- "Taxpayers in the United Kingdom are paying for the production of salt shakers that were purposely made with fewer holes to prevent people from consuming too much salt."

- "Every year in April, the U.S. House votes on a resolution "supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month." I repeat, hypocrisy is emphasized.

- "On Monday, the Senate passed a resolution honoring soil. That’s right. Soil. ... Here are the six co-sponsors:

Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
George Voinovich (R-OH)"

Both of Iowa's best are figuratively going to bat for you. There's a fairly tasteless joke about flooding to be had here, so if anybody figures out why I'm not telling it, let me know.

The long version is here. The short version is here. The public school graduate version is. . . . Ooh look, a squirrel:

The average cost per student per school year in the New York Public School system is $14,119.
. . . .

So, as a thought experiment, I constructed a proposal for a revived one-room school. Since I had a cost per student for New York, I’d develop a plan for New York City — in fact, for midtown Manhattan, using midtown Manhattan rents. Could I pay a teacher enough to live on, with a one-room school, based on New York costs per student?
. . . .

The Adams County school has room for 24 students, so we assume 24 students in Manhattan, and a one-room school built in quality office space in midtown. I laid out a floor plan and discovered we could fit it nicely into 1,050 square feet; equip it with good quality desks and chairs and with one iMac computer for every two students, plus one for the teacher and a Mac Pro as a classroom server; and add Internet connections and $1,000 per student for books and supplies. How much remained to hire a teacher?

$230,000. Almost a quarter of a million dollars.

It's like homeschooling writ large, except don't they wish the made that much money. Even quartering that salary to account for administrative costs and general government inefficiency, you get better than what you got today. Also note that this ameliorates much of the cost issues associated with decentralized Midwestern school systems.

Too bad it would never happen.

One of the less intellectually porous attempts at refutation of scripture (read: still dead wrong, utterly indefensible, hardly worth typing) is that the Bible can't seem to make up its sweet little mind on just what exactly is necessary in order to obtain this eternal life everybody is seeking. Mother Teresa is in, Hitler is out. Beyond that, everybody go verse hunting, and we'll see you at the pearly gates.[3]

[stands back, peers upward] It's a big strawman, alright. Tall. Fluffy. If it only had a brain ...

Yet guess what, Christian? You are the spiritual heir of a 2000+ year tradition of brethren who cannot stop fighting about this very issue, and the water is even muddier than when it all began More blood has been spilled as a direct result of misunderstandings over the means to salvation than over Brett Favre's retirement.[4] Satan's got a thick playbook, and for this play, he pulls both metaphorical guards The faith/works argument trips up believers and non-believers constantly.

More than its intellectual roots, most believers to some degree experience the personal roots to this misunderstanding. We[5] don't feel like the old creation has gone and the new has come in our daily lives. Epistles like James and 1 John convict the living daylights out of us, and we either rip them from our Bibles, or try SO hard to live exactly like they say that we revert to a legalism, then read Ephesians and either feel warm and tender about our faith, or rip it from our Bibles. Rinse, lather, repeat. The steady-state equilibrium is that we become selective readers, and dependent upon scripture emphasizing one theme or the other. We lose nuance, ignore the textual critic crying in the wilderness, and but for the grace of God, slip into error.

[stands back, peers upward] Holy hay bales, Batman! It seems there are now two of them!
[replies the caped crusader] Yes, my city-slicking cud-chewing chum. It appears the dastardly Scarecrow is intent on destruction of the entire blogosphere with his fiendish men of straw.

We see this sentiment [6] characterized in Romans 7. The meat:

15For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 21So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. 12So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons[e] of God. 15For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.[8]

There's probably a fancier name, but for now, Semitic Totality will suffice:

Behind much of the thought in the Bible lies a "peculiarly Semitic" idea of a "unitive notion of human personality." [Dahl, Resurrection of the Body, 59] This notion combined aspects of the human person that we, in modern times, often speak of as separate entities: Nausea is thought of as a condition of the soul and not the stomach (Num. 21:5); companionship is said to be refreshing to the bowels (Philemon 7); and the fear of God is health to the navel (Prov. 3:8). This line of thinking can be traced through the Old Testament and into the New Testament (in particular, the concept of the "body of Christ") and rabbinic literature.[9]

Applied to the individual, the Semitic Totality Concept means that "a man's thoughts form one totality with their results in action so that 'thoughts' that result in no action are 'vain'." [ibid, 60] To put it another way, man does not have a body; man is a body, and what we regard as constituent elements of spirit and body were looked upon by the Hebrews as a fundamental unity. Man was not made from dust, but is dust that has, "by the in-breathing of God, acquired the characteristics of self-conscious being." Thus Paul regards being an unbodied spirit as a form of nakedness (2 Cor. 5). Man is not whole without a body. A man is a totality which embraces "all that a man is and ever shall be."

Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made. Thought and action are so linked under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark warns us [An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, 10]:

The Hebraic view of man as an animated body and its refusal to make any clear-cut division into soul and body militates against the making of so radical a distinction between material and spiritual, ceremonial and ethical effects.

Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession, and obedience in the form of works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. "Both the act and the meaning of the act mattered -- the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity." [Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 111] [10]

This has a broad range of applications [11], the most important of these is to narrow the ground upon which we understand the ability of the heart of a believer to prove inconsistent with their actions while at the same time reinforcing Sola Fidelis. This corroborates significant tides of scripture, the former conforming to the 'James/1 John thesis' and the latter holding to the 'Galatians/Ephesians thesis'.[12] More importantly, it lends the Epistles form a more cohesive message.

This doctrine [resurrection of the dead] was considered so important for two reasons: First, because the Tanakh assumes a concept which has been dubbed by some modern scholars as the Semitic Totality Concept. Where Greek thought was that a person was a spirit who happened to be housed (or imprisoned!) in a body, Hebrew thought was that a person is a spirit and a body and a soul (lit. a breath, the animating life-force), so that the loss of any of them made for less than a complete person. Therefore, in order to truly receive the promises that the Eternal One had made to Israel’s fathers, one had to be Resurrected whole in the ‘Olam HaBa, the World (or Age) to Come. This concept is assumed by the NT authors (cf. John 11:24ff, 1 Co. 15, 2 Co. 5:1-4), and those who denied the Resurrection, such as the Sadducees, were said by Yeshua to be “mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Mat. 22:29). It is sad indeed that the spirit of the Sadducees long ago infected so much of the Body of the Risen Messiah.[13]

This leads back to Romans and Paul the Schizoid. Semitic Totality fits Romans 8 like a glove. Romans 7? Well, let us look at Romans 7. In verse 9, because of the commandments, sin comes alive, and Paul dies. This is presumably as Paul is learning the Law while a youth and/or when it got written on his heart while much younger. So Paul commences doing what he hates, even though he does not want to, to the point where it is the sin that is doing it, starting the war and making him captive to sin. Who will deliver him from this body of death? Hooray, Jesus for delivering him.[15] THEREFORE ...

See that. Despite extensive use of the present tense,[16] the order and content seem insistent upon dating the vast majority of chapter 7 prior to an individual's salvation. Then chapter 8 happens, and it's like salvation makes the Christian a whole different person, basically because it does. Conflict averted.

As a general point, Christians seem to defend the faith/works issue on a verse by verse basis. This is all well and good, but is what we in policy debate liked to call defensive argumentation[17], when it should be our goal to establish the framework for the discussion of the issue. Incorporating cultural understanding of the faith/works relationship seems the best way to handle such a discussion.

To anybody that reads Romans 7 and nods, and isn't thinking about a time prior to the Spirit being sealed in you, you probably should not be nodding.[18]

[1] Why would my deodorant suggest I speak to a doctor before use if I have kidney disease? What exact relationship do my kidneys have with my armpits? Oh, and while you're here and reading an arbitrary endnotes, I should let you know that I'm using endnotes to avoid/allow me to create needless clutter. Also my humor offends some people. Primarily those with taste.
[12 Except grammatical. I ain't needed no grammar, and they done learned me to write American good, and so forth.
[3] The pearly gates are not a direct reference to my two front teeth, as they are neither pearly enough, nor per Matthew 7:13, are they nearly narrow enough.
[4] And that is just plain silly.
[5] Henceforth, all we's are corporate in nature, and not especially indicative of any particular personal belief or struggle. There. That ought to throw you off the scent. Pops always said the best defense is a good offense. Or did he say the best defense was a 46? Now that I mention it, was that Pops, or Buddy Ryan? Um, sorry Pops. How come every time I attempt to clarify a commonly used pronoun, I end up confusing Pops with Buddy Ryan?
[6] Personal roots of a faith/works dichotomy, not Batman and Robin's alliterative dismay.
[7] Nodding 'yes,' not Haddaway nodding. This is also commonly (read: not near any authority figure) referred to as the doo-doo passage. Helser Team: love it or quarantine it.
[8] I wanted to quote a shorter portion of the passage, but that felt like butchery. Instead, I have marked in bold sections of particular interest, which is almost as fun as highlighting prospectuses ... I mean, which I have never done ... erm ... please don't hurt me, FINRA.
[9] I could not locate a suitable translation to verify the point made with the Numbers verse. The other two required literal translations, ie not NIV/ESV. The relevance of the 'body of Christ' reference eludes me for now. The reference to rabbinical literature is a favorite of this author, and I think he does it in an appropriately selective manner (when seeking cultural context).
[10] Full text can be found here. It's a really neat article, and a fun, if not professionally designed or courteous website.
[11] Includes, but is not limited to more room to reject dualism. This is an area of special ignorance for me.
[12] The title of each 'thesis' is a generalization. I do that. A lot.
[13] The full text is here. Good cultural background, but there may be theological error.
[14] I hope this is a word. Lord, let this be a word, and I'll start using it in phone calls.
[15] Presumably from the last Damascus road blinding NOT caused by a Hamas rocket. Admittedly, he may also be referring to the resurrection body, in which case forget I posted anything.
[16] In the English translation. Greek tense structure is ... well ... all Greek to me.
[17] Pops always said the best defense ...
[18] Nor should you be up at 3:30 writing blog posts. Oh, wait. That's me. Now that I mention it, so was the nodding.

Casual Sunday perusal of Powerline, the best blog written by conservative lawyers not named Eugene Volokh, uncovered this gem of Universal Super-Tolerance, the story of an Episcopal priest who decided to become a Muslim. Of course, she's* still an Episcopal Priest . . . and a Muslim . . . but an Episcopal priest too . . . but Muslim . . .

[reboot]

Casual Sunday perusal of Powerline, the best blog written by conservative lawyers not named Eugene Volokh, uncovered this gem of Universal Super-Tolerance, the story of an Episcopal priest who decided to become a Muslim. Of course, she's* still an Episcopal Priest . . . and a Muslim . . . but an Episcopal priest too . . . but Muslim . . .

[reboot, safe mode]

Y'all read that Seattle Times story about the Muslim Episcopal priest? Quotes abound:

Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she's ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she's also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.

Her announcement has provoked surprise and bewilderment in many, raising an obvious question: How can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim?

. . .

"There are tenets of the faiths that are very, very different," said Kurt Fredrickson, director of the doctor of ministry program at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. "The most basic would be: What do you do with Jesus?"

Redding doesn't feel she has to resolve all the contradictions. People within one religion can't even agree on all the details, she said. "So why would I spend time to try to reconcile all of Christian belief with all of Islam?

"At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That's all I need."

. . .

Redding's views, even before she embraced Islam, were more interpretive than literal.

She believes the Trinity is an idea about God and cannot be taken literally.

She does not believe Jesus and God are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus.

She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.

What makes Jesus unique, she believes, is that out of all humans, he most embodied being filled with God and identifying completely with God's will.

She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Quran. "That's something I'll find a challenge the rest of my life," she said.

* Awesome thing about my Mom #29,764 is that if she were reading this post, she would probably have stopped at the words 'she' and 'priest' and not even bothered continuing to read. I don't even really remember this, but when we were living in Hawaii, our church was in the middle of calling a new pastor. (Welcome to mainstream Protestantism all you evangelical readers). My Mom apparently saved up all the maternal discipline my sisters and I got for a week and single-handedly derailed any chances of that church calling a female pastor for maybe the next 50 years. My Mom rules.

.Yes, I think that's normal. It's a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma ... I really believe we've moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace ... You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma (Of course, he's right: Hinduism & Karma = Buddhism & the cycle of suffering = Confucianism & Golden Rule-esque sayings = Islam & people crowding Mideast streets 9/12/01 and called the attacks the day before God's punishment on an immoral nation = Judeo-Christianity & the law -ed). You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics—in physical laws—every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It's clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I'm absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that "as you reap, so you will sow" stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff. (This quote doubles as Matt Heerema Rant #2684 -ed)a

.1As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (read: Whose Karma was it? -ed) 3Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." (read: It was nobody's Karma, but my own purposes that necessitated this man's condition. -ed) 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." 6Having said these things, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man's eyes with the mud 7and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing. (See? -ed)b

I was in Borders on day (whoops), and decided to browse the new release Christian section (double whoops). The first thing I noticed, me being me, was that at least half of the book contained something resembling heresy. Of these, the most humorous/not even remotely funny was a work chronicling the interaction between men and God with the underlying thesis that God needs us as much as we need Him, to be taken to the point that man has deeply influenced God, his interactions with us, and the very course of all history that God would dare dictate to us. Decontexualized examples include Sodom and Gomorrah, Job, and kings from Saul to Hezekiah. In other words, history is a humanistic triumph in the face of God. At its core, one could easily grab one core assumption (besides the fact that this author hadn't ever read Isaiah 40): God is capricious, childish, inconsistent, and most importantly, not worthy of anyone's absolute obedience.

One of the greatest lies about the law is that it is as capricious, childish, inconsistent, and most importantly, not worthy of anyone's absolute obedience as the God that set it upon tablets and in our hearts. Sabbaths, no shellfish, sin offerings, what's up with all that? Every politician (except for maybe the bad ones) will tell you that a law is no law without an enforcement vehicle (up to and including helicopters, silly Belgians). So what's God's enforcement vehicle? It may be Hell, but then Hell fits better as the place that those that do not enter into relationship with God choose. Rather/additionally, Karma fills that role. All of the law is there with our welfare as the end. I can't tell you what purpose each rule has, but after you sow so many types of wind only to reap just as many different whirlwinds, you give the Big Man Upstairs the benefit of the doubt. If I stick my finger in the electrical socket a few time and get shocked each time, I'm not sticking my finger in any more electrical sockets, especially after a figurative Michael Riley tells me every socket in the room is hot. (That reminds me; ask me about my cousin in Afghanistan. Good times, great oldies.)

In fact, that reminds me of some 'No OT, no Paul, no Patriarchy' Christians at one Tom Short speaking engagement that decided that (among other things, Dan Brown kind of things, things that should refute themselves but don't) much of the rabbinical law was nothing more than a public health code, with healthy laws ranging from the separation from diseased people rules, to required railings on roofs, to that whole shellfish thing. In this regard, they contend the exact opposite of the God's-off-the-wagon-again crowd: this whole Law thingy makes so much sense, no God I know could have written it. Both extremes lead back to the original lie: God either cares more about proving He's the boss than He does about man's welfare, or He couldn't plan a smiting, much less a path to salvation.

.34Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father." 39They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, 40but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.c

.5Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith-- 6just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? 7Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." 9So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.d

The Abrahamic spat above directly precedes Jesus healing the man born blind. The short version is that the Pharisees don't know grace from 18% gratuities, because they miss the fact that righteousness comes through faith. (It's almost like the Epistles were written as direct corroboration of the Gospels. Somebody pinch me.) They then prove their ignorance by approaching everyday suffering and missing the Grace inherent in the moment in favor of the same old Karma. 'Everything is changing,' he replies, 'and I'm setting it all right.'

.Have you ever wondered what you would do to frighten Lazarus after he had been raised from the dead? What would you do to threaten him? Caligula said “I’m going to kill you as I’m killing all the Christians.” Lazarus doubles over in uncontrollable laugher, comes up for air, and says ‘Caligula, haven’t you heard? Death is dead.’ How do you frighten the one who has already been there and knows the one who is going to let him out?e

.55"O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?"f

So Death is dead, but what of Karma?

.21Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[f] nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.g

At the risk of stretching the point, what does the life without Karma look like?

.1The LORD is my light and my salvation;
whom shall I fear?
The LORD is the stronghold of my life;
of whom shall I be afraid?h

KING: Joining us now in Blacksburg, Virginia, Pastor Jim Pace, the New Life Christian Fellowship. He ministers to the campus of the Virginia Tech, and the community, as well.

And in Dallas, Texas, our old friend, Dr. Phil McGraw, the host of TV's "Dr. Phil" and "New York Times" best-selling author. He has a Ph.D. of course, in clinical psychology.

Pastor Pace, what's the church doing with -- in regard to today's events?

PASTOR JIM PACE, NEW LIFE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP: Well, I'd say, Larry, we're just trying to get our feet under us a little bit, just like everybody else is. Every time we seem to turn on the TV it gets worse.

But we're just trying to focus on giving some people a variety of different ways they can deal with this. We have some larger group things for people that want to process this with lots of people. And then we've got some smaller things for people that want to hole up in their -- in their dorm or in their apartment and just kind of try to sort this out with a few friends.

We're just trying to be as many places as we can. [emphasis addded -ed] We're helping out with what the university is doing, as well, and just trying to lend our support there.

KING: Where were you when it happened, Jim?

PACE: I was about 200 yards away at a coffee shop watching the feed on CNN as it went down.

And then, you know, the second thing that has to happen is they do have to talk about it. And God[sic] bless Pastor Pace for being on site and stepping up and providing a place for people to go to share their thoughts, share their feelings. You've got to give this a voice and get it out. But we cannot make hollow promises to the remaining students. And, you know, this happened at a wonderful institution, Virginia Tech. It didn't happen at Stanford or Texas Tech or the University of Miami.

It is foolish because one does not speak about healing the same day (or week or perhaps even month) that one is traumatized -- especially by evil. One must be allowed time for anger and grief. To speak of healing and "closure" before one goes through those other emotions is to speak not of healing but of suppression.

Not to allow people time to experience their natural, and noble, instincts to feel rage and grief actually deprives them of the ability to heal in the long run. After all, if there is no rage and grief, what is there to heal from?

The Jewish tradition, still observed even by non-Orthodox Jews, is to sit "shiva" (seven) days and do nothing but mourn and receive visitors after the death of an immediate relative. One does not have to be a religious Jew or even a Jew to appreciate this ancient wisdom.

I am not following the Don Imus snafu, but the recent Pravda headline American radio icon Don Imus disgraced, fired after threat to reveal 9/11 secrets simultaneously transcends hilarity (not to be confused with Hillary, Erik), it gives me an excuse to share one of my favorite jokes.

Pravda, for the linguistically and historically impaired, is both the Russian word for truth and the USSR's media mouthpiece in the Bad Old Days (alternatively a reference to the Cold War and the days before Casey v. Planned Parenthood and the hallowed Kerry-esque legal concept of 'super stare decisis'). Perhaps the bedrock of a society without God is that good is evil, the classless society is among the most stratified and socially immobile societies ever (apart from the mobility descended from thuggery), and the newspaper named Truth had a habit for compulsively lying to its readership. After all, Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania.

There was supposedly some obscure olympic event that was so hopeless at one point in time, not even the Jamaicans had a notion to compete in it, leaving the US and the USSR alone on yet another battlefield. So the Americans do what we do best, and just win, baby. Well, it must have been an especially slow trading day for the Ruble, or perhaps it was a non-election year, or egalitarianism was not the vogue word on the international fashion scene, or nobody had much money in their newspaper advertising budget, or it's really hard to write about a 100% government approval rating, but whatever the reason (my preferred theory is that Garry Kasparov was having a down year) the results got covered in Pravda:

Soviets Finish Second, US Next To Last

Oh and PS, note that the most authoritative named source for the linked article is Rosie O'Donnell.

UPDATE: Others corroborate my tale, though some tell it differently. We can call it an urban legend until proven otherwise.

Google announced today that soon customers of their Gmail service will have their storage size increased to "infinity plus one." The announcement comes shortly after Yahoo's announcement that their Yahoo mail customers would be given unlimited storage.
...
When contacted about the Google announcement, a Yahoo representative said, "We will be making an announcement shortly about our million-trillion-billion infinity storage," and added, "Neener, neener, neener."

Not to be left out of the storage bonanza, a Hotmail representative said that while they "can't offer unlimited storage, they can delete all your e-mail at random intervals in conjunction with their Live OneCare service, to make sure you never run out of space."

The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.

Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.

The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters [emphasis added -ed], whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.

Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming.

UPDATE: April Fools!!

The Pope, who as cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was head of Catholic doctrine, noted that "forgiveness of sins" for those who repented was a cornerstone of Christian belief.

He recalled that Jesus had forgiven the "woman taken in adultery" and prevented her from being stoned to death, observing: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

God had given men and women free will to choose whether "spontaneously to accept salvation...the Christian faith is not imposed on anyone, it is a gift, an offer to mankind".

What was news to me was the following:

In October, the Pope indicated that limbo, supposed since medieval times to be a "halfway house" between heaven and hell, was "only a theological hypothesis" and not a "definitive truth of the faith".

The Guardian often makes the New York Times look like ultra-right by comparison, but yesterday it also made the Times look ultra-sober in what I pray was an op-ed. The punchline: everything you know about the scientific method is wrong. That's right, the process of hypothesis, setup, data collection, analysis, conclusion is incomplete unless filtered through the lens of social interaction. The article flows like a ton of avalanching bricks, but we'll make some sense of it. To set the stage:

Two scientists - one a climate physicist, the other a biologist - have written a book arguing that the warming currently observed around the world is a function of a 1,500-year "unstoppable" cycle in solar energy. The central thesis is linked to evidence that most people would recognise as being generated by science. But is this book really about science? It is written as a scientific text, with citations to peer-reviewed articles, deference to numbers, and adoption of technical terms. A precis of the argument put forward in the book by Fred Singer, an outspoken critic of the idea that humans are warming the planet, and Dennis Avery is that a well-established, 1,500-year cycle in the Earth's climate can explain most of the global warming observed in the last 100 years (0.7C), that this cycle is in some way linked to fluctuations in solar energy, and because there is nothing humans can do to affect the sun we should simply figure out how to live with this cycle. We are currently on the upswing, they say, warming out of the Little Ice Age, but in a few hundred years will be back on the downswing. Efforts to slow down the current warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are at best irrelevant, or at worst damaging for our future development and welfare.

This, of course, is not what the fourth assessment report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a few weeks ago. The report from its climate science working group concluded that it is likely that most of the warming of the last 50 years has been caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations and that, depending on our actions now to slow the growth of emissions, warming by 2100 will probably be between about 1.5C and 6C.

The upper end of this range is almost an order of magnitude larger than the warming that Singer and Avery suggest is caused by the 1,500-year cycle. So is this a fight between scientific truth and error? This seems to be how Singer and Avery would like to present it - "science is the process of developing theories and testing them against observations until they are proven true or false".

The danger of a "normal" reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. Singer has this view of science, as do some of his more outspoken campaigning critics such as Mark Lynas. That is why their exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences. If the battle of science is won, then the war of values will be won.

If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage.

In this reading, Singer and Avery are using apparently scientific arguments - about 1,500 year cycles, about the loss of species, about sea-level rise - to further their deeper (yet unexpressed) values and beliefs. Too often with climate change, genuine and necessary debates about these wider social values - do we have confidence in technology; do we believe in collective action over private enterprise; do we believe we carry obligations to people invisible to us in geography and time? - masquerade as disputes about scientific truth and error.
...
This is not a comfortable thing to say - either to those scientists who still hold an uncritical view of their privileged enterprise and who relish the status society affords them, or to politicians whose instinct is so often to hide behind the experts when confronted by difficult and genuine policy alternatives.

So either Singer and Avery are fiendishly "masquerading" their values discussion by claiming scientific arguments, or they are using scientific arguments because they're hammers and every problem looks like a nail. I think Hulme really wants Singer and other global warming skeptics to either admit that they hate all the children of the world and want them to die from massive tsunamis and Des Moines summers in Winnipeg, or admit in spontaneous weeping that they're really sorry their 'facts' got in the way of their love for all the children of the world, all just so he can feel less insecure about his position. However you cut it, truth has no meaning because WE HAVE GOT TO DO SOMETHING. The cinchers:

Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.
...
What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy; it is whether we have sufficient foresight, supported by wisdom, to allow our perspective about the future, and our responsibility for it, to be altered. All of us alive today have a stake in the future, and so we should all play a role in generating sufficient, inclusive and imposing knowledge about the future. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.

(1) AFTER (and I think Mr. Hulme misses this little point so it bears repeating) AFTER a reasoned, scientific evaluation of the social and economic impacts of global arming (if any, including positives) is made, then one should instantly detach policy from science. Tony Blair was on a fool's errand asking scientists for a culturally acceptable limit to global warming, because that's not their job. Believe it or not, that's why that country has MPs.
(2) The provisional nature of science makes #1 somewhat difficult. Boo-Hoo. Quit whining and try the objectivity; it's delish with a side of humble pie.
(3) Speaking of humble pie, everybody needs to get off the high horses that brought them and be willing to admit that their side may not have done the math (or whatever) correctly. Scientific findings change, and it's not because of vast right wing conspiracies, or vaster left wing ones either. Typically, someone forgot to 'carry the one,' and that someone is rarely Karl Rove.
(4) To that end, everybody NEEDS to come out and state their policy preferences right now. After that is done, everybody NEEDS to be mindful of those policy preferences in the peer review process, but NEVER speak of them again. Want to shoot down an argument? Tough cookies, you're going to have to use facts, because I honestly don't care how much money my local climatologist gave to MoveOn or Halliburton if he can make a case re global warming.

It would be really cool to clear this mess up so we could talk about the really fun things...

I'm calling out Runners.

I'm sure there are tons of committed Runners. The kind of people that hike through foot upon foot of snow just to run indoors. I don't understand it myself. I ran for a short period of time because I enjoyed the occasions I got to run PT with my dad and expanded it to a hobby until I realized that running just to run bored me as much as lifting weights for fun.

Short interlude: my running past served no purpose except for me to have an excuse to wish my father a Happy Belated 30th Birthday (again).

Anyway, tons of committed Runners. Everywhere. Nike loves them, and I agree that it takes a hardcore nature to buy shoes solely for running. People even run professionally, and cry on national TV when they break world records by thousandths of seconds. They're willing to bend human decency via illegal steroids and risk being caught and derided for a little head start. Xtreme to the Max, and whatnot.

So here's where my confusion sets in. Lighter is faster, right? Never do you hear of Runners having major surgery to remove useless organs. You don't need your gall bladder to run, nor do you need your appendix, nor do you need those toes. That's extra weight holding you back. This is almost so obvious, so what's up?

And why stop there? Shaving your head should be the first thing you even consider when committing to running. Your ears probably aren't helping wind resistance either (mine certainly don't). I would even suggest losing some feet of intestine and/or a kidney, but messing with your metabolic processes would force you to weigh long-term running gains with short-term running gains. The list goes on, and gets a little more morbid, so I'll spare you.

"But wait," interjects the Runner. "I'll never be able to get a job or show my face in reasonable society with my face aerodynamically optimized, and may lose years off of my life with only one kidney" Sure. Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. That's a nice thought, a good thought, right? Right! (name that musical)

So here's my question: if somebody walks up to me, tells me that they are a Runner, then gets squiemish when I call in the surgeon, are they a Runner?

Run!!

I'm pulling away from hyper-mega-super-awesome Stonebrook Community Church this Sunday with the Helser Team dormitos in the back seat of my luxurious '92 Buick LeSabre (only 276k miles). Out the back of my window, I see Mr Chad Gourley [TM] waving his arms at me from the back of the car. Since I was too attentive to the road, my passengers inform me that Chad wants me to know that I have a flat tire. "That's why it was so bumpy back here," inserts the peanut gallery. My car rides pretty rough with full tires, so I feel I can be excused somewhat. We pull over just south of Bloomington, and Chad takes one of my passengers in exchange for an electrical air pump. Conclusion #1: Thanks, Chad!!

The pump is plugged into my onboard lighter, and ten minutes later, the tire is at about 20 psi and we're colder than Satan after a hypothetical Cubs' pennant win, so we decide the rest can be done at a gas station, especially since it appeared that the initial cause was just a bad seal in cold weather. Get in, turn ignition, WHIRR WHIRR WHIRR click. Rinse, lather, repeat, stoopid battery ran out filling my tire. We phone a couple of people, and before any of them could get to the site, Shannon Weiss [TM] shows up. Since my car's electrical system is haunted, I'm prepared with jumper cables, so we prepare to jump the car. Get in, turn ignition, WHIRR WHIRR WHIRR click. Rinse, lather, repeat, now that you mention it, my fuel gauge is reading pretty close to empty. General despair,

Russ "Ben's roomate in 2 weeks" Graves and Jason Dietzenbach [TM] roll by. Russ instructs us on the proper placement of the negative clamp on Shannon's car (translation: he reads the big bold letters that prominently say 'negative'), since apparently Shannon's car's body was not working as a ground. WHIRR WHIRR VROOM VROOM I'M A LUXARY SEDAN BUT I MOVE LIKE A BRICK VROOM. Of course, this is all done to the background of Stonebrookians as they drive by either pulling over or calling Teply to ask what's going on. Good times. Conclusion #2: Thanks, Shannon, Russ, and Jason!!

2340 CST - The House, in Brief - Fox News reports the house majority for the Dems at 7 seats. This is likely to grow. Whether this margin grows depends a lot on Arizona, New Mexico, and similar states. Either way, expect impeachment proceedings to gain momentum in February.

2304 CST - The Senate, in Brief. With about 98% certainty, the curent count is 48-47-1 to the Repubs (counting Lieberman as a Democrat, also assume the indie Jeffords votes with the Dems). Call it 90% Repub Corker will probably win in TN (I really wanted them to call TN for Corker, just so I could link to Harold Ford Jr. saying 'Repubs fear the Lord, but Demos fear and love the Lord'. Classic. It may deserve a separate post.) This means it's 49-47-1 Repubs. So, to win the senate, Dems must win Missouri (Talent over McCaskill, but much of the remaining polling to be done is in St. Louis and KC), Montana (Burns losing early in Dem-favors precincts, but capable of winning), Maryland (huge upet if Steele wins this one, nobody really knows where he would pick up the votes to win it), and Virginia (Webb ahead by 3000ish, out of millions, but a recount is coming). Overall, Dems are in a decent position to pull each of these off, but asking for all four is a tall order.

2253 CST - Fox News says the Senate will not be decided tonight. Ames Trib has many of the state races for the Dems, with a lone exception being Secretary of Agriculture, which is a dead heat.

2240 CST - Semi-back. Corker looks good, The WaPo uncalled Cardin in MD, but Fox has not. Allen's still tight (will probably go to a recount).

2200 CST - Gotta get Pokey Sticks. Later.

2155 CST - Harry Reid: "For six years, we've had no legislative branch of government." Ramblings about Halliburton. Mumbles about overtures to Repub leadership. And Heath Shuler is projected to win.

2150 CST - Fox just called Iowa's Gov race for Culver. Polling from the Register, the Trib, and KCCI.com corroborate this.

2132 CST - Fox News projected that Ohio and Missouri have voted to raise the minimum wage. Two words: price floors. Ridiculous. Ho hum.

2124 CST - Chris Wallace just interviewed John McCain, and asked the 'Journalists' Gold Star $16000 question': "are you part of the problem, or part of the solution?". Wowwy wowsa. I got nothing. I mean, what do they expect him to say? Excuse me sir, but are you in fact the worst Senator ever, and should you resign immediately?

2118 CST - The Ames Trib reports only a 27.1% turnout the hour before the polls closed. Weak.

UPDATE - This includes a 47% turnout at hyper-mega-super-awesome Stonebrook Community Church.

2114 CST - The Ames Tribune is reporting early Iowa returns. Not good for Nussle. Then again, it may be the precincts that are in. Consider: the results only show a 53-47 edge for Latham, which seems low. Wait and see.

UPDATE - A housemate just came in and argued that Nussle's place on the House Finance Commitee is what sank him. I countered that it was more his generic Washington connection (I remember seeing at least one ad to that effect). Good times

2104 CST - The Register is back, and has a couple of fun articles. In the first, Yepsen reports that 93% of absentee ballots received in Iowa will be valid, which is an improvement over the 75% of ballots voted in 2004. In the other, the Register reports that first time voters are greater in number than in previous years. In fact, "polls are swamped." There should be some kind of law about using the word 'swamped' to describe polls or the actions of voters. In fact, unless your car will not start and you're trapped in a swamp, do not use the word swamped. Please. It's quite swamptious. [New word alarm]

2100 CST - Corker, Talent ahead by margins. Allen still holds his tiny lead. Iowa just closed, too. I'm getting a "service unavailable" message from the Des Moines Register page. Just another average top of the hour.

2054 CST - Polls close in Iowa in 5 minutes. Just saying.

2046 CST - For something slightly different, much of the criticism of Republicans has been on he conduct of the Iraq War. For a different perspective, I submit a Bob Woodward interview of Donald Rumsfeld. I admit to have enough of a life to have read only half of it (it's loooong), but one gets a fair glimpse of why there are not 2 million US troops occupying Iraq a la post-Nazi Germany. In short, Rumsfeld feels that short term losses are offst by the building of Iraqi security forces and national spirit. This is a debatable point, but a least discussion of the issue with this intent in mind can possibly surpass, "Bush lied, people died". Is that too much to ask? Yes? Bummer.

2041 CST - Fox News called Maryland's Gov race for O'Malley over Ehrlich. This does not bode well for Michael Steele. Either that, or I already missed the networks call that Senate race for Cardin. Whoops. Also, Chafee appears to have lost in RI some time ago. As an act of contrition, I will continue blogging.

2039 CST - The White House is supposedly optimistic about the House. They see extra seats in play in Georgia. I see Reagan-esque optimism (not always a good thing).

UPDATE - Fox News calls the two Georgia House seats 'too close to call'. Also, note that Georgians are voting on an eminent domain resolution, which helps Repub turnout.

2035 CST - No real upsets so far. Dems won some House races in Indiana that may presage House gains of 20+ seats. It appears more unlikely that Dem House gains will exceed 30. Yawn.

2019 CST - Our floor is crazy civic. My roommate got a ride to Des Moines to vote today at the last minute (after I repeatedly told him he would not be able to vote in Story County without reregistering), and I have an exclusive report that Kirk Monnier just finished voting in Waterloo (ardent voter Andrew Teply helped drive him out there). I captured an exclusive interview with Mr. Monnier:

BMW - Do you realize that many consider driving from Ames to Waterloo to vote to be out of the mainstream?
Kirk - I suppose.
BMW - Did you foam at the mouth while voting?
Kirk - [laughs]
BMW - That's enough, crazy man. Does your fanaticism to vote ever drive you to pillage the homes of innocent nonvoters and drink their blood and drive to Waterloo?
Kirk - What?
BMW - I'll ask the questions here, psycho. When will you stop your endless tirade of casting votes for the most qualified candidates in each given race that has resulted in oh so much suffering and pain?
Kirk - Only on Thursdays.
BMW - Final question. Could God create a burrito so hot, he couldn't eat it.
Kirk - I dunno.

We report 'em skewered, you decide how you want 'em cooked.

2014 CST - Lieberman appears to win in Connecticut, and Ken Mehlman is on TV. Joy!

1939 CST - Back with food from Clyde's. Santorum loses, Menendez appears to win. I will say it one more time: until he finishes his current term, Rick Santorum is the best thing the US Senate had going for it. On a different note, Corker is up somewhat, as is Allen by a razor thin margin.

1912 CST - I'm off for food.

1904 CST - Steve Barnes is discussing the Heath Shuler candidacy on Fox News. In case you forgot Heath Shuler, he played QB for the Redskins fairly poorly, and is now running for Congress. He is of the rarest breed (a pro-life Dem) and has not commited to voting for Pelosi for Speaker. The humorous side is Stop Shuler, a blog dedicated to destroying Heath Shuler's campaign, all because of his NFL career. Admittedly, he did decline a debate challenge with the ludicrous excuse that he 'does not work on Sundays'

1858 CST - The Ames Tribune has decided that voters are 'swarming' to polls. Methinks 15.8% turnout at 3pm is not a swarm. Correct me if I'm mistaken. Despite that, props are sent to the hall at hyper-mega-super-awesome Stonebrook Community Church.

1853 CST - I tried. I switched to CNN to get a different perspective, but they now have Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs in a free-form discussion. Back to Fox News ... Maybe I'll try PBS when Iowa polls close.

1841 CST - Speaking of referenda and candidates, I wonder to what degree minimum wage referenda on ballots today will boost Dem candidates by encouraging turnout. I don't imagine the effect will be too significant, but I have otherwise come across no mention of such effect. FYI, proposals are on the ballot in stats with pivotal races like Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, and Ohio.

1832 CST - Fox may be calling the passage of the Virginia Marriage Amendment. Of course, this helps Allen, but only to a significant degree, considering Webb isn't too far left of center. This is where the idea that a focus on national issues helps Dems proves less than certain. People with national focus are more likely to vote 'the lesser of two evils', which favors the incumbent and encourages voters that come out for the vote more for referenda to vote for similar (otherwise unpopular) incumbents. This is generally regarded as a distinct function of Republican candidates.

1827 CST - My dad just sent me links to bowling videos. Some people just lack perspective;)

1822 CST - Nothing decided yet, but apparently the AARP is sponsering Fox News' coverage of the election. I don'tknow what that means.

1806 CST - I just got a call about the graduating class gift. Believe it or not, I said no.

1802 CST - Fox just called VA's senate race 'too close to call.' This is not a surprise. I've been pretty supportive of George Allen, even predicting that he would win the 2008 Republican presidential nod about a year ago. This possibility seems more remote, but I still think he is a solid candidate, and he is not a racist (That I have to say that is somewhat surreal to me).

1739 CST - Wow.

1731 CST - The Huffington Post publishes Nancy Pelosi's call for your vote. Wow. Wow. I don't know where to start, so let's be arbitrary: How does minimum wage legislation get linked to congressional pay raises? Seriously, they're two different things. There is nothing hipocritical about voting against forcing a price floor on labor while increasing incentives for public service. Wow. Cutting interest rates for student loans in half, is that on federal loans, or is that a mandate for all student loans. As a student reliant on loans for my education, I support neither. It just keeps going. Wow.

1722 CST - If you are concerned about the voting process in Iowa, check out IowaVoters.org. It sems kosher.

1717 CST - A sad story. Apparently, for those of you that get to my blog via PlanetRock, the top of this post does not update. Therefore, in the middle of the post, I will be including a 'last updated' label. Now you can be uber-nerdy in real time.

UPDATE: That doesn't appear to work. Oh well. [Sob]

1709 CST - A fun story. So Teply, Jacob, Kirk and I were having fun dreaming of all the things to do with Alka-Seltzer, and I decide that it would have been amazing to go vote, pop an Alka Seltzer in my mouth while voting a Democratic ticket, and come out foaming while asking for a new ballot. My suspicion is that nobody at the polling station would find that as funny as I would. The amazing thing about that conversation was that there were 5+ ideas even better than that one.

1704 CST - Exit polls out, and Fox News' seems to conform with prior polls. I know nothing (and I contend few others do) about what changed in exit polls today versus 2004, so I'm expecting a Dem skew. To what effect? [Cue cheesily dramatic music]. I was honestly hoping for anything that has not been said yet, but no luck. Maybe I should just go watch Simpsons instead ... no, that would be sane.

1652 CST - I'm back. To update events that I've neglected in favor of an oral progress report concerning ergonomic shortcomings in 1 Kildee Hall:
- Tim is jealous of this blog. Or at least that's how I read it. Anywho, he also posted on voting. I agree.
- I have yet to be rebuked for this blog post. Freedom in Christ, baby!! ;)
- Fox News may have Brit Hume on soon, but they aroused my ire by showing that Outback commercial that rips Of Montreal. Grrrr.
- The Story County Auditor's Office is reporting that 4000 people cast their votes before 1100. This is almost twice as much as last year., Whopee?
- The Register reports that they know of few voting machine troubles, and that there is concern over early posting of returns.

1515 CST - Class time. Hopefully, I'll be back after 1700, and stuff starts happening (besides voting, which rocks).

1505 CST - Neil Cavuto just got done interviewing my former congressman, Rep. Tom Tancredo. I can hardly think of a more inflammatory politician, but I think I still regret not actually getting to vote for him.

1454 CST - I've had a fairly hard time finding any local election coverage of note this last hour (I've never been really into the local scene, but I'm slightly upset). Of interest, however, is this WSJ loose schedule of events this evening. Big deal items include the extra security around exit polling data (to be released after 1700) and the closing of polls in Iowa at 10 pm.

1358 CST - Yet another ad,this one telling me to go to SaveDarfur.org. Being a sucker for that kind of thing, I complied. That may seem slightly off-topic, but this gives me yet another opportunity to say how much I REALLY REALLY want Rick Santorum to win, beacuse he rocks the universe on issues ranging from Darfur to educating Americans about Iraq's WMDs.

1348 CST - They just showed a political ad on TV. Good thing; I was going into withdrawl.

1346 CST - Supplementary election resource recommendation: Pajamas Media compiles news and opinions better than anyone. Warning: this site will show up on x3watch reports for those that use them. It's clean.

1328 CST - This blog got to conduct an exclusive interview with celebrity guest and ardent voter Andrew Teply:

BMW - How was voting at the UDCC?
Teply - It was good. The people at the polling place didn't like it when I joked that I was too old to vote with the computer.
BMW - So you did vote with the paper ballot?
Teply - Yes.
BMW - How was that?
Teply - Not enough fiber.
BMW - Any candidate you want to endorse for our readers?
Teply - Yes. I think all Americans should support Pat Blair for County Treasurer if they vote twice.
BMW - Final question: If Batman died, would the Joker be happy?
Teply - No.

Do they give Pulitzers for irrelevancy?

1321 CST - CCCPNN has an exclusive report that this election is more about Republicans than Democrats. I'm switching back to Fox.

UPDATE: Seriously!! Except the gem was that Julian Epstein (who?) seems to think that voters are turning from Repubs 'cuz they didn't get their agenda (social security reform, etc) passed through.

1314 CST - The online Des Moines Register carries two election day stories I actually tried to read. The first is a news story concerning "voting machine snags", which is really funny, since CCCPNN is concurrently showing a lady trying and failing to feed a ballot into a scanner. I normally don't condone frivilous lawsuits, but that lady should take CNN to court. The second is David Yepsin's report of high turnout so far. Also, I now dislike the Register because their blogs sort their comments in ascending order. Weak. Whatta buncha noobs.

1305 CST - File under flipping hilarious: SoCar Gov. (and very very darkhorse Prez candidate) Mark Sanford of Sanford and Son was turned away from the polls in his hometown becaus he lacked a voter registration card. He blamed eyestrain from lighting at campaign events, but came back to vote 90 minutes later. Go lighting.

1302 CST - That's right. In case you didn't notice, I am using military time. Gotta respect my roots.

1250 CST - From Fox News: Dems & Repubs have “more than 10,000 lawyers on guard.” (Sorry, no link)

1245 CST - Exclusive reporter Brett Michaels (my next door neighbor, not the Poison lead singer) is reporting that Harry Reid has conceded that the Dems will not win the House, and the election now comes down to the Senate. Color me skeptical. Harry Reid said it, so it's got to be wrong. Also, that appears counter-intuitive, since the Senate is perceived as safer for Repubs than the House.

UPDATE: I cannot at this time corroborate the report, but in a fit of silliness, decided to publish it anyway. File under prophecy.

UPDATE II: This item now appears to be an obvious bit of silliness. I apologize for being silly. It will happen repeatedly.

1242 CST - Somebody made a movie about Robert Kennedy. I'm speechless. Maybe it should be thrown out that movies about killing politicians have not done well recently.

1234 CST - So I'm often asked the question, "what are you smoking, man?", which I roughly translate as, "where do you get your inspiriation to semi-live blog something as mundane as a midterm election with trademark thuroughness and fairness?" Honestly, it's a little nerdiness, a little procrastinating, but mostly, it's Turner Classic Movies, which last night graced the television with a late showing of 1776, the greatest, and perhaps only, movie about the 2nd Continental Congress starring Mr. Feeny from Boy Meets World. For a native Brooklynite playing a Massachusettser (John Adams), Williams Daniels sings fairly well. Molasses to rum ... to SLAVES!!

1232 CST - What do President Bush and Megan Blair have in common? They really want you to vote. (The Prez's sentiments are courtesy of CCCPNN, or CNN to the moderates out there).

1227 CST - Pat Blair said a bunch of stuff. I agree.

1214 CST - Fox News just had Rick Santorum on the tube. He played on his national security credentials (decent enough), but I think that this is one of two cantidates outside of Iowa that I REALLY want to see win, as much as Rick looks to be out of reach of Bob Casey. Despite the fact that Casey, as far as I can tell, is the only pro-life Dem running for Senator, Santorum is the catalyst in the Senate for legislation aimed at reasonable solutions to poverty and AIDS globally.

1213 CST - So many people people enjoy my semi-live SOTU blog (I enjoyed it at least) that I decided to try it again for these Midterm elections. It is quasi-live in that while I will be posting as I write bulletins instead of all at once after the fact(the slower pace of the day as opposed to blogging an hour specch on all of US policy helps), I may be posting only sporadically depending upon the frequency of news releases and class.

Khatami's methods come under the scrutiny of the New York Post, which accuses Khatami of a practice known as "taqiyah" that translated as dissimulation or obfuscation. Wikipedia define taqiyah using words that will not be on the SAT:

Taqiyya (التقية - 'fear, guard against')[1] is the dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.

If the 21st century has taught us anything, it's that Google knows all, and the first search result for "taqiyah" led me to al-islam.org, and their 'about us' page:

Our objectives are to digitize and present on the Internet quality Islamic resources, related to the history, law, practice, and society of the Islamic religion and the Muslim peoples, with particular emphasis on Twelver Shia Islamic school of thought.

The entry speaking specifically to taqiyah was definitely an eybrow-raiser. The justification for the practice follows from the value Muslims place on human life. A situation where one is given a choice to renounce Islam or die is a situation where one is forced to choose the lesser of two evils, and human life is valued over a verbal commitment to Islam. Words do not make one an unbeliever:

If the flame of true Faith is lighting your heart, mere words of tongue cannot extinguish it at all. Those words of disbelief will be just like a dark cover to hide the light of your faith from the unbelievers, but they can have no adverse effect on the flame itself.

14-16"Here's another way to put it: You're here to be light, bringing out the God-colors in the world. God is not a secret to be kept. We're going public with this, as public as a city on a hill. If I make you light-bearers, you don't think I'm going to hide you under a bucket, do you? I'm putting you on a light stand. Now that I've put you there on a hilltop, on a light stand—shine! Keep open house; be generous with your lives. By opening up to others, you'll prompt people to open up with God, this generous Father in heaven.

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

True Heart, True Words (open faith) | True Heart, False Words (taqiyah)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
False Heart, True Words (hypocrisy) | False Heart, False Words (infidelity)

To the Muslim, those that lie in the top row are okay. Of course, the Christian holds a more exclusive view (only those in the top left cell are saved).

The site also gives instances of taqiyah, two of which interestingly come from the Bible. The first is the story of the Pharisees questioning Jesus about taxation. The second is an incident in Acts 23 where Paul seems to set the Pharisees and the Saducees against each other. In using these examples, the implication appears to be that in each case, the protagonist is lying or otherwise being duplicitous in order to avoid death. This is silly. In the case of taxation, Christ makes the very clear, albeit double-edged points that God deserves our everything and that we are to obey our earthly authorities. In Paul's case, his Pharasaic heritage and belief in the ressurection of the dead are indisputable.

What does this mean to you and me? Honestly, as much fun as it is to compile obscure info, not a lot unless you're looking to understand your Muslim friends (I think this particular issue speaks volumes about how the Muslim world views faith; they also have a unique spin on forced conversions). I suggest that this point of doctrine arose not only as a survival mechanism, but as a consequence of some attachemnt to this world. We are truly different in the philosophical cosequences of God's love, as shown by the multitudes that value(d) the gospel over their life on this world. Believe. Confess. Be the city on the hill.