"We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

Richard Dawkins

And the debate rages on now called Intelligent Design the topic was "debated" last night on Cross-Fire. No, I have no idea why I was watching, and as expected the standard arguments were trotted out. "Yes, but it is only a theory", says Tucker Carlson, a wicked young man with the bow tie. Didn't this bozo ever take a science class, if he did was he listening, is he that fucking stupid, does he have a degree in anything but arrogance? The problem of course is with the definition of theory. The average person applies a definition something like this: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture, guess, surmise, feeling, hunch, impression, suspicion, and therein lies the problem. Theory as it is used in Science is a totally different beast. A fair definition of theory as understood by scientists would be any body of ideas in science. It does not mean a guess, hypothesis, hunch or feeling. If you believe a "theory" is unproven, don't drive across any bridges. The engineers used Stress Theory to design the bridge and remember gravity is just a theory. The majority of Americans think that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools along side Evolution. Intelligent Design is not science, there is no experiment you can conduct to prove it one way or the other. It is not falsifiable. It is useless in providing any further knowledge. The polite response to those that make the suggestion is that they lack education in science and don't understand the issue. If you are not polite, like Dawkins you refer to them as ignorant, stupid or insane, and in case there is any doubt remaining just remember what a scientist calls a theory most of us just call facts.

For some additional information on the scientific method

Posted by Norm at 9:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I started keeping a list of my reading in 1980. I forget what my motivation was. It is not a lifetime reading list I was already thirty-five when I began. It does however cover a considerable part of my life. Perhaps I'll get ambitious one day and include the pre 1980 stuff at least that I can remember. There was the Science Fiction stage where I read Heinlein, Asimov, and Herbert, you know "Stranger in a Strange Land", "The Foundation Trilogy", "Dune". Then came the Hermann Hesse years big while attending the University of Utah. Narcissus & Goldmund was my favorite. I also read a lot of Hemingway back then, is there anyone better, David Gagne apparently doesn't think so. And of course Steinbeck was also a popular author then as now. There was a weekend in 1967 when I read Tolkein's Ring Trilogy, and of course I have fond memories of Gabriel Garcia Marquez's "100 Hundred Years of Solitude". I have told others of the joy I've found in keeping a list, a connection to my past, and many have started their own lists, and related a similar satisfaction. Perhaps like the marks on the wall measuring our growth as children a reading list measures our intellectual growth or perhaps the growth of our humanity. I think a list is a particularly good idea for young and new readers. I read both fiction and non-fiction though I prefer fiction it is more real. Carl Gustav Jung said "Man's estrangement from the mythical realm and the subsequent shrinking of his existence to the mere factual - that is the major cause of mental illness." Or simply put if you're not reading fiction you risk being a wacko. So pick up a book and read it. Then jot down the Title, Author, anything your heart desires. You'll be better for it.

Credit for the Jung quotation goes to Jonathon Delacour via Pierre Ryckmans

Posted by Norm at 7:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Gary Sloan a fellow atheist and a retired English professor in Tuston, La. penned this article which started me thinking, and now I'm feeling downtrodden. Did you know that Sixty-six percent of Americans view atheists unfavorably. Sixty-nine percent would be disturbed if a family member married one, and forty-nine percent wouldn't elect an atheist to public office under any circumstances. Americans disapprove of atheists at approximately the same rate they approve of George Dubya; not surprising since George chooses to exclude atheists from active participation in our countries business. He believes our true strength comes from a belief in god, and Dick Cheney believes every meaningful achievement requires god. Well that's two strikes in a society where three strikes and you're out. So what does this mean for me. I won’t be marrying your daughters, not that my wife would approve. I certainly won’t be spending your money as an elected representative, and the odds are high that now that you know you’ll view me less favorably. Does it also mean that fewer will visit me here at onegoodmove? If I were a believer would more people visit?

Update: Well it looks like the atheists, all three of us, are in a reflective mood I just spotted this post by the LeftBanker

And here is another nice article by Gary Sloan on the ABC's of Atheism

Posted by Norm at 12:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Tom Bissell writes in Salon of books he'd prefer not to read.

I'd prefer not to
My list includes Toni Morrison, Henry James, Faulkner and Beckett. Why are there some great writers we just cannot read?

For a former book editor and fiction writer to make such an admission is, I do not doubt, enough to have me dragged before a literary tribunal and stoned.

I reluctantly join in his honesty and trust that I won't be condemned. It's true I haven't read any Beckett (oops I did read "Waiting For Godot"), and was only able to get through Toni Morrison's "Beloved" with great effort. I still have Tolstoy's "War and Peace" on my list to read soon, but wonder if its just there because its a must read. Do you have authors you just don't seem to like but think you should. This is a great article. Tom, as well as discussing what he doesn't like discusses some of his favorites. If you're a reader, serious or not, don't miss it.

Posted by Norm at 1:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Under The Net by Iris Murdoch. She was both a writer and a philosopher and it shows. What a delightful story. The story is of Jake Donaghue, writer, vagabond, an intellectual of sorts. His friends, his quest for truth all written in near perfect prose. The story begins "When I saw Finn waiting for me at the corner of the street I knew at once that something had gone wrong. Finn usually waits for me in bed, or leaning up against the side of the door with his eyes closed." and you're instantly hooked. Sadie, Anna, Hugo, Dave, Finn wonderful characters well developed and all help move the story along at a perfect pace. Lock picking, stolen dogs, political intrigue, simple adventures that hold you in their grasp. My only criticism is that it ends a mere 252 pages later.
It was my son Chris who convinced me to read the book. I asked him what it was about and this is what he said, " hmm, er. she wrote the book in the fifties, and it has a sort of conservative characteristic to it like Simenon or Hitchcock. I mean, the drama is not huge. The main guy has been characterized as a Sartrian hero. Its in the first person perspective about a single guy. that means that he goes around making his own decisions in a sort of unstable like world, much like coming of age novels its also very quick to read. I hated finishing, in fact I read the last few chapters two pages at a time and took about a week.
Then its all over and then what? after a good book, you look around in bookstores and there is nothing appealing, nothing compares." He has since read several other titles by her and recommends them all highly. Are you entralled, you should be. If not that is my fault not the book. Read it. I recommend it highly.

Posted by Norm at 1:44 AM | Permalink

I've found myself visiting Jonathon Delacour the heart of things more and more often. He pays careful attention to his writing, and his postings are more that just the latest political tripe. When he does post on politics it tends to be spot on, as in this post Moral Clarity, now playing at a multiplex near you Check it out I think you'll like it. I know I did.

Posted by Norm at 7:54 PM | Permalink

A few days ago I wrote about the number of pundits making their names on the web, and posted a little parody on the ease of becoming a pundit. Well it seems one of these pundits is on his way to the big time. I'll let him speak for himself, from a recent post on his personal web page

"MY VIRGINAL FOXNEWS COLUMN IS UP My first foray into Big Media centers on the Justice Department's recent decision to recognize that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. Needless to say, I am indebted to people like Glenn Reynolds and Eugene Volokh , who have done so much work on Second Amendment scholarship that it made my research easy. Thank you Professors.

Okay, I'll stop now.
Pejman Yousefzadeh

Now while I'm certainly no expert on the subject of the Second Amendment it occurred to me that his article for FOX was not dissimilar to the posts on his site. .The issue of whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right and not just a collective right is a hot topic these days. I tend to think it is collective( this seems to support my view added to post 9/18/02) in spite of the arguments presented by both the Attorney General and Mr. Yousefzadeh in his article. At this point that is simply my opinion. The article was interesting because it has much in common with the standard pundit post, for example links to other pundits namely Professor Eugene Volokh and Professor Glenn Reynolds. It is not my purpose to present counter arguments to the conclusions they reached, I'll leave that for others. What I did find worthy of discussion was the following statement by Pejman Yousefzadeh

"In addition to the legal arguments, the policy reasons behind the Justice Department’s new decision are compelling. Yale statistician John Lott persuasively shows in his book More Guns, Less Crime that "right-to-carry" laws lead to a dramatic reduction in crimes against the person, due to the deterrent effect of those laws.

The logic is simple: A criminal will be less likely to attack a person if the potential victim may be armed."

The source he cites "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott rang a bell. In addition to the fact that John Lott is something of a poster child for the N.R.A., I had seen a reference to his book before, in an article by Ted Goertzel , a professor in the Sociology Department at Rutgers University in Camden, NJ. He specifically mentions the Lott Book. It is one of five myths he explores. It is important to note that he discusses it in the context of a larger and more important issue namely that of econometric studies, what they are, how reliable they are, and perhaps more important how we can go about testing their reliability.


Here is the introductory paragraph from Ted's well-reasoned article.

"Do you believe that every time a prisoner is executed in the United States, eight future murders are deterred? Do you believe that a 1% increase in the number of citizens licensed to carry concealed weapons causes a 3.3% decrease in the state's murder rate? Do you believe that 10 to 20% of the decline in crime in the 1990s was caused by an increase in abortions in the 1970s? Or that the murder rate would have increased by 250% since 1974 if the United States had not built so many new prisons?

If you were misled by any of these studies, you may have fallen for a pernicious form of junk science: the use of mathematical models with no demonstrated predictive capability to draw policy conclusions. These studies are superficially impressive. Written by reputable social scientists from prestigious institutions, they often appear in peer reviewed scientific journals. Filled with complex statistical calculations, they give precise numerical "facts" that can be used as debaters’ points in policy arguments. But these "facts" are will o' the wisps. Before the ink is dry on one study, another appears with completely different "facts." Despite their scientific appearance, these models do not meet the fundamental criterion for a useful mathematical model: the ability to make predictions that are better than random chance."

I highly recommend you read the rest of this article it is very well done.

So having come full circle it seems that rather than, as Pejman contends "More Guns, Less Crime" was a persuasive example, it is more likely what Ted is calling junk science. And to the statement that the logic is simple, Mr. Yousefzadeh is commiting the fallacy of begging the question. It is not enough just to state that the logic is simple one must also show evidence as to why that is so and in this case that is a very difficult task.

Did I find Pejman's article right on target. No, I think he was well wide of the mark with at least one of his arguments. Get it? Guns? Off target?

Some more current links on the subject of Lotts Book

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/lott.html

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html

Posted by Norm at 2:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

"In a republican nation, whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of the first importance." --- Thomas Jefferson

"Civilized life depends upon the success of reason in social intercourse, the prevalence of logic over violence in interpersonal conflict." ---Juliana Geran Pilon

Posted by Norm at 12:16 PM | Permalink

I've been critical of Dubya and Company about the warnings they've been providing, suggesting improvements , perhaps I was wrong. Today they issued an alert I can use. I've been considering a vacation to Florida, the beaches are beautiful, its not too close to Washington or New York. But I was concerned about shark attacks. A rational analysis of the problem however convinced me that the risk was low. Now the F.B.I. reports there is a danger from terrorist scuba divers. That settles it no Florida this year the combination of sharks and scuba divers is clearly too great a risk. No wait, perhaps it is the perfect time to go to Florida. The sharks will be diverted attacking terrorist divers leaving the tourists alone making it safer than it might have been. I think I'll make the trip after all. Thanks Dub. Thanks F.B.I.

Posted by Norm at 10:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I was surprised yesterday when the number of hits I was receiving on the parody I did on some Jamie Kellner remarks on commercials and bathrooms increased dramatically. The post was inspired by selected parts of an interview Staci D. Kramer had with Jamie Kellner the Turner Broadcasting CEO. It has been popular from the day I posted it attracting perhaps a dozen visitors a day. But yesterday the numbers started increasing and today it's simply off the charts. Following the links I found this recent article by Staci D. Kramer the author of the original interview which explains the traffic. It seems she has also been amazed that her interview had taken on a life of its own. The internet is a remarkable medium for communication and continues to surprise me with new examples of the power of the link. I found some humor in an otherwise serious piece and contributed to yet another example of that power.

Posted by Norm at 5:56 PM | Permalink

<rant>

The last week has seen an inordinate number of warnings about possible terrorist attacks. Some say the administration is trying to divert attention from what they did or didn't know prior to 9-11. Others say they are just trying to cover their collective asses in advance of the next inevitable attack. Cheney says "The prospect of another attack against the United States is very, very real. It's just as real, in my opinion, as it was September 12". Others warn of nukes, and suicide bombers totally useless information. I frankly don't give a shit why they are issuing the warnings I just wish they would give me warnings I can use, and since those dumb asses can't seem to figure out how to do that, I'll spell it out for them. Instead of saying the condition is red, just tell me that Dubya is in Air Force one flying around the country soiling his pants I'll take it from there. In place of Orange tell me that Government officials have been advised to stay off domestic airlines and take either military or private flights. I don't have access to those options but at least I'll know that I'm risking my ass getting on a commercial flight. Don't say condition yellow, tell me that Rumsfeld has changed is family vacation from New York to Florida just let me know what destinations he ruled out in his planning and I'll do likewise. Finally No need to announce the condition is blue. Just let me know that Ari Fliesher's kids are staying home from school on the day they were to visit the Statue of Liberty. Got the picture. And don't even bother with the green, we all know that it hasn't been green for a very long time, and one more thing if the prospect of an attack is just as real now as is was on September 12th quit spending my money on your useless counter measures and just give me warnings I can use. <⁄rant>

Posted by Norm at 11:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

"Are we to be disgusted with science because it has not fulfilled our hopes or redeemed its promises? And are we, for this reason, to announce the "bankruptcy" of science, as is so often and so flippantly done? But this is rash and foolish; for we can hardly balme science just becuase we have not asked the right questions." - Ernst Cassirer

Posted by Norm at 4:16 PM | Permalink

The top 100 books of all time

Full list of the 100 best works of fiction, alphabetically by author, as determined from a vote by 100 noted writers from 54 countries as released by the Norwegian Book Clubs. Don Quixote was named as the top book in history but otherwise no ranking was provided

I enjoy perusing lists of good books if you do too check out the link via the Guardian

Some additional lists you'll find interesting

Book Browser for Avid Readers
Modern library 100 best novels
My own list of books I've read since 1980 ranked on a scale of 1-5

The Internet Public Library links to many book lists and don't miss this one,
List of the Best of the Best

update: October 2003 The latest top 100 list from the Guardian Observer

Here are the top ten from that list:

1. Don Quixote Miguel De Cervantes
The story of the gentle knight and his servant Sancho Panza has entranced readers for centuries.

2. Pilgrim's Progress John Bunyan
The one with the Slough of Despond and Vanity Fair.

3. Robinson Crusoe Daniel Defoe
The first English novel.

4. Gulliver's Travels Jonathan Swift
A wonderful satire that still works for all ages, despite the savagery of Swift's vision.

5. Tom Jones Henry Fielding
The adventures of a high-spirited orphan boy: an unbeatable plot and a lot of sex ending in a blissful marriage.

6. Clarissa Samuel Richardson
One of the longest novels in the English language, but unputdownable.

7. Tristram Shandy Laurence Sterne
One of the first bestsellers, dismissed by Dr Johnson as too fashionable for its own good.

8. Dangerous Liaisons Pierre Choderlos De Laclos
An epistolary novel and a handbook for seducers: foppish, French, and ferocious.

9. Emma Jane Austen
Near impossible choice between this and Pride and Prejudice. But Emma never fails to fascinate and annoy.

10. Frankenstein Mary Shelley
Inspired by spending too much time with Shelley and Byron.

Posted by Norm at 1:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (13)

"The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." - Alex Carey

This quotation serves as an introduction to this interesting article.

Posted by Norm at 10:52 PM | Permalink

Here are two excellent opinion pieces.

Gwynne Dyer here Obsession with terrorism is distorting U.S. policies and Molly Ivins in this May 16, 2002 piece. Just When You Think Bush Can't Look Any Dumber...

Posted by Norm at 9:37 PM | Permalink

Yes, I saw it too.
Having heard much in advance of seeing the movie, one blogger spent 3135 words on everything including the inconsistencies in the mythology before he saw it and another 3501 to explain what was good and what was not afterwards. Some sort of a Star Wars geek I guess. Anyway he does a nice job you ought to read it. I'll bet that over 6000 words is some sort of a record at least it stands until someone can show me something more. I heard the dialogue was bad, it was terrible nobody talks like that. Anikan and Palpatine obviously don't like one another their words were clichéd, their kisses wooden. What I was really looking forward to was the lovable Yoda and his debut with the light sabre. The highlight of the movie I'd been told. First wasn't this episode earlier in time than the original Star Wars. Then why the hell does the little guy look older and more decrepit than in the first one, or is my memory the only thing getting older. He arrives at the scene of the final battle with the evil Count Dooku sporting a cane, waddling like he's on his last legs. So imagine my surprise (no I knew it coming) imagine my incredulity when the little fart whips out his light sabre like some flasher revealing it for all to see. He flies around the room like the energizer bunny on steroids. He fends off attack after attack from the evil Count Dooku while Obi-Wan and Anikan lie crumpled in the corner like so much doggie doo. And when the Count tries to drop a column on their sorry Asses. Yoda, with an effort that resembles someone with a severe case of constipation manages to foil the effort while the evil one makes his getaway. I felt a deep sympathy for Yoda with his George Bush ears holding the weight of the universe on his shoulders. I won't get into the rest of the movie too many others have already done that, and I'm trying to keep this under 10000 words. But when all is said and done go see it This movie kicks butt. The only question, whose.

Posted by Norm at 7:53 PM | Permalink

Was September 11 preventable? That is what Senator Hillary Clinton and others in America are now asking, amid revelations that President George W. Bush was warned shortly beforehand of possible al-Qaeda attacks.
The answer, of course, is yes

Which supports the point I made here

Posted by Norm at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Here is a link to a site I recently stumbled across. First their description of what they are about followed by an example from the section they call spin of the day.

PR Watch offers investigative reporting on the public relation industry. We help the public recognize manipulative and misleading PR practices by exposing the activities of secretive little-known propaganda-for-hire firms that work to control polictical debates and public opinion.

CBS news anchor Dan Rather said in an interview with British television that "patriotism run amok" was keeping American journalists from ask tough questions about the "war on terrorism." Rather even admitted that he himself had participated in self-censorship following September 11. "You know there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck," he said. "Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions." Source: The Guardian (UK), May 17, 2002

Posted by Norm at 1:48 AM | Permalink

I recently received another email from Igor. I hadn't received any for a time and the few I did receive were infected with the Klez worm. He finally got some help from the Norton's and they found a worm in some attachment and quarantined the sucker. Igor says, "Lets hope that is the end of it but frankly I don't think so, and he signs the email with "Igor, the worm slayer."
More interesting is the problem he sent me to solve. He didn't tell me but I'll tell you the last time we corresponded he was still working on it himself. So here is the mission if you choose to accept it. White plays 1 e4 and on Blacks 5th move he plays NxR mate. Construct a legitimate game from this bit of knowledge.
Just to be clear 1. e4 ... 2. ... ... 3. ... ... 4.... ... 5. ... NxR mate.
I wrote Igor back to verify the puzzle was correct since my head was beginning to ache. He confirmed that it was. He further said that "he was told that without 1 e4 the solution was easy not that I have found it. So the obligation to 1. e4 does make the solution somewhat more complicated. I was also told that Botvinnik and Tal spent an hour on the train trying to solve this one and failed. Sell it for what I bought it." If you find a solution either to the original or the easy (ha ha) version please post a comment, for I fear there will be many more headaches before a solution is discovered.

Update: I have the solution. Alas, I didn't solve it but was told what it is. If you are tired of trying email me and I'll send it to you.

Posted by Norm at 2:50 PM | Permalink

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd: indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." - Bertrand Russell , Marriage and Morals, (New York: Liveright, 1929)

Posted by Norm at 11:06 AM | Permalink

I just finished Dennis Lehane's Mystic River a departure from the delightful Kenzie and Gennaro adventures. Is it better. I don't think so. It is certainly more literary. Lehane's writing is clearly improving. In this story we meet Sean, Dave, and Jimmy, childhood friends. Characters who won't be part of a future story in the way the more formalistic Kenzie Gennaro stories are. Lehane does a great job capturing the ethos of childhood friends, neighborhoods and how life changes us and those around us. I found myself reminiscing about my own childhood and how I have changed over the years. The plot is complex, the characters well developed and after the first 50 pages or so this is a real page turner. This is his best written book to date. If you enjoy more than the standard mystery fare give it a read. Dave says "It was amazing how friendly three beers could be after a long hard day." It is amazing to me how enjoyable a Lehane mystery can be any old time.

Posted by Norm at 7:17 PM | Permalink

This is one of several posts I'm going to make on arguments and the fallacies they contain. Although we cannot fairly complain of the logical fallacies in others arguments without opening the discussion to our own. Discussing them openly encourages us all to be more careful and commit fewer ourselves. A couple of definitions to get us started. An argument is a claim supported by other claims, while an opinion is simply something we believe. It is important to remember that distinction.

Of course an opinion becomes an argument when we support it with arguments. The person making the argument has the burden of proof. A fallacy occurs when we violate the principles of good arguments. Including such things as relevance, emotion, linguistic confusion, unwarranted assumptions, lack of evidence, ineffective rebuttal, personal attacks, and diversion. Many fallacies have names some do not. The names are not important to understanding the fallacies simply useful identifiers. I'm going to present arguments that I find surfing the Internet, and see if I can discover why they are bad. I'll try to identify the fallacies and perhaps discuss ways they could be repaired or rehabilitated. I don't consider myself an expert, but am doing this to improve my own reasoning capabilities. Examples one finds in logic text books are often created just for the text because they are clear. Arguments you come across on the web as in life are seldom so simple. So jump right in if you think I'm off track I welcome your comments. I'm selfish, I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't expect to learn from it. I believe the real value in this exercise is to improve our own reasoning skills not in putting others down. So on to an example.

He has no problem calling people like me racists, even though he can't point to anything that I may have ever said that could even remotely be considered racist.

I believe this is a fallacy of division. The fallacy consists in assuming that what is true of some part is therefore true of the whole, it is also a problem with ambiguity. That's what I meant about real examples being more difficult than text book examples.

In this case the statement anything you said could be considered racist is not necessarily relevant [part], since the statement could still be true of the whole regardless of anything an individual said or didn't say. The problem is with the term "people like me" [this is the whole]. Since when someone uses the statement "people like me" they aren't arguing that they are identical in every way with every other person like them. Simply that they have some things in common. Now if the commonality they are referring to is that they all are not racist then you would be required to claim that every member of the group was not a racist and had not made racist statements not just one.

A related fallacy is that of composition. That fallacy consists in assuming that what is true of some part is also true of the whole.

It is important when making arguments that include groups and individual parts of those groups not to fall victim to fallacies of division or composition. It is also necessary to define important terms.

Posted by Norm at 6:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

We are starting to see some reviews of the latest Star Wars Movie more bad than good but this is the first review I've read of the ticket buying preceeding the movie via PejmanPundit

"It's really disconcerting when the movie inside is Star Wars, while the people outside look like the wimpy rejects from Revenge of the Nerds. Anyone who has seen me knows that I am a short, somewhat slight guy (though I'm bulking up, I tell you). Yet, it is safe to say that I could have kicked the ass of 95% of the people in that line, and taken their lunch money too. It's also safe to say that I've gotten laid more times than all those doofuses, combined. And if you know me, you know that's saying something."

That certainly is saying something.

Posted by Norm at 12:07 AM | Permalink

A pundit is a learned man, a teacher, one who gives opinions in an authoritative manner. In the past it was a title reserved for the few. Today things have changed. You too can be a pundit. Some web space, preferably free, and you're on your way. To be successful is hard work there is a lot of competition out there. So I have put together a list, a few suggestions that will help you on your way.

1. Put a counter on your site, top left, so everyone can see how popular you are. Many pundits use more than one counter so should you. Pick a starting number you feel comfortable with. Remember, if you had started your site six months ago you would already have had thousands of visitors.

2. A tip jar is important. I suggest you start with an Amazon wish list, Amazon donations and paypal donations can follow, and when you really feel learned you can include text ads, so others can share in your well deserved popularity.

a. Don't expect the tip jar to fill by itself, make pleads in your posts for contributions. You are an important person, a teacher, people should pay for the wisdom you impart.

3. Make sure you have software that lets you receive comments. People like to yak. It is important however to be able to edit your comments. You may need to clarify your remarks in the event someone doesn't understand or takes issue with you. Make sure this is only a one-way street never allow others to edit their comments. One must stand by his words.

4. The standard post follows this simple form:

a. I saw, noticed, or was made aware of.

b. Individual, organization, country.

c. Said, thought, did.

d. Can you believe that or other exclamatory statement.

e. Insult - What a jerk, liar, or insult of your choosing.

5. If you don't have time to dig up your own content, simply visit the site of a fellow pundit and post

a. via link.

b. and follow it with your own insults.

6. Always share your best put-downs with your readers they may not know how talented you really are.

a. link to posts of other pundits when they put someone down.

7. Remind people how smart you are and how many people share your views.

8. Be liberal with your personal attacks after all everyone has made a personal attack at sometime in their life, and if one engages in personal attacks they can't complain if you do.

a. References to IQ are always good.

9. Don't worry about logical fallacies in your arguments. You are providing examples for the next generation of texts on the subject. All the old standbys are good, circular reasoning, straw man here is link for more if you need them.

10. Make sure your links are only to those who agree with you. It is important to maintain a healthy ego.

11. Don't worry about holding a consistent point of view most of your readers will never notice, and for those who do there is number eight.

12. Finally you will need a name for your site I suggest [your name]pundit after all you are the expert, the learned one.

So there you have it. It's not difficult, and you thought you couldn't do it. But beware it is addictive you may soon consider yourself a big time journalist and find yourself on the Warblogger Watch hit list. Just remember that's not a bad thing just keep that counter spinning it's your entry into the pundit hall of fame.

Posted by Norm at 4:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

If you're a political junky and a little left of center or just enjoy an in your face approach here is the site for you.

Welcome to Media Whores Online.

Media Whores Online takes an unbiased, in-depth look at the astonishingly vast myriad of whores who call themselves "journalists." MWO casts a garish spotlight on the relentless screaming heads of television, the babbling paranoids of squawk radio, and the crayon scribblings of lazy print media "columnists."

Here are some current headlines:

PANICKED G.O.P. STRATERGY:
HIDE FACT THAT DUBYA CREW "IDIOTS"
Keep It "In Private"
Republic Party Tyrannized by Rove, Bush
Don't Tell, Don't Tell Policy -- Just Whisper Among Yourselves

Annals of Enron
An MWO Continuing Feature

GOBS OF ENRON $$$ TO G.O.P. FOR 2002
Motto For Autumn Elections: Follow The Money
Andersen Too? You Bet!
How Brazen Can They Get?

G.O.P. MODERATES: R.I.P.
Funeral Finally Held At Ripon Society
Why Is John McCain a Republic?
"No Facts" Novak Dances On Moderates' Grave

Posted by Norm at 8:09 PM | Permalink

A couple of days ago I saw a quick poll on CNN posing the following question: Should Yasser Arafat step aside to promote the Mideast peace process? The results 81% Yes, 19% No. The question in my mind is why don't they pose the flip side of that question. Should Ariel Sharon step aside to promote the Mideast peace process? It seems that many in Israel are posing the same question. Saturday night 50,000 Israeli's turned out for a demonstration one demonstrater Author Amos Oz described both Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as "miserable leaders" and called for their replacement.
I think there is an unhealthy bias towards Israel in this country and that it is getting in the way of a fair and just settlement.

Posted by Norm at 2:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This poem is composed entirely of actual quotes from George W. Bush. The quotes have been arranged for aesthetic purposes by Washington Post writer Richard Thompson.”

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
By George W. Bush

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist. Families is
where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize Society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!

via
Michael O'Connor Clarke

Posted by Norm at 4:35 PM | Permalink

Michael in a recent piece at oblivio refers to the third grade as the most wretched grade of all. My son Chris would agree. I always enjoy going to parent teacher conferences, hearing how nice, how bright, how wonderful my children are. So I was completely unprepared for a trip to visit Chris's third grade teacher. My wife and I arrived at the scheduled time. Introduced ourselves and sat down. The teacher seemed a little uncomfortable, which was puzzling, but it wasn't long before we found out why. She began, Chris's academic work is okay, BUT I have some very serious concerns about him, I'm worried he is headed for some very serious problems. My heart sank; I had no idea what she was talking about, and then, in her most serious tone, she said, Chris has the filthiest mouth in the third grade. I don't know what she expected us to say. Not every word out of my mouth is four letters; my conversation is only occasionally littered with "bad" words. This usually occurs when discussing politics or religion. Thoughts started running through my mind how should I respond. You're fucking kidding me was considered and discarded. No shit was also a momentary candidate. It was difficult not to start laughing. Now I don't believe it is a good idea for a third grader to be swearing a blue streak, but neither do I view it as a moral failing on the order of murder. The look on his teachers face made me think she wasn't so sure. A little more discussion made it clear that he was using the language for the reason most children use that sort of language for the shock value. I recall he said that at first he didn't really understand why people reacted so vehemently to his words, and then when he discovered how seriously they took it well simple rebellion against what he considered absurd was the primary motivation. We talked to him. It's the Mormon culture some of them believe swearing, smoking, and drinking coffee are on par with cheating, stealing and murder. He understood and reduced his output to an occasional damn. The next meeting with the teacher found her still very concerned but she did note some improvement. What a difference a couple of years make. The following years Chris had good teachers, who saw his potential, who nurtured him, and shared his love of learning. So it was more than a little satisfaction we felt when at the awards ceremony at the end of the school year he was presented with the "Hope Of America" award. He had progressed from "filthiest mouth in the third grade" to the "Hope of America" in a mere two years. FUCKING A. Chris went on to graduate from the University of Utah in Philosophy and is currently working on his PhD at Sheffield University in England. He still sprinkles his language with an occasional four-letter word.

Posted by Norm at 9:33 PM | Permalink

Doc Searls and David Weinberger say it’s not the "content" it’s the conversation. That "content" is only important if it’s worth linking to, worth talking about, worth keeping. My preference is for "content" that is timeless. That is "content" where the archives are just as fresh, just as pertinent, just as inspiring as more current posts. So here are a couple of sites many of you have already discovered but didn't share with me, or perhaps it was just that I wasn't listening. So for others that may not have been listening start here. Oblivio is a beautiful site with beautiful words hosted by Michael Barrish. He seems to write mostly about himself and the words he uses have just the right feel. You know what I'm talking about. You mumble, gee I wish I'd written that, and want to show it to everyone you know and claim it as your own. You even get a new quotation each time you visit; my visit today brought "I feel like a character in a novel. I feel like somebody who’s surrounded by an oppressive force that’s creating a lie about me, and I can’t get the truth out. Bill Clinton The really great thing though is it doesn't matter where you start take today's piece it begins "Only one balloon remains. There were two balloons once, then three, then two again. I considered saying something when the third balloon disappeared, but what was there to say? A balloon is gone." It sets the tone for the story perfectly. Michael won't have some Mozart of the letters saying too many words. Michael also links to other great "content" check out Fireland, host Joshua Allen more fiction, more experimental, more great writing. Have you read anything by Kevin Fanning; my first experience with his writing was this
. Wow. It's like the first time you discovered the library, you didn't know it was there, and now you look forward to many pleasant hours perusing the "content". So please leave a comment with your favorite links to good writing, to the timeless "content", help me continue this conversation.

Posted by Norm at 10:19 PM | Permalink

It looks like the giant egos in the chess world were actually able to agree
on something. Plans are being made for the reunification of the chess world
championship!! There are currently two players claiming the title of world champion. Ruslan Ponomariov , the FIDE World Champion and Vladimir Kramnik who defeated Gary Kasparov. One has the feeling that somehow Kasparov thinks he is still champion he still has the highest rating in the world, and seems to have both Kramnik's and Ponomariov number in recent tournaments. So perhaps it should be four. It was really getting depressing I was starting to think that the chess world was using professional boxing as a model so this is good news indeed.

Posted by Norm at 9:32 PM | Permalink

Today's quotation is from a member of Generation X

"The baby boomers took the ideas of the beat genration and turned them into a tye-dyed nightmare" - Chris Jenson

Posted by Norm at 5:28 PM | Permalink

Kellner on ad skipping:

"Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming."

Kellner on bathroom breaks:

"I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom. But if you formalize it and you create a device that skips certain second increments, you've got that only for one reason, unless you go to the bathroom for 30 seconds. They've done that just to make it easy for someone to skip a commercial."

From Interview by Staci D. Krammer of CEO Jamie Kellner of Turner Broadcasting.

First seen here Jak's piece on The Inevitable Logic of "Free" TV

There is a contract between the network and the advertiser there may soon be a more formal contract between the network and the viewer. One day soon you may sit down in front of your TV and see the following:

In order to view this program it is required that you watch the commercials. To that end you certify that you have read this contract and agree to the following:

1. I have already been to the bathroom.
   1. I will not begin watching a television program in a condition; medical or otherwise, that requires me to relieve myself more than once an hour.
   2. I promise to keep my consumption of beverages at a level that won't require me to violate 1a.
2. I got a good nights sleep and promise that I won't be drifting off during the program.
   1. If I see others in the room that appear to be sleeping I will keep them awake through whatever means necessary not limited to simple poking and prodding.
3. I promise that in the case of an emergency (we're human) I will turn the volume up so that I can at least hear the message of the advertiser and upon return I will replay my taped version. (Note from network we believe in fair use.)
4. I promise never to remove commercials from programs I record for later viewing. Doing so is not fair use. There is nothing fair about your advertiser losing money.
5. If the product advertised is really one that you would never use (be honest now) you are required to tape said commercial and play it for someone with the proper demographics.
6. I promise that if I require glasses to properly view the program I'm wearing them.
7. I promise the volume will be maintained at a level that I can clearly hear the content. If I require a hearing aid I certify that I'm wearing it and that I will not turn down the volume at any time. (note we are sensitive to the problems of the hearing impaired and automatically increase the volume during commercials as a public service to you.)
8. I promise that if I don't completely understand and agree with any commercial that I will provide my email address for additional information on the product. (note this is another free service we provide there will be no additional charge for material we send you.)
9. I understand that if I fail to follow the terms of this contract that I am stealing and that stealing is evil.
10. I acknowledge that if I steal I am an evildoer and know what happens to evildoers.

Disclaimer: The network is not responsible for any adverse effects suffered as a result of the use of products advertised on this program including but not limited to diarrhea, obesity, boredom. Nor do we warrant the accuracy or truthfulness of anything you see here. For purposes of this contract it is all considered fiction. (note fiction only in the sense of covering our Asses, not in the sense that its fiction don't buy the products.) This contract may be modified at any time at the discretion of the network but may not be altered in anyway by the viewer. (note It's our content god damn it.)

I have read the above and agree. I understand that if I'm not with you I'm against you. (see evildoer note above)

Thank you for your attention, now sit back and enjoy the commercials programming. The Network

Posted by Norm at 1:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

If you haven't yet discovered “The Journal of Doubt”, hosted by Doubting Thomas, now is the time. His latest Essay Du Jour, The Shroud of Ernie, is a tour de force. I'm still smiling, what a great piece.

"This miracle began, as all miracles do, with all the participants unaware of the divine destiny they were about to fulfill. As everyone sat around the Dover Coal Mine break room, they discussed with this reporter the magical day when they discovered the Shroud of Ernie, the divine sign from heaven that has made this small company in Indiana a worldwide shrine for religious pilgrims..."

The story got me thinking. Do I believe in miracles, of course I do. Ernie and I are no strangers to miracles, years ago an aunt or uncle would tell a story about Ernie in the ceiling. The scene, a family get together, you know the ones everyone present grandma, grandpa, brothers and sisters and of course the kids. Dinner would be winding down the children getting restless when either the aunt or the uncle would begin. "Did you know there's a guy in the ceiling named Ernie?" You couldn't see Ernie, miracles you remember are invisible, but the storyteller would convince the kids he was there. Not only was he there but also he was mighty hungry. "Oh poor Ernie if he doesn't get some food soon he will probably starve" they'd say. The children would begin to quietly chant. This wasn't the first time they had heard the story of Ernie. What can we do, what can we do, and very quietly they'd be told that if they had any extra food they could just throw a little bit of it up to Ernie. Nothing like a little adult encouragement and well. Usually at this point Grandma would catch wind of what was going on, and a loud somewhat desperate, not in my house, would ring out. The children would threaten to carry out the good deed, with pleads of what about Ernie. You wouldn't want Ernie to starve would you Grandma. All great fun to be repeated the next time the family got together. I know, you're wondering if Ernie ever got fed up and I'm not sure if I can answer that, but I do recall what might have been a grease spot or two on the ceiling at Grandma's house.

Well little did I know that Ernie had a life outside of our family dinners, but indeed he did, and Thomas tells it quite well. I'm just wondering years from now if there will be some test devised to determine whether the stain was chocolate as Ernie claimed or ...

So follow the link and check in the archives forThe Shroud of Ernie cause there is little doubt Thomas is a very funny guy.

Posted by Norm at 1:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

"There are no facts, only interpretations." Nietzsche

Men are so necessarily made, that not to be mad would amount to another
form of madness" Pascal.

Posted by Norm at 7:07 PM | Permalink

I just finished reading Gore Vidal's latest.

Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace subtitled "How We Got To Be So Hated". This is a short selection of essays. Vidal is arguably the premier essayist of our time. Outspoken, well spoken, eloquent only begin to describe his considerable talents. Dennis Miller eat your heart out this guy takes the rant to new heights. This is the book that will drive the "WarBloggers" crazy. Gore will be labeled as anti-American at worst and unpatriotic at best. He makes an interesting point about why he feels Bush declared "we are at war", since a nation can only be at war with another nation-state, which would exclude bin Laden and his troop. Corporate America of course those insurance companies could save big bucks, since they don't have to cover loses due to "war". I'm a liberal. I generally agree with Mr. Vidal. I do think he tends to get carried away with possible conspiracy theories. He never comes right out and says he believes there is a conspiracy rather he implies that is the case. He presents some evidence and lets you draw your own conclusions. In the past I have discounted much of his ranting, but I must say he certainly gives pause for thought. I understand the book was delayed due to our nations sensitivity to 9-11. Gore begins the first essay with "According to the Koran it was on Tuesday that Allah created darkness. Last September 11th when suicide pilots were crashing commercial airliners into crowded American Buildings I did not have to look to the calendar to see what day it was: Dark Tuesday was casting its long shadow across Manhattan and along the Potomac river." He asks the why questions, not very popular with a nation in mourning, but necessary I think. There is some corporate bashing, and damn if they don't deserve it, and some reasons why "We Got To Be So Hated". He also spends considerable time discussing Timothy McVeigh and his controversial relationship with him. This is fascinating stuff. Timothy McVeigh, August 14, 1997 just prior to being officially sentenced to death said, "If the Court please, I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He wrote, 'Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.' "That's all I have."
Here is the entire closing statement of Justice Brandeis, certainly something to think about in this time of eroding personal freedoms.
"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face." Gore Vidal has trouble believing that Timothy McVeigh acted essentially alone and presents his reasons. The book also has short essays entitled "The Bill of Rights", "The New Theocrats" to mention just a couple.
I recommend this book highly to both my conservative and liberal friends.
Just his writing is worth the read, and if you enjoy what you read, I would also recommend his collection of essays The Last Empire Essays 1992-2000 as worthwhile. Vidal is one of my favorite authors. His biographical novel Burr about Aaron Burr is one of my all time favorites.

Update: The Last Defender of the American Republic? Marc Cooper, LA Weekly
July 3, 2002

Posted by Norm at 1:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)