle it better than McCain's camp did because you'd have a really tough time denying the sitting Pres a chance to speak. But just a blase speech that left you with the feeling that he really didn't care one way or the other as to what you as a voter did with your ballot.

2. Thompson, on the other hand, was masterful. He honestly had me choked up at one point when he described the other campaign as being built on hope when McCain knew more about hope than most people should ever have to know. I was honestly and pleasantly surprised by his deft touch; and I would have liked to see him close the evening because I think it would have closed on a high note.

3. So that brings me to Lieberman. On the hand, I think allowing Lieberman to speak was actually a master stroke. If you want to talk about change, how about bringing on a woman as your VP and then having the guy who ran with Al Gore eight years ago address your convention. In the game of perceptions, that is some pretty blatant change. On the other hand, Lieberman plays to McCains rep as an outsider who is not afraid to ruffle the feathers of his party - not a bad message for independent voters, but campaigns are typically won or lost based on one's relative success in turning out the base. As much as we love to talk about the hallowed Independent in this country, an electrified base will win far more elections than a tepid base with a bunch of often-ideologically unsound Independents tacked on. So I'm not sure what to think of Lieberman.

In the end, I think they needed one more strong Rep. voice to really pull it off. Then you go with the obligatory Presidential endorsement, follow that with this strong Rep. voice, follow that with a Lieberman, and than close with Thompson.

How about you guys? What did you think of evening? What about Lieberman? Good move? Bad move? What do you think?

Hey Matt: Elephants show flair for arithmetic. I'd like to read the methodology, because I bet that (somehow) the research design is biasing (and therefore confounding) the results.

In other news...

Nancy Pelosi visits Hiroshima atomic bomb memorial.

I'm speechless. I don't even know what to write. She's just gotten herself in the league of Jane Fonda.

For those of you who may not enjoy the benefits of working in an all-chic office, I just had a chic-co-worker storm into my office and slam the door. She then accused me of "being mean" to her for the past month. (No--I had no idea.) Tears were shed. I just apologized like a dumb bunny, hoping that she'd take her rampant hormones elsewhere.

Sorry hobette hotties; don't mean to offend. Just reporting the facts.

Is it me, or is his most merciful Obama not understand how to run a political campaign? He's now taking public shots at McCain's VEEP pick for being "inexperienced". And how he's got more "experience" than her.

It reminds me of a 1st grader calling another 1st grader "little", "inexperienced" or "stupid".

Any time he brings up the issue, it will be reflected onto him. Does he not see what he's doing to himself?

20/20 is doing an entire feature/segment on the child of the RNC VEEP pick. And I'm actually finding it quite disgusting.

The hysterical thing is that since one party tries to uphold a higher state of morality, and the media tries to beat them out of town if they slip up. Yet--all kinds of DNC officials are downright immoral, yet no one cares. I just get tired of it. And I'm too tired to give examples for those who may not know. Far too many to cite just off the top of my head...

Question to the Gang:

1. Knowing that your daughter was pregnant, and
2. The media would do their best to (inappropriately) dismember your daughter and your grandchild...

Would you have accepted the VEEP offer?

At first, my gut reaction was "absolutely not". My thinking was neither the child nor grandchild deserved what would be coming to them.

But after 10 minutes, I began to question myself. Why let one of your child's mistakes limit your life opportunity?

Thoughts?

Man, the twists and turns keep on coming.

I don't really care. But will this "de-electrify" the Republican base?

Hey Greg,

Just wanted to check in to see how you guys were holding up down there.

So Obama says that Palin is "against equal pay for equal work", which I'm sure is bogus and dishonest as stated, but I've been trying to find ANY kind of statement or record from Palin that could be mangled to mean what Obama said, and I'm at a loss.

Anyone know any more about this?

Looking at that article again, it looks like it might have something to do with something called the "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act", which I will now have to look up.