Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Please post the address of your blog and a short description and I will try to post it Jan. 2.
Take the opportunity now as hostilities will recommence shortly thereafter.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has threatened to refuse to seat Burris. Now whatever your view of Blagojevich or Burris, there is one thing that we know without a doubt: the Constitution leaves it up to the states. Reid has no business telling Illinois what to do. Blagojevich is still governor (even though most of the rest of us wish he weren't), and has perfect right to make the appointment.
Whether Burris serves as Senator from Illinois is a matter for the people of Illinois to decide, not the U. S. Senate. Reid and the rest of the Senate need to keep their greedy hands off of Illinois's Senate seat.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Unfortunately news about this latest environmental travesty is seeping out a lot slower than the coal ash in Tennessee.
Before the Great Depression, it was not considered to be the business of the federal government to try to get the economy out of a depression. But the Smoot-Hawley tariff — designed to save American jobs by restricting imports — was one of Hoover’s interventions, followed by even bigger interventions by FDR.Read the rest here.
The rise in unemployment after the stock market crash of 1929 was a blip on the screen compared to the soaring unemployment rates reached later, after a series of government interventions.
For nearly three consecutive years, beginning in February 1932, the unemployment rate never fell below 20 percent for any month before January 1935, when it fell to 19.3 percent, according to the Vedder and Gallaway statistics.
In other words, the evidence suggests that it was not the “problem” of the financial crisis in 1929 that caused massive unemployment but politicians’ attempted “solutions.” Is that the history that we seem to be ready to repeat?
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
How times change.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Banning smoking: The permissivist people who run our educational institutions are still puritanical about some things
I'd love to see the research evidence that shows second hand smoke outdoors is a health hazard. No, this has nothing to do with health. It has to do with the university telling students how they should lead their lives, a practice it scrupulously avoids on less politically correct issues.
In a world of coed dorms, condoms in the dormitory vending machines, and taxpayer subsidies of the live-in partners of university staff, you would think the days of moral crusades were over. But, in fact, they just take another form. It all goes back to my theory that once people give up religion they create their own secular forms of it.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Not new? Neither is anti-gay violence, but don't expect Kincaid to be defending it any time soon.
And acceptable? I wonder what Kinkaid would say if opponents of same-sex marriage began boycotting businesses who have gay employees with the obvious intent of getting them fired?
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Bankruptcy would strengthen rather than weaken the competitive position of the American automakers, especially when combined with government debtor-in-possessor financing. The bankruptcy proceedings would likely break the union contracts and reduce their pay to levels comparable to those received by American employees of foreign car manufacturers. They would also break the contracts for health payments and pension obligations, which have been significant factors in causing their financial distress. Bankruptcy would also help the companies restructure their debt so that interest payments are much lower.Read the rest here.
Since when do news organizations write stories based on facts that might be? Can you imagine a conservative organization getting earned media for saying what it thinks might turn up in a report it is releasing next year?
Meanwhile, check out the same group's 2007 report on the real problem regarding violence against gays: "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Domestic Violence in the United States in 2007." In this case, we have actual numbers: 3,319 reported incidents.
That's 3,319 incidents vs. ... two. And which does the media report?
Maybe I can send out a press release saying there might be rise in the incidents of hate speech by gay rights groups directed at conservatives and promise a report next year.
Wonder how much coverage that would get.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
In preparation for John Milton’s birthday this week (today, Dec. 9), I have been reading Paradise Lost in the terrifically well-annotated Cambridge University Press paperback edition. Reading? Well, I’ve been … looking into it.Really.
"Ever wondered what a UAW contract looks like? Here is all 22 pounds of it (in this case, Ford’s 2,215 page 2007 master contract; Coke can is for scale and because I was thirsty).
"I’ll tell you this much, those 2,215 pages don’t include much regarding efficiency and competitiveness. What you’ll find are hundreds of rules, regulations, and letters of understanding that have hamstrung the auto companies for years."
For actual links to UAW contracts for each of the car companies, click here.
There is some truth to this. I was talking with a banker the other day who pointed out that although his back had plenty of cash on hand because of its own conservative business practices, but that other banks in his region had over 100 percent of their money out in loans. They were therefore having to borrow money at the now very steep interbank rate.
And, of course, they deserve it.
But at the same time, Brian Love at Reuters remarks:
The credit crunch is not nearly as severe as the U.S. authorities
appear to believe and public data actually suggest world credit markets
are functioning remarkably well, a report released on Thursday says.
As a result, governments are pumping masses of public money into the
economy across the world because of the difficulties of a few big,
vocal banks and industries such as car manufacturing, which would be in
difficulty anyway, according to the report published by Celent, a
financial services consultancy.
HT: Jeffrey Tucker at Mises Economics Blog.
Think of General Motors as the metaphor of the Keynesian economy in one
company -- massive simultaneous spending on unsustainable capital
investment and unsustainable consumer consumption. Or as Bloomberg
reporters Doron Levin and John Helyar describe it, "burning the furniture in order to stay warm."
Look, I think Jindal is the best thing going for the GOP. He's young, smart, attractive, and a person of color. But Tucker is just plain naive on several counts:
- To take yourself out of the running four years before an election means practically nothing. If circumstances change, Jindal could easily change his mind. In four years, people are going to have completely forgotten what Jindal said in 2008.
- For Jindal to take himself out of the running now is a politically smart thing to do. There is virtually no downside to it for him. If Obama is popular in four years, Jindal keeps his powder dry and goes for the open seat in 2016 (I can't believe I'm talking about what could happen in 2016!). If Obama is unpopular, Jindal is still there, all that much more attractive as a candidate because he is apparently unavailable. In politics, being unavailable makes you all that more attractive.
- My prediction (I feel the prophetic spirit coming upon me once again) is that Obama is very popular in 2012. One way or another, the Iraq situation is likely to be resolved, and the economy is bound to be better than it is now--and Obama will claim credit for it. That's the advantage of coming into office during an unpopular war and a bad economy: the baseline is so low, how can you fail?
As a number of athletic departments prepare to cut some men's teams to trim budgets, NCAA president Myles Brand has put out a call for schools to leave Title IX out of it. He has pre-emptively asked schools with shrinking athletic programs to blame the economic downturn for their problems—and not the federal law that bans sex discrimination at schools and requires institutions to maintain a commitment to women's sports, USA Today reports.Speaking of which, where are the Republican voices calling for the repeal of this ridiculous federal rule? Where's my telescope?
Friday, December 12, 2008
Ready? Here goes...
The Republicans, who seem to have stopped the auto industry bailout in its tracks, will disappoint those who are now cheering them on--and who are under the mistaken impression that it has something to do with economic principle--by folding after they have received some concession from the Democrats or the UAW.
The Republicans have lost their majority in both chambers, and the best thing a party on the outs can hope for is to look relevant. If they just stop the bill, they are afraid they will simply look intransigent. But if they just hold up the whole process temporarily, exact concessions from their political opponents, and then let it through, they can avoid appearing as if they are contributing to gridlock, and declare victory because they will appear powerful and relevant.
This is how the game is played, and, unfortunately, economic principle really doesn't figure into it at all.
This prophecy not only has divine inspiration behind it (as all true prophecies must), but, to be blunt, we've seen this happen many times before.
The Prophet hath spoken.
Congress wants them to get rid of the jets so that members can tell their constituents what a talkin' to they gave those irresponsible auto executives when they cut them a multi-billion dollar check on the public dime.
Dropping the corporate jets does not benefit the companies, but it does cover Congress's own corporate backside.
Honestly, it reads like an essay tossed off by a partially-drunk, angry, sexually-confused sixteen-year-old who thinks Oprah is an intellectual giant and traditional Christianity is responsible for every ill in the world. Yet, the Newsweek blog claims that Miller "lays out the religious case for gay marriage"—in which case it appears there is no religious case for "gay marriage" other than "it's on its way, so you religious bigots need to accept it."
Thursday, December 11, 2008
In one part of the article Miller makes that argument that the Bible only condemns homosexuality in a handful of passages. Well, I'm not quite sure why that isn't enough. But Gagnon points out the numerous passages that Miller ignores, and then closes the deal by pointing out that there of plenty of things, include things even less savory than homosexuality that have even fewer explicit mention:
What of Miller’s argument based on frequency of explicit mention?You can read the rest here.
Bestiality is mentioned even less in the Bible than homosexual practice
and incest gets only comparable treatment, yet who would be so foolish
as to argue that Jews and Christians in antiquity would have regarded
sex with an animal or sex with one’s mother as inconsequential
offenses? Infrequency of mention is often an indicator that the matter
in question is foundational rather than insignificant. You don’t have
to talk a lot about something that most everyone agrees with and that
few persons, if any, violate.
Or there are some very manly shaving accoutrements, complete with badger hair shaving brush and real shaving cream, not the wimpy effeminate stuff they sell at the grocery store.
Or there is The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, by Edmund Morris, a veritable manual on manliness which tells a story of manliness that will curl the hair of those of your less manly friends who opposed Proposition 8 and support Title IX.
I carefully followed the directions of the Art of Manliness's "How to Carve a Turkey Like a Man" this last Thanksgiving and can testify that these people know what they are doing. Not only was I able to avoid dried out pieces of turkey, but was able to execute the procedure with suavité and panache, drawing admiring glances from all those present.
Sorry about the French there. That isn't very manly, I know. I'll try to stick with the more manly Anglo-Saxon from now on.
Linguistic Cleansing: British youth dictionary eliminates traditional words in the name of "multiculturalism"
Editors at the Oxford University Press cited "multiculturalism" as the reason for cleansing their Junior Dictionary of words having to do with religion, history, animals, and plants. Religious words taken out included 'altar', 'bishop', 'chapel', 'coronation', 'emperor', 'minister', 'monarch', 'monk', and 'nun'.
These traditional words have been replaced by words such as 'blog', 'chatroom', 'tolerant', 'EU', 'bungee jumping', 'committee', and, somewhat ironically, 'endangered'. The dictionary also removed numerous words related to nature.
According to the British Telegraph:
Lisa Saunders, a worried mother who has painstakingly compared entries from the junior dictionaries, aimed at children aged seven or over, dating from 1978, 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2007, said she was "horrified" by the vast number of words that have been removed, most since 2003.In Orwell's dystopian novel 1984, the editors of the "Newspeak Dictionary" sought to reduce the incidence of Thought Crimes by eliminating the words with which they could be committed. That accounts for the elimination of religious and historical words. But what are we to make of the elimination of nature words such as 'cheetah', 'colt', 'guinae pig', and 'hamster'? Or for that matter 'acorn', 'almond', 'blackberry', 'tulip', and 'violet'?
"The Christian faith still has a strong following," she said. "To eradicate so many words associated with the Christianity will have a big effect on the numerous primary schools who use it."
Ms Saunders realised words were being removed when she was helping her son with his homework and discovered that "moss" and "fern", which were in editions up until 2003, were no longer listed.
"I decide to take a closer look and compare the new version to the other editions," said the mother of four from Co Down, Northern Ireland. "I was completely horrified by the vast number of words which have been removed. We know that language moves on and we can't be fuddy-duddy about it but you don't cull hundreds of important words in order to get in a different set of ICT words."
Anthony Seldon, the master of Wellington College, a leading private school in Berkshire, said: "I am stunned that words like "saint", "buttercup", "heather" and "sycamore" have all gone and I grieve it.
Is there something about nature itself that is objectionable to the politically correct?
And then there is this quote by the very scary Vineeta Gupta, head of children's dictionaries at Oxford University Press:
"When you look back at older versions of dictionaries, there were lots of examples of flowers for instance. That was because many children lived in semi-rural environments and saw the seasons. Nowadays, the environment has changed. We are also much more multicultural. People don't go to Church as often as before. Our understanding of religion is within multiculturalism, which is why some words such as "Pentecost" or "Whitsun" would have been in 20 years ago but not now."Why is it that the rhetoric of tolerance and inclusion always seems to accompany the elimination of something?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Try finding anything built in Detroit that can do that.
HT: Bluegrass Bulletin
Principled free market Republicans, we now hand it over to you.
Oh, wait. They don't have anything like that. They just build good cars. It's the Soviet Union that did things like that.
Well, someone has come up with the ideal way you can producing a great postmodern essay of your own. It is called the "Postmodernism Generator," and is available at Communications from Elsewhere. Here is the methodology followed by the generator:
The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).I have just tried it, and produced the following specimen of modern postmodernist academic prose:
The main theme of Bailey’s critique of textual capitalism is not, in fact, deconstruction, but subdeconstruction. Thus, if capitalist socialism holds, we have to choose between the neocultural paradigm of expression and Sartreist absurdity. Lacan uses the term ‘the neostructural paradigm of reality’ to denote the paradigm, and hence the stasis, of semiotic class.I'm thinking of submitting it to an academic journal, just for fun, on the outside chance I might be able to have my own Alan Sokal moment.
“I want to support a bill that revives this industry,” he said, “but I will not support a bill that provides the patient with taxpayer dollars, yet doesn’t (include) the commitment that the patient will change its ways so that future help isn’t needed.”That statement is disturbing. While it signals possible Republican opposition to the auto industry bailout deal, it doesn't come right out and oppose a bailout.
The biggest problem with the modern Republican Party is that it spends all of its rhetorical time playing off of the existing mindset on issues rather than articulating the principles for its positions that would serve to create a coherent understanding of its political, social, and economic stance. Is McConnell's only objection to the deal really that it doesn't do enough to force the auto industry to do what the politicians want it to do?
Leave it to the Republicans to oppose the auto bailout deal because it doesn't impose enough government control of the private sector.
If the Republican Party can't oppose the auto industry bailout because it is against government bailouts on principle, then there really isn't any difference economically between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party other that the latter is enthusiastically insipid and the former is less enthusiastic about its insipidity.
A failure to oppose the bailout on principle will prove--as if it needs further proof--that the Republicans deserved to lose last month--and deserve to continue losing until they rediscover what they are about.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
In case anyone really doubted it, Newsweek magazine confirms that gay marriage advocates don't think much of marriage
Somehow, I doubt that Newsweek arguing for a low view of marriage is going to be very effective in combating the argument of religious conservatives that same-sex marriage will result in a lower view of marriage. It apparently didn't notice that it was actually proving its opponents right.
Of course, the whole assumption that the Bible has a low view of marriage will come as news to people who actually read the thing.
But the sorry state of Newsweek's actual arguments has been been well put by Christianity Today magazine:
This is astonishing, for it not only misrepresents religious conservatives, but also Jesus and Paul—all in one fell swoop.
"Have you not read," Jesus once said, "that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt. 19, ESV).
"Husbands, love your wives," Paul wrote, "as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her … husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh' " (Eph. 5).
Where, oh where is this supposed New Testament indifference to marriage? Christ deserves our primary loyalty, yes, but the New Testament never suggests an indifference to other loyalties, to family, to neighbor, to the world.
In fact, marriage is the very analog for the relationship between Christ and the Church, which makes it that much more amazing that a writer for a major news magazine could say something so utterly ridiculous. Does Newsweek really think that if two men decided they wanted to get married in first century Jerusalem, no one would have batted an eyelash?
The article is quite frankly an intellectual embarrassment and will probably redound to the discredit of case for same-sex marriage generally. But what has been just as interesting is the response to it. Christianity Today magazine, which has gotten more and more "moderate" as the years have gone by, has thrown down the gauntlet on this issue with its recent editorial and related articles.
This seems to be a sign that the mainline evangelical community is not going to lay down and play dead on this issue. For those of us who have counseled resolve in the face of what we have suspected may be ultimate defeat on this issue, this could be a sign that the tide may be turning.
This is very, very unfortunate.
I thought, well, maybe my aesthetic antennae are just all messed up. But I have recommended this movie to friends who, on my recommendation (complete with the high expectations I set for it), went and saw it too. They too say it is a fabulous movie. One of them told me it was the "Gone With the Wind" of the decade. I concur. So that's not it.
So I am slowly settling on two things: First, that the movie was not well promoted. Second, that it was not well received by the critics.
For an analysis of this second point--about the critics--you can wait for my review of this movie which will be out in a couple of days.
If you haven't gone and seen it, you will really miss out on what I think is a classic--literally.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Christofferson apparently had no problem being tolerant and diverse herself, and spent her time going from table to table happily serving customers, whatever their lifestyle. But when her donation was discovered--a donation she refused to apologize for, the Gay Tolerance Police kicked into high gear, denying everything they say they stand for.
I know what you're thinking. How can people who spend so much time preaching against hate act this way towards those with whom they disagree? Please try to suppress this politically incorrect thought, and repeat to yourself as often as necessary that it is the people who politely disagree with gays who are hateful, not gays themselves, who are giving more evidence by the day that they don't mean what they say.
It seems as if we have flattened our discussion of liberty to two dimensions, namely, what I feel like doing, because I am what is called an "individual," and what large government machines want me to do, in order to secure some ideal like equality or the End of Poverty or Peace in our Time. Gone is all notion of the community, and of those small groups -- families, fraternities, school boards, volunteer firemen, whatever -- that are essential to a fully human life, and that themselves are the means for the exercise of, and enhancement of, liberty. We don't have a notion of what I've called in these pages an Individualism of Responsibility, an individualism built upon my competence to perform the duties expected of me by my neighborhood and my community. That is, we don't have an individualism founded upon the shared expectation of virtue. If Richard Weaver was right about this, it's because we have inherited the spiritual and epistemological inversion of subjecting the intellect to the will. For it is impossible to talk about virtue without searching, with the intellect, for the Good that does not change from age to age, although our circumstances from age to age may require us, in prudence, to seek that Good under different forms and in different ways.Click here for more.
But let's cut Eblen a break here: he's just doing his job, which, for a journalist these days, seems be to look grim when when religion is mentioned in the same context as government:
I'm furious that tens of thousands of dollars of public money is likelyNow first of all, it will be news to a lot of people that churches, synagogues, and mosques are the only places in which God can be acknowledged. In fact, millions of people--and lots of institutions, many of which are outside places of worship, do it every day.
to be spent litigating this obviously unconstitutional attempt to
require government to do the work of churches, synagogues and mosques.
Secondly, why is it that the people who think it is really silly to acknowledge reliance on God in the state's Homeland Security documents that very few people will see, but don't seem to be bothered by the fact that we acknowledge it on the nation's coined money that we all carry around in our pockets? Or does Eblen, a professed Christian, go along with the athiests on this one too?
The comparison of these two issues is not immaterial when it comes to the constitutionality of the law, since the "In God we trust" motto has already been litigated. In Aronow v. United States the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1970 that it was constitutional. He might also check O'Hair v. Blumenthal, as well as the more recent Studler v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, in which an Indiana Appeals Court last month upheld the constitutionality of Indiana's "In God we trust" licence plates.
Not that courts can't get it wrong, but anyone who says the court did reach the wrong verdict will have to explain what a state law generically acknowledging God has to do with Congress establishing a religion, a provision that Eblen references, but without noticing that it has nothing to do with a) Congress, or b) establishing a religion. If some enterprising person does want to take this up, he might also provide some explanation of the explictly religious provisions in many state laws to which no one gave a second thought at the time the Bill of Rights was passed.
And, finally, Eblen's argument that the law is bad because of the money it will cost to defend it is what I call a "decoy argument". It has all the appearance of being real, but is really designed to divert your attention . If Eblen doesn't like the fact that money will have to be spent to defend the law, then why isn't he mad at the atheist group that brought the suit rather than at State Rep. Riner, who sponsored the original legislation?
The only reason is that he agrees with the former and not with the latter.
How much will it cost to defend this law? Nothing. Zero. Nada. There is no evidence that the Attorney General's office will spend any more money now that they have to defend this law than they would have if the law had never been passed. They're not going to hire any more lawyers to do it, and it is extremely unlikely they're going to work extra hours.
This is government, remember?
The only cost involved in defending the law is what the economists call "opportunity cost." Opportunity cost is the cost of what you can't otherwise do. In this case, that could be a good thing. I'd much rather the AG defend the proposition that our ultimate safety is in God than interfering in the free market by going after small business owners who run gas stations in places like Louisville for high gas prices over which they have little control, which is what they had planned on doing before the market adjusted itself thank you very much.
In fact, now that gas is back down under $2.00, all those lawyers in the AG's office must be looking for something to do. This new case will give it to them. The last thing we want is a bunch of lawyers with too much time on their hands.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
The greatest figures in the Scientific Revolution, for example, were classically educated: Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton and most of the other figures found in Charles Murray’s eight lists of scientific achievement in Human Accomplishment. They had studied ancient texts and could read and write Latin. The Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries was very self-consciously a return to the ideals and even the texts of ancient science. Copernicus was well aware that he was reviving the heliocentric hypothesis of Aristarchus of Samos from the Third century, BC. The atomic theory used by Newton in his optics was based on Gassendi’s brilliant philological recovery of ancient Epicureanism. Galileo quotes Plato’s Meno and Timaeus over and over again. The education of scientists remained classical through the time of Linnaeus in the 18th century and Charles Darwin in the 19th.
Sceptics object that they had no choice. The case for vocational or technical training was made in the late 18th century by men like Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush.
History does not usually allow us to study events with a true control group. There is an exception to this situation in 19th century Germany, where there were two distinct educational paths. One led from the old Classical school, now with more Greek added, and culminated in the classical or humanist “Gymnasium,” from which students then went on to the university. The other path was devoted to math, science, technology and a modern language (usually French) and led to the technical high school or “Realschule,” from which the student went on to a professional school or a job in industry. This critical mass of technically trained graduates working in factories protected by the tariff spurred German industrial growth in the generation that preceded World War I.The decades on either side of WWI witnessed brilliant work in Physics: the concept of quanta, the theories of special and general relativity and the development of quantum mechanics. One might expect that the most important work in these fields would be done by graduates of the technical school system. Nearly the opposite is true. Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Niels Bohr were classically educated. Einstein attended a Swiss technical high school, but he had spent his first six years at a classical school, where his sister remembered his best subjects as Mathematics and Latin: “Latin’s clear, strictly logical structure fit his mindset.” Heisenberg wrote, “I believe that in the work of Max Planck, for instance, we can clearly see that his thought was influenced and made fruitful by his classical schooling.” Heisenberg insisted that his own insights into nature came from his classical education. Its combination of math and physics with language instruction led him to read Plato’s Timaeus in Greek. He was impressed by Plato’s rational appeals to understand nature mathematically rather than as a purely physical reality: “I was gaining the growing conviction that one could hardly make progress in modern atomic physics without a knowledge of Greek natural philosophy.”
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Here is the language from the statute:
Publicize the findings of the General Assembly stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth by including the provisions of KRS 39A.285(3) in its agency training and educational materials. The executive director shall also be responsible for prominently displaying a permanent plaque at the entrance to the state's Emergency Operations Center stating the text of KRS 39A.285(3)The Lexington Herald-Leader reports that the group American Atheists is suing to remove references to God and to recover monetary damages because the law has caused them to suffer sleep disorders and "mental pain and anguish," proving once again that atheists are just not as sturdy as they used to be.
In the old days, atheists like H. L. Mencken tried to cause mental pain and anguish among their religious enemies (some of it, such as that directed against the flighty religious liberals of the day, well deserved). Mencken once remarked that a puritan is a person who lays awake nights worrying that someone, somewhere might be having fun.
Today, however, the testosterone level of the average atheist seems to be rather lower. It is now the athiests who are losing sleep--worrying that someone, somewhere, might be having religious thoughts.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science.Read the rest here.
The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.z
Monday, December 01, 2008
In the old days if you wanted to get rich, you did it the Warren Buffett way: You learned to read balance sheets. Today you learn to read political tea leaves. You don't anticipate Intel's third-quarter earnings; instead, you guess what side of the bed Henry Paulson will wake up on tomorrow.Go here for more.