Stacking The Jury

Amusing item from James Taranto:

Things That Don't
Appall Liberals--I

Did you know liberals aren't appalled by child molestation? Before you send us angry letters about this, let us explain: We're not saying it, Reuters is. From a dispatch about the Michael Jackson trial:

Legal experts say prosecutors will look for jurors who are older, conservative, less taken with celebrity, willing to accept authority and appalled by child molestation.

Jackson's attorneys may look for more liberal jurors who have advanced degrees and are critical thinkers who question authority.

Is it possible that Reuters has a heretofore undetected conservative bias? After all, not only does this dispatch make liberals look like degenerates; it also omits the scare quotes around the emotive phrase "child molestation".

Did Someone Say Total War? Comin' Up!

Via FrontPageMag, I've come across the Eastern Orthodox blogger called Father John. Here's an excellent post called "The Aggressors Set The Rules" which answers objections to Hiroshima and Dresden. Very effective use of pictures on the blog. Also, humor, as you'll see in the second picture of this post.

It's All In The Packaging. Right?

So says Howard Dean. An excellent fisking here (via Evangelical Outpost).

excerpts:

Memo to the DNC: Wanna know what the real problem is? Most of us evangelicals haven't bought into this whole postmodern relativistic thing-- even those of us who went to college! We believe that our creeds contain propositional statements that are objectively true in their own right, regardless of whether people believe them. We believe that God is the maker, ruler and judge of the universe, not a tool to be used for crass political ends. We believe that God has revealed His will for each of our lives, and so it's not up to us to invent a religion or a god as we conceive of Him/Her/It/Them/Other. While we respect everybody's right to practice their own "faith tradition", we don't think that someone's believing in a given "faith tradition" necessarily makes it valid or true. While most of us recognize an individual's right to live in what the Bible calls sin, we will never express approval of it or buy into the idea that someone's sin constitutes their whole identity.

And this whole "compassion for the poor" thing? There's this wee small matter of it being voluntary. And the goal isn't long-term dependence on Caesar.

See, the thing is, even though you are trying to figure out how to talk in our lingo, we still see a lot of things that suggest that you remain secularists and relativists, antagonistic to us way down deep at the level of worldview. I really don't think that a linguist can help you. So your only real hope at this point is that the Republicans run candidates who are like you: secularists and relativists who think they can snow us with a bit of lingo and a few Bible verses.

The Next Best Thing To Being There

Quite a nice essay by The Anchoress. I've always kind of hoped that at my wedding (should it ever happen), the birth of my children, etc, etc, there would be no video cameras. I don't need sepia memories replaced by the literal starkness of video (which I'd never watch anyway). In 1990 I took a fairly epic backpacking trip around the globe. I think 1992 was the last time I looked at any of the pictures I took on the trip...

Unblinded By Science

(Via Instapundit) Popular Mechanics has a fascinating series of pages debunking the common conspiracy myths surrounding 9/11. Interesting both for the science and for seeing a sampling of the paranoia which prompted the piece.

Temptations

Today is the first Sunday of Lent. In my Magnificat daily missal, there was a striking sermon for this day by Pope Saint Gregory The Great, who was Pope in the late sixth century. It's so good that I transcribed it for the blog. To understand the sermon, first look at today's reading from Genesis:

The LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.

Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the LORD God made various trees grow that were delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the woman, "Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?" The woman answered the serpent: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, 'You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad." The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

And then the Gospel reading from Matthew:

At that time Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was hungry. The tempter approached and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread."

He said in reply, "It is written: 'One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.'"

Then the devil took him to the holy city, and made him stand on the parapet of the temple, and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: 'He will command his angels concerning you and 'with their hands they will support you, lest you dash your foot against a stone.'"

Jesus answered him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.'"

Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, and he said to him, "All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me."

At this, Jesus said to him, "Get away, Satan! It is written: 'The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.'"

Then the devil left him and, behold, angels came and ministered to him.

Now here is Saint Gregory's sermon:

This whole diabolic temptation took place from without, not from within. If we look at the progress of his temptation, we see how great the struggle was that set us free from temptation. Our ancient enemy rose up against the first human being, our ancestor, in three temptations. He tempted him by gluttony, by vain glory, and by avarice. And he overcame him when he tempted him, because he subjugated him through consent. He tempted him by gluttony when he showed him the forbidden food of the tree, and told him: “Taste it.” He tempted him by vain glory when he said, “You will be like gods.” He tempted him by adding avarice when he said, “knowing good and evil.” Avarice is concerned not only with money but also with high position. We rightly call it avarice when we seek high position beyond measure. If grasping at honor was not related to avarice, Paul would not have said of God’s only-begotten Son: “He did not think that being equal to God was something to be grasped.” The devil drew our ancestor to pride by stirring him up to an avaricious desire for high position.

But the means by which he overcame the first man were the same ones which caused him to yield when he tempted the second.

He tempted him by gluttony when he said, “Tell these stones to become bread.” He tempted him by vain glory when he said, “If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down.” He tempted him by an avaricious desire for high position when he showed him all the kingdoms of the world, saying, “I will give you all these if you will fall down and worship me.” The second man overcame him by the same means by which he had boasted that he used to overcome the first man. As a captive he would depart from our hearts by the same avenue which had given him entrance when he possessed us.

It was being inspired by this kind of ancient-but-fresh mystical theological thinking that first turned me from Buddhist to Catholic...

Parallels

The Anchoress notices something. Excellent analogy and insight, prompted by an excellent Michael Barone column (a column that also bears on this previous post of mine, as I discuss in an update to that post).

By Allah, May The Candy Hearts Of The Infidels Be Broken!

Via Instapundit, a dynamite satire, by The Onion.

excerpts:

WASHINGTON, DC—A new videotape of Osama bin Laden broadcast on the Arab satellite news channel Al-Jazeera Monday beseeched Allah to grant all Americans a "crappy Valentine's Day."

"This Feb. 14th on the Western infidels' calendar, may all Americans receive no valentines from their beloved ones," bin Laden said. "May the homemade construction-paper mailboxes taped to the desks of the American schoolchildren remain empty, as well. May whomever you ask to 'bee yours' tell you to 'buzz off.'"

Bin Laden called for "romantic humiliation for all Americans of courting and betrothal age."

"Allah willing, embarrassment and tearful rejection shall rule this day," bin Laden said. "Paper hearts shall be rent and trod upon, and dreams of love delivered stillborn. Body language shall be misinterpreted, crushes unrequited, and sincere expressions of affection mocked. Invitations to dinner will be rejected, just as Americans have rejected Allah, the one true God."

...

"In this infamous February, may all American hearts be crushed like a box of conversation hearts that is tossed carelessly into the bottom of a fellow student's schoolbag," bin Laden said. "We soldiers of Allah pledge with our blood and souls that all pink and red carnations shall wither and drop from their stalks before they make their way to the desks of America's secretaries. Instead of receiving hugs and kisses, they and their extended families shall be besieged with boos and hisses."

Bin Laden added: "May your special Valentine's Day dinner be spent at an overrated restaurant that impoverishes your purse and leaves your stomach churning with indigestible Western cuisine."

Bin Laden did not overlook the innocuous custom of giving stuffed animals as gifts.

"The teddy bear that holds the 'I love you' heart does not love you at all," Bin Laden said. "It is an unliving, unholy thing filled only with stuffing. Just as the Western infidel is not bestowed with the blessings of Allah, so shall he go unloved by the false bear."

The release of the bin Laden tape is consistent with the al-Qaeda leader's inclination to speak out before major American events, such as the 2004 U.S. presidential election.

"Perhaps whoever told bin Laden about Valentine's Day exaggerated its significance," departing Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said. "Or, I don't know, maybe he was just itching to release another tape."

The Department of Homeland Security did not raise the terror advisory, recommending that Americans proceed with their Valentine's Day plans. This is in spite of the final words of bin Laden's address.

"Come Monday, as you pry open your fancy, red Russell Stover box, take heed," bin Laden said. "For in the place of tasty caramels and buttercreams, you will find the flaming sword of righteous jihad!"

When Moderate Looks Like Hard Right

Ann Althouse considers herself to be, and is, a moderate (she was on my daily reading list for many months). She voted for Bush, though, so that makes her some sort of extremist in the eyes of lefties, most of whom refuse to read her. She posted about this and recieved many e-mail responses. I liked this one:

[Y]ou have mentioned feeling sad at the way your moderate political views are seen by some on the left. I think I know just the feeling you're describing. … The sadness I feel that I think might correspond in some ways to yours is that, a result of my political evolution, almost all of my old friendships are in trouble.

Nearly everybody I count as a friend from the first few decades of my life is still true-blue, and now that I am multi-colored, I find that I cannot talk about politics with most of them at all. They genuinely cannot bear to hear one word about the ways in which my thinking has changed. To them, it seems, admitting that I don't share every one of their views on the war in Iraq, or the privatization of Social Security, or the artistic genius of Michael Moore, or whatever the topic of the day might be, would be tantamount to admitting that I am no longer a good person or a potential friend. These are well-educated, intelligent people who wish urgently to be good and to do good things in the world, people who think of themselves as open-minded and tolerant. And yet their minds seem to me to be anything but open. Deep down, I don't think most of them believe that it is possible for anyone to be a worthwhile person who holds political views different from their own. Many of my old friends seem to have constructed their self-images around the belief that it is their political liberalism that defines them as good. The result appears to be that no liberal tenet can safely be challenged or even closely examined without threatening all of their beliefs about everything, and especially about themselves.

I have come to suspect that to many of my liberal friends, there really isn't a political spectrum of various views out there. Instead, there are just two categories: good views, which correspond with their own, and terrible views, which don't. Some of these folks are so quick to categorize, so eager to label. The word "Republican" is an all-purpose shorthand category for selfishness, greed, stupidity, ignorance. The word "corporate" serves the same purposes. Anybody who did not thoroughly oppose the war in Iraq is a war-monger. Anybody who wonders if affirmative action is still a good idea is a racist. Anybody who thinks some gender differences might be inborn is sexist. Anybody who doesn't hate George Bush is stupid. Anybody . . . well, you get my drift. To me, this haste to label and demonize difference appears to be a way to avoid the risks inherent in thinking, a way to keep the mind securely shut.

I don't really understand this. … I am married to a Republican, so political disagreement is a daily feature of my life. My husband and I talk about politics all the time. We debate, compare, disagree, agree, tease one another, pound the table, shout, laugh, grumble, ask the kids what they think, learn things from one another. Once in a while I change his mind about something, once in a while he changes mine. Most of the time, neither of us manages to change the other's point of view one bit -- but we have a good time trying. We did have to teach ourselves how to do this. It didn't come naturally to disagree without fighting, and once in a while we lose perspective and get angry for a while. But this happens less and less often, and most of the time, our discussions are fun. I would love to have conversations like this with my old friends. I think our twenty- and thirty-year-old friendships are strong enough to stand a few areas of disagreement, just as my marriage is. But I can't find a single liberal friend who thinks this way. To them, any disagreement seems to be synonymous with the complete downfall of all understanding and shared history. They veer away from discussion, change the subject, or even ask openly if we can stop talking about whatever-it-is because it makes them too uncomfortable.

There are, of course, narrow-minded labelers on the right as well as on the left. But like you, I've noticed a certain willingness to entertain and explore civil disagreement among many on the right that seems to harder to find on the left. Why? I wish I knew, but I don't. I'm just glad that people like you keep blogs, so that I can remind myself I'm not the only person on earth who approaches politics the way I do, nor the only one who sometimes, as a result, feels a little sad.

Serendipitously we have a recent perfect case in point. Just perfect.

Update: This excellent Michael Barone piece details how both the left-wing and the right-wing blogs help the Republicans, and discusses the Daily Kos site (the most-read political blog on the internet!), specifically. I see quoting a Kos ranter as fair game. Kos is the mainstream of the leftist part of the blogosphere.

Hong Kong Follies

Some aviation fun. A friend e-mailed this, with photo attachments. I've linked the pictures below. Here is the e-mail forward I sent to my pilot friends:

--------------

These photos and descriptions are pretty cool. I remember landing at this airport in an airliner in 1990. Pretty scary. On short final I was looking down on the city streets. As we passed a McDonald's I remember thinking to myself, "Well, it looks like that guy's having the Hot Mustard Sauce with his McNuggets." That's about how close we were.

--Matt

--------------

Subject: Hong Kong Airport


Below are the memories of an unidentified retired airline pilot:

"Fond memories? I showed the Jepp approach plates for Hong Kong to an air traffic controller at the Denver Center. His comment was close to, "You gotta be kidding!" There were a few other words in there that I have deleted. The ILS approach was to a hill, not the runway. If you followed it all the way, you wound up in that checkerboard pattern in #3. The drill was to fly to minimums, and then crank it over into a hard right turn and dive for the runway. There was usually a cross wind, which explains some of the other pictures. It was pretty easy to get a wing tip, or an outboard engine.

Some of the lucky ones got both outboard engines, the first at impact and the second trying to recover from the first engine strike. And you couldn't cheat by going below glide slope or turning in early. Large buildings downtown. And if the approach wasn't enough fun, note that the runway is short. More than one went off the end, or the side, into the bay.

Missed approach? Note the hills. Yep, another hard right turn and climb, baby, climb! The weather was usually not clear. Clouds were the norm, with a bit of fog or mist, and sometimes heavy rain. It's tropical there. There was an approach to the other end of that single runway. It wasn't much better. More hills and the missed approach was a hard left turn to avoid the hills and the big buildings.

Yeah, just another day at the office.

The new airport is almost easy. There are still the hills all around the bay, but at least the ILS takes you to pavement. And you don't have to look up at the people in the higher floors. You don't really appreciate flying in America until you have flown out of it. There were some airports in South America that were almost the equal of Hong Kong.

Did I mention what braking was like on a rainy day on that short runway? Or the huge puddles that formed because the airport was sinking?

--------------

Photo links:

Are you sure this is the right street?

You lowered the gear, right?

Tray tables should be in the upright, locked position.

Okay, I'm almost on the centerline. Did you lower flaps?

Should I be aiming for the gray or the green, here?

Where's the windsock? I think I got a crosswind!

Plenty of time...Plenty of time...

Should have "kicked" a little sooner.

Who needs brakes? I've got the outboard left engine!

I love the smell of Goodyears in the morning.

I saw a skateboarder do this.

You were right. It won't skip.

Important Safety Tip

This is being passed around via e-mail. Forewarned is forearmed! Males of America, there is no excuse for a failure of diligence! Sound required.

Devastating Logic

John Hawkins does not suffer fools gladly. Today he destroys some very poor reasoning by the leftist Daily Kos.

teaser:

This telling quotation you're about to read from Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of the Daily Kos is worth reading and analyzing because it exposes some of the underlying ideological beliefs that make today's liberals incapable of handling foreign policy. From Kos...

"Here's the deal -- a war is worth fighting if you would sacrifice everything you hold dear to fight it.

A war is not worth fighting, if you'd rather maintain your cushy lifestyle and let others do the dying for you, let other families lose their mothers and fathers and spouses and children.

It's that simple. The 101st Fighting Keyboarded and their bretheren in the Republican Corporate Media fail this very easy test of the sincerity of their convictions."

On the surface, this would simply seem to be a combination of the chickenhawk "argument" (and I used the word "argument" very loosely here) and Michael Moore's "would (you) sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah" comment to Bill O'Reilly and hence, is rather silly.

If you wanted to be as ridiculous as the people who take those sorts of positions, you could just as easily say that if you're serious about preventing war, then you should go to Iraq and be a human shield for Al-Zarqawi. You could also apply that sort of shallow "reasoning" to firemen or policemen just as easily as it can be applied to soldiers...

"Oh, well if you're not willing to charge into a burning building to try to put out a fire, then you shouldn't expect a fireman to do it. Same goes for cops. How can you ask a policeman to risk his life enforcing the law if you're not willing to grab a shotgun, kick in the door of a crackhouse, and start making citizens arrests?"

The rest is just as good.

The Violins Are Out

Only $2.6 trillion? Oh the humanity!

excerpts:

Do the oversized partisan newspapers really have to be so utterly, boringly predictable? When the new budget came out, reactions from the usual suspects might as well have been copied and pasted from previous "news" and editorials during any year in which any Republican president dared to feign the slightest degree of frugality (President Clinton was seriously frugal, but the press cuts Democrats a lot of extra slack).

A recent Washington Post editorial instantly decried any and all spending cuts "draconian" or "dramatic," not to mention "unrealistic." What a shock that was. An L.A. Times editorial, accidentally misplaced on the news page, whined that President Bush's proposed haircut for a few budget items "will touch people on food stamps and farmers on price supports, children under Medicare and adults in public housing."

Did Bush somehow forget to brutalize widows and orphans?

...


One thing that makes the banal media mantra in favor of lavish spending particularly tasteless at this time is that the discussions of this year's budget have somehow managed to totally ignore the wild spending spree during President Bush's first term.

When planned spending for 2006 is compared with actual spending in 2001, it becomes ridiculous to pretend there is anything "draconian" or "breathtaking" about the president's belated tap on the brakes. It is unsurprising and probably understandable that defense spending rose 38.6 percent from 2001 to 2006. What is less well known and harder to rationalize is that the increase in spending over those same five years was 39.8 percent for education, 41 percent for the judicial branch, 48.1 percent for the legislative branch, 56.4 percent for state and international aid and 84.5 percent for commerce.

Even if we measure this spending surge in constant dollars, to adjust for inflation, overall spending is projected to rise more than 23 percent from 2001 to 2006. Since the economy (GDP) did not grow nearly that much, federal spending will have risen from 18.5 percent to 19.9 percent of GDP. Yet this is being called a "draconian" budget?

...

In case you didn't get it the first time, Andrews went on to say, "Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 went largely to the nation's wealthiest taxpayers." No matter how many times I keep reading this, I never quite get over the outright audacity of the Big Lie technique. It isn't just the author's confusion about halving the dividend and capital gains taxes, which typically yield higher revenues from the rich. Even if we focus on just the reductions in personal income tax rates, any notion that they "went largely to the nation's wealthiest taxpayers" makes sense only if one describes everyone who pays any income tax at all as among "the nation's wealthiest" (all actual taxpayers are in the top 60 percent, because 40 percent pay no income tax).

Half the estimated revenue loss from reducing income tax rates was due to reducing from 15 percent to 10 percent rates on the first few thousand dollars of income. Whatever you think of that costly gesture (I think it was wasteful and inefficient), it certainly didn't go "largely to the nation's wealthiest taxpayers." The same is true of social gimmicks like the child tax credit and the marriage penalty fix, unless one imagines that all two-earner families with kids must be rich.

The other rate reductions were spread quite evenly among all tax brackets. The overall package could only be said to largely benefit "the nation's wealthiest taxpayers" only because the top 5 percent (those earning more than $126,000 in 2002) pay 54 percent of all income taxes, so they should get about half of any even-handed tax cut.

...

As for all the banal commentary about draconian budget cuts and unaffordable tax cuts, I've heard it all too many times before. Please wake me up if somebody at The New York Times, L.A. Times or Washington Post ever has something novel or intelligent to say about taxes and spending. But somebody would have to wake them up first.

This Bud's For You

From James Taranto's Best Of The Web:

Not everyone liked Anheuser-Busch's Super Bowl ad (viewable here and here) featuring U.S. servicemen getting a round of applause in an airport terminal. Humbug, says Stefano Hatfield, a columnist for London's left-wing Guardian:

It was described as "moving" and "powerful" by the obsequious Fox critics, and "obscene" by my furious upstairs neighbour who called me straight after because he regarded the spot as incitement to war with Iran, and knows I write about such things and so it was of course my fault.

Pass the sick bag, Alice. I was too stunned by the spot to really take in the full import of a beer company waving off "our boys" (and girls) to battle. But battle? Where? The war in Iraq's over, isn't it or so they keep telling us? With Rice's thinly veiled threats towards Iran everywhere, it is hard not to see the spot as anything other than hailing the troops off to war. Pure propaganda, and it picked up on one of the themes of the night: patriotism.

There's actually something mildly refreshing about a commentator openly scoffing at patriotism rather than feebly asserting that he isn't unpatriotic, as American left-wingers are wont to do. Then again, such defensiveness is better than spitting on veterans, which seven of our readers, responding to yesterday's item on the subject, said happened to them or to a loved one during the Vietnam era. Reader Jack Else, a retired U.S. Air Force major, reflects on how things have changed:

Soldiers were spit on. I was. It was September 1972 at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. I had just gotten off duty, was still in uniform, and was on campus to pick up my wife.

Flash forward nearly 20 years, to May 3, 1991. I had just returned from the first Gulf War (or as I called it the Great Unfinished Gulf War). For personal reasons I returned alone without my unit, which arrived about 10 days later. I arrived at Plattsburg Air Force Base, in upstate New York, and was put on a military bus for JFK and a civilian flight. I was tired and dirty, hadn't bathed for about three days, slept in my uniform; pack on my back, duffle bag and M-92. I did not look like a recruiting poster.

As I got off the bus at the American Airlines terminal at JFK I was very apprehensive. Why? We didn't have cell phones, we didn't have the Internet. We didn't have blogs. Mail was spotty. All we had were CNN, Peter Arnett, et al. I took a deep breath, entered the terminal and people stopped and stared--and then they applauded.

That Budweiser commercial took me back 14 years and made me cry.

It's still happening, says reader Greg Gilbert:

Last Thursday I was on a flight from Dallas-Fort Worth to Portland, Ore. There were four servicemen returning home for a two-week leave from Iraq. As the plane arrived at the gate in Portland, the pilot mentioned and thanked the servicemen for their service and asked that they be allowed to disembark first. As each of them walked toward the front of the plane, the rest of the passengers erupted in spontaneous applause. It's tough to do a standing ovation in an MD-80, but that's exactly what they got.

The feeling of appreciation of the passengers on the plane was palpable as they patted the servicemen on the back as they walked by and said "thank you." Best of all, it was real people expressing appreciation for the service of these men. A commercial could not have done the moment justice.

So on second thought, the Brits can have their Stefano Hatfields. We're happy to be living in a country where patriotism is applauded and no one admits to lacking it.

Update: Taranto published some letters about this item here (starts 2/3 down page).

Lent

Lent comes early this year. It starts tomorrow! The Anchoress has a nice reflection about this happy season of penance.

It Doesn't Grow On Trees

Evangelical Outpost has a nice quick blurb on the economic ignorance of many of the clergy.

Ignorance & Economics -- Churches in Britain are having a change of heart about free enterprise:

Britain’s churches are to announce a pre-election conversion by declaring for the first time they are in favour of wealth creation.

Until now they have been seen as deeply suspicious of free market economics, arguing for strong state intervention against debt and poverty rather than entrepreneurship. But a pre-general election report for Christians to be launched later this month says making money is good.

I’m always amazed at how completely ignorant some people can be about economics. If they were against wealth creation where did these churches think the government was getting the money from? Someone had to create the wealth that filled the state’s coffers. Did they think gold just filled the moors like manna from heaven? Perhaps the Church of England should require a class on basic economics in seminary. After all, as Margaret Thatcher once noted, “no one would remember the Good Samaritan if he only had good intentions. He had money as well”.

Tiny Machine

Wake me up when any amateur gets excited enough about a Microsoft product to make an ad like this (via Peeve Farm).

Chips From The Chocolate Fireball

Is the name of the album I'm listening to right now. First heard it 20 years ago in college. It still kicks. Here's a customer review from Amazon:

The best psychedelic record not made in the 60's,
November 16, 2004
Reviewer: Wickerlove "Wickerlove" (Canada) - See all my reviews

XTC, under the guise of Dukes Of Stratosphear, must have a case of musical schizophrenia. God knows how an 80's art-indie/new wave group can do a complete 180 degree turn and make an exceptionally brilliant psychedelic record. 'Chips from the Chocolate Fireball', which is a compilation the Dukes Of Stratosphear's first two albums, sounds like it's transwarped from the late 60's, a wonderfully rich acid-drenched experimental sound. Just think a combination of 'The Piper At The Gates of Dawn' by Pink Floyd, the self-titled album by The United States Of America, and 'Dusk At Cubist Castle' by Olivia Tremor Control. Thrown into the mix are shades of the more experimental moments of The Beach Boys and The Beatles. What started as a parody release for XTC under their alter-egos Dukes Of Stratosphear, actually turned into a spellbinding homage to Syd Barrett and the spirit of late 60's psychedelia, all guided by young producer extraordinaire John Leckie. It's really hard to believe that this is actually XTC in disguise, but the proof is in the strength and mesmerizing power of the music.

What's A Clever Monkey Worth?

Dennis Prager argues that human worth is devalued when it is denied that we are created by God. Nicely written.

excerpts:

Would you first save the dog you love or a stranger if both were drowning? The answer depends on your value system.

One of the most obvious and significant differences between secular and Judeo-Christian values concerns human worth. One of the great ironies of secular humanism is that it devalues the worth of human beings. As ironic as it may sound, the God-based Judeo-Christian value system renders man infinitely more valuable and significant than any humanistic value system.

The reason is simple: Only if there is a God who created man is man worth anything beyond the chemicals of which he is composed. Judeo-Christian religions hold that human beings are created in the image of God. If we are not, we are created in the image of carbon dioxide. Which has a higher value is not difficult to determine.

Contemporary secular society has rendered human beings less significant than at any time in Western history.

...

That is why a Tucson, AZ, woman last year screamed to firefighters that her "babies" were in her burning house. Thinking that the woman's children were trapped inside, the firemen risked their lives to save the woman's three cats.

...

Belief in human-animal equivalence inevitably follows the death of Judeo-Christian values, and it serves not so much to elevate animal worth as to reduce human worth. Those who oppose vivisection and believe it is immoral to kill animals for any reason, including eating, should reflect on this: While there are strong links between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans, there are no links between kindness to animals and kindness to humans. Kindness to animals has no effect on a person's treatment of people. The Nazis, the cruelest group in modern history, were also the most pro-animal rights group prior to the contemporary period. They outlawed experimentation on animals and made legal experimentation on human beings.

The second reason that the breakdown of Judeo-Christian values leads to a diminution of human worth is that if man was not created by God, the human being is mere stellar dust -- and will come to be regarded as such. Moreover, people are merely the products of random chance, no more designed than a sand grain formed by water erosion. That is what the creationism-evolution battle is ultimately about -- human worth. One does not have to agree with creationists or deny all evolutionary evidence to understand that the way evolution is taught, man is rendered a pointless product of random forces -- unworthy of being saved before one's hamster.

Cats And Dogs, Living Together

Boy, I don't know, maybe the Iraqi election is some sort of chiropractic to the ol' space-time continuum, but Mark Morford has just written a column where he doesn't come across as stark, raving insane! He has written a very lucid anti-Microsoft piece. Not a single psychotic anti-Bush remark to be found. Nor any grandstanding of sexual perversion. He actually seems to be a decent writer if he chooses a topic other than his own obsessions. Read Morford's column, then read this clever parody, which I found via Peeve Farm.