“Peace, prosperity, liberty and morals
have an intimate connection.”

- Thomas Jefferson

I mentioned yesterday that I had had a post accepted into the first Manival. I didn't realize how popular something like that can be, but by the time I went to bed last night I had received more than 500 visitors yesterday, the vast majority of them coming from the Manival or from StumbleOn links through the Manival. A quick check of today's Site Meter shows it's still turning over briskly. Wow!

Though I've blogged for more than three years I've never participated in a carnival, and I'm virtually ignorant of how services such as StumbleOn, Digg and similar other entities work. I think I need to get better informed!

From an article in The Scotsman:

THE cost of Scotland's flagship free elderly care policy will soar more than threefold to £813 million a year by 2031, a new report has revealed.

A dramatic growth in the number of pensioners over the next three decades will send costs, put at £256 million in 2006, spiralling, Lord Sutherland's report shows. And the author warns that Scotland must wake up to the huge impact the country's rapidly changing age profile will have on public finances and services.

Free personal and nursing care was introduced to a fanfare in 2002. It has been hailed as one of the biggest achievements of Scotland's devolved government, and is the envy of many south of the Border. But the independent review, commissioned by the Scottish Government last summer, reveals the price that such a popular policy will have in years to come.

The report says the bill will far exceed initial predictions – costing hundreds of millions of pounds more – due to the number of elderly people rising more rapidly than was expected.

Lord Sutherland insists the policy, which has attracted widespread political and public support, will be "affordable" in years to come.

The number of over-65s is expected to rise from 837,000 in 2006 to 1.36 million by 2031.

Read the whole thing. Note, however, that no mention is made that it is likely that the number of taxpayers available will also be decreasing as these costs are increasing.

Update:

Katherine Kersten has just visited Scotland and wrote today on some of her impressions of the Nanny State.

The Art of Manliness website today launched its first Manival, a carnival (collection of blogposts) focusing on various aspects of what it takes to be an honorable man. I first learned of the Manival while surfing Sunday night and saw that the deadline for submitting a post for consideration was yesterday. I quickly emailed a link to one of my posts that came immediately to mind, and learned today through a surge of traffic that I had been included.

Browsing through the Manival page I see many worthy and interesting posts such as "The Man's Manual to Being Manly" and "Too Many Guys, Too Few Men" as well as tips on how to avoid creating additional housework for your wife and how to make your own moustache wax. I'd happily link them all, but I'd rather you go to the Manival page and browse and read for yourself.

I am honored to be among such august company and encouraged by the number of people engaged in such a worthy topic. I look forward to future Manivals, which appear to be scheduled for every Tuesday. Next week's Manival is hosted by A Good Husband. Go to the site to get information or use the Manival submission form to submit a post of your own.

Great story about sportsman-, I mean, sportswomanship, over on ESPN. You'll be glad you checked it out.

It so happens that I have recently become a VIP to The Wilds Golf Club, earning me and a guest an invitation to play in their special VIP outing. Now it gets your attention to be told that you are a VIP, but what really perked my interest was that the golf would be free, and that they were going to feed me as well.

In addition, the invitation came a few weeks ago when Minnesota was still clutched in the icy grip of a relentless winter, so the thought of spring and the opportunity to play free golf at a very nice club on April 28 was impossible to decline.

Then April 28 dawned this morning with Minnesota still clutched in the icy grip of a relentless winter.

"High today of 42 degrees, with winds 10 to 15 mph out of the north, present temperature 32," said the guy on the radio this morning. I can't even begin to spell the sound I made when I heard that, but FREE GOLF is FREE GOLF, no matter what it costs so I layered up, eschewed my typical broad-brimmed straw hat in favor of a woolen cabby, grabbed my clubs and a handful of Heat-Pak pocket warmers and set off for Prior Lake.

Arriving at The Wilds I changed into my golf shoes, first shaking the sand out of them from the three days of golf I endured in Arizona back in March. (I was striking the ball well for the most part those days, but had trouble getting the ball to stop in the green places where I wanted it to stop. After rolling into about my 90th sandtrap my partner commiserated, saying, "It's target golf." I muttered something about having a WalMart game.)

Arizona was literally and metaphorically miles away as I leaned into the wind walking toward the driving range to "warm up" — all the while hoping that I wouldn't have the opportunity to accidentally touch my tongue to the steel shafts of my irons. I had on thick socks (inside my golf shoes), long pants, a golf shirt, a long-sleeved, high-collared golf sweater, a mid-weight jacket, a golf glove and my leather winter gloves. I distributed heat-paks to the rest of my foursome and put one pak in my right coat pocket. That felt so good. In these conditions it's also important to keep your balls warm, so I considered unzipping my golf bag and putting a pak in the golf ball pocket. One good thing, I realized, about playing in weather like today is that I wouldn't have to expose my fingers unnecessarily to pluck grass and toss it into the air to determine wind direction; today I merely needed to look up and make note of which direction the snow flurries were heading.

With such extra protection and unexpected advantages we actually weren't too uncomfortable, though as we stood on one tee-box exposed to the wind whipping across Mystic Lake I suddenly heard Gordon Lightfoot in my head singing about the gales of November. Given the conditions, we actually played better than I would have expected even if the weather had been ideal. We were playing a Scramble and our group managed a very respectable 3-under for the 18 with only one bogey. We also finished in a very brisk 4 hours, mainly because we certainly weren't spending a lot of time lining up putts. Not bad at all.

I wish I could say it was due to superior ball striking, but the reality was that while the weather may have been against us, fortune was with us for the most part. The shot of the day came when we faced a 140 yard shot, to a green below our feet, from a downhill lie in the short rough. My usual playing partner led off and skulled an 8-iron that skidded down the slope, disappeared into a gully between us and the green...and then reappeared a few moments later climbing up out of the gully and onto the green before staggering, exhausted, to a stop six feet from the flag. It was a canny shot that expertly took the wind out of play. We happily converted for another birdie.

Now that I'm back safe at home and feeling has returned to my fingertips as I type, I am eager to play again and I can't wait for summer. I hear it's going to be on a Thursday this year!

Yay! Who's excited for today's cupcake post? I am! But, as the title states, I am on a cake tangent. So while I will be linking to a cupcake blog, the focus will be on cake in non-cupcake form. Got it?

I was browsing through Gigi Cakes, and saw her recipe for Banana Dulce de Leche Cake. I became quite excited because I remembered seeing a can of Dulce de Leche in the cupboard, and had wondered if there was anything I could use it for. This was my big chance!!!

It was pretty easy to make, and even the batter was super yummy! I have decided, though, that I'm not that into mascarpone icing, and if I make it again I might try cream cheese icing, or even no icing! The cake itself is that fabulous!

Hmmm...Am I forgetting something? Oh yeah, the story that inspired part of the title of this post, which most of you will probably find more interesting than the cake portion of this blog. Spit-swapping!

So, Benny and I were with a bunch of our peeps at the movie theatre, waiting for Expelled to start. I had bought a giant pretzel, and he was helping me eat it. You know how they come in paper envelopes? Well, I had taken out my gum and stuck it in the corner of the paper. So there we were, happily munching away, when I look down and notice that my gum was no longer in its little corner. Oh no!

I made it known that I couldn't find my gum, and proceeded to search for it, first on myself, then I got up and searched my chair...it was nowhere to be found. I sat back down.

"I found it", said Benny. He sounded a little grossed out.

My gum had fallen out of its corner and onto the pretzel, and it was Benny who got a surprise with his next bite. It was so funny! Well, at least Dave and Julie (who were sitting next to us) and I thought it was funny. Benny, not so much.

Ben, the Mall Diva and I doubled up with two victories at Keegan's tonight, scoring an amazing 47 out of 50 points in the two games including a perfect 25 for 25 in the second game.

In the first game our team name was, appropriately, Victory Pants. The second game we went with one of the Diva's off-the-wall concoctions: Belgian Underwinks. We more appropriately could have been called Deja Vu All Over Again, and not just because we won for the second time that night. We aced it because Terry Keegan read the exact same quiz as he did in game 2 back on April 3. We won with 22 points that time; this time it was merely a matter of remembering the answers to the three questions we missed the first time around. (Hey, it's still trivia knowledge - there's no rule about how you learned that trivia in the first place!)

I haven't bothered with fancy electronic home security systems because we've always figured anyone breaking into our house at night would hear me snoring, immediately assume we were keeping captive bears and depart post-haste. For my wife it has been like pitching a tent in the infield of a demolition derby and trying to get a night's sleep. She has developed a system of ear plugs and a white noise machine on her night stand, but even that is of limited effect.

Now an answer appears to have arrived. About a year ago I heard some people on the radio talking about a specially designed rubber mouthpiece that cut the snoring and let the user dispense with his CPAP machine. I checked it out online and the little device required a dental fitting and was going for more than $1,000. My wife admitted it was almost tempting to spend that kind of money, but in her wisdom she said that if the thing really worked that the price would undoubtedly come down. And so it has.

Earlier this month I saw a TV commercial for something that looked and sounded a lot like the product I'd heard about before, and now it was going for just $60! It's called PureSleep and it's a simple device that looks a lot like the mouthpieces I used to use in my football days except that it's sturdier and is double-sided to fit over both my upper and lower teeth. Fitting uses the same process as those old mouthpieces as well, requiring only a pan of boiling water. The way it works is that you position the mouthpiece during the fitting process with your lower jaw extended as far forward as you comfortably can. Doing this opens the air way in your throat and reduces or eliminates the vibration that results in snoring.

Given the low price and a 30-day satisfaction guarantee that even offered to refund my shipping charges, I ordered one of the units on-line. As I was doing that I received an offer to buy a second unit for $40 (they're designed to last about a year) with the same guarantee so I ordered a reserve unit and a box of fizzy cleaners to sanitize the unit each morning.

PureSleep says the product starts working immediatlely and I was eager to give it a try the other day when it finally arrived. I heated the mouthpiece, positioned my lower jaw slightly forward and bit down on the softened piece for about a minute, then ran it under cold water. That night I put it in my mouth when I went to bed. No question, it sure felt unusual. A few hours later I woke up with a cramp in my left jaw so I took it out for the rest of the night. The next night I did some limbering exercises before bed and re-inserted the PureSleep. I slept through the night without incident though my mouth was uncomfortable in the morning (I also had a temporary condition where my lower teeth lined up directly under my uppers for a little bit before receding to their normal position). The last two nights I have grown so used to the device that my mouth has relaxed (I think I was subconsciously feeling as if I had to stay clamped down on it for it to work) and my sleep has been undisturbed. Better yet, so has my wife's!

The Reverend Mother reports that the noise volume has been greatly reduced, in fact what she hears is more like a soft breathing. I think that's from the sound of my breath going through the slots in the middle of the mouthpiece, though and not necessarily from snoring (I can hear myself breathing as I'm drifting off to sleep). Now her problem is that since she's not using ear plugs she hears all the noises in the house or from when I come to bed that used to be blocked out and those wake her up!

The device won't help much if you have full-blown sleep apnea, but if you're having a snoring problem (or, more accurately, your spouse is having a problem with your snoring) you should check this baby out. It's affordable and no-risk and can bring "peace" to your household!

A trivia outing for Diva and Dad.

A commenter on my last post, Uncle Raven — someone who has known my wife and I for some time — asked a great question in relation to my review of "Expelled".

In the context of Evolution vs. ID or Big Science vs. Faith, do you believe the conception and birth of your girls was an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God? Or do you allow for the possibility of Bad Science, i.e., that the RM's physician misdiagnosed her condition? And, if that's possible, how would it effect your beliefs?

Here's my response (actually it should be my wife's response because a great deal of it his her story, which I'm relating second hand because she'd gone to bed):

First, just to focus on our conception for the moment, my wife had had endometriosis several years before the two of us met. Her ob-gyn diagnosed it, treated it and performed surgery. Because of the place where she was in her life then and the things in her past that she was dealing with, she was sure she never wanted to have children anyway and told her doctor to tie her tubes as long as he was in there working on things. Which he did. Several years went by and the surgery was, well, shown to be effective at everything it was meant to do. During that time, however, she also found herself turning to God (since nothing else was working). Her heartfelt prayer eventually became, "God I want your will more than my own," and "God, change me."

She didn't know what she was asking. We were married in October of 1987 (Uncle Raven was there) and pregnant in November. Did my wife fall to her knees, praising God for this miracle? No, she did not. She was not pleased, to say the least, because she was still of a mind that she didn't want children. I won't side-track into the things she (and I to some extent) went through over the next several months, but suffice it to say that she remembered what she had been praying — and we named our first daughter Faith. Five years later we deliberately set out to have a second child. We were very pleased with the way things had worked out with the first one and so we made a list of the sex (girl) and character traits and disposition we wanted in #2 and prayed together to become pregnant and for these traits to appear in her. At the very end of our prayer, and almost as a lark, my wife said, "Oh, and God, red hair and blue eyes would be really cute, Amen!" During the ensuing pregnancy we were often asked if we knew if "it" was a boy or a girl. We'd say, "Well, we asked God for a little girl." The reaction was generally such that we didn't feel encouraged to add, "and one with red hair and blue eyes." Well, many of you know how that turned out, though I must confess my knees buckled when our second daughter was born with a full head of carrot-red hair. Not only that, but the other things we asked for, as well as a boatload of things we hadn't even thought of, were deposited in her as well.

Now, I'm not saying that this should become anyone's doctrine or that I think this "extraordinary and direct" intervention in any way means God loves my wife and I more than anyone else or has a special purpose for my daughters more special than the plans he has for everyone else. We take it simply as a sign God gave us to bolster our faith and to encourage us to look to him. If there's more to it than that, we're happy to wait and see.

Could the RM's doctor have mis-diagnosed her extreme symptoms, or failed to perform the tubal ligation completely? Conceivably (pardon the pun). Perhaps we were just lucky, except there are dozens of other testimonies, maybe even hundreds if we could write them all down, in our lives where we know we have heard from and been directed by God and seen the result — and even some where we know we didn't pay attention and missed out to our detriment and the detriment of others (sometimes I really wish we could have a burning bush or bolt of lightning something to tip us off but it hasn't worked that way for us). Similarly, we have heard and even seen similar miraculous things happen in the lives of others we know. Quite often these results line up directly with how scripture describes the ways of God. Perhaps one day I'll write a book about how all that works, but for now it's time to get back to the question about Evolution and ID.

Because I've seen scripture come true in my life, it's easier for me to believe that other scriptures about creation could also be true. Similarly, I'm not ignorant of science (the depth of my faith is a relatively recent development). I'm widely read in a number of genres, and I've swum in the waters of evolutionary theory throughout my schooling. I've done the fruit fly experiments in Science class, and I know that species can change and certain traits can be developed (as any animal breeder can tell you), but I don't think I could ever so alter a fruit fly to where it could become say, a housefly or a dragonfly, let alone a chihuahua. Oh yeah, if you had biiilllliiioonnns of years well then anything could happen, right? Kind of like the old "an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters will eventually produce all the works of Shakespeare" theory (to which a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist might say, "What makes you think Shakespeare wasn't a monkey?")

The thing is, the more "we" learn through science, the more complex the subject matter becomes. Scientists mapping the human genome have found that cells — thought to be the simplest of organisms — are really fantastically complex and the interactions within the cells and between cells are remarkably ordered. The odds that one cell could accidentally get the right combination of materials and events to come into existence, along with the ability to reproduce itself, is literally astronomical. That the cell could divide and multiply itself into an organism that could then meet up with some other organism and that these two would discover a lot more interesting way of reproducing than just cell division is, well, incredible. (Oh yeah, I still remember the stages of cell mitosis from lab class: interphase, prophase, metaphase, anaphase and telephase.)

Anyway, somehow or another — either by an incredibly fortuitous and accidental events or by someone or something lining the dominos up first — we're here in all our wisdom and glory. The evolutionary model holds that order came out of chaos, but in everything else we see that something put in "order" (at least by man) quickly returns to disorder. Does Nature "know" something we don't and if so, how? And does that "knowing" imply an intelligence at work? As scientists continue to delve deeper and deeper and learn more and more about how much it is they don't know, couldn't it be possible that many (who's job after all is to hypothesize, test, record and try to replicate) might, even without a "Christian" or religious background, start to say, "Hmmmm?" Isn't it reasonable that countless "reasonable" people might consider that life from random crystals, or space aliens "seeding" the earth or infinite monkeys typing out, not the works of Shakespeare, but infinite lines of DNA code sound just as mythic as Adam and Eve?

We went to see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as planned Friday night. We went to the 6:30 p.m. show and it looked like there were two dozen people in the theater. I hope the numbers increase because it was an interesting movie presented in a mostly respectful way, dealing with a subject that — while it may not occupy a lot of your thoughts or life — can certainly add meaning to these.

Frankly, however, I can see why people will stay away, regardless of their position on the topic of Evolution/Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design (or Creationism as some describe it). Most of us don't regularly seek out controversy, especially in our recreation times. We don't go out looking for a fight, yet the buzz around this film from both sides would lead you to think a fight is what you're in for. If any thing was provoked in me, however, it was thought. So much so, in fact, that I'd like to see the film again because I'd often find myself pondering an interview I'd just watched and being distracted as the film moved to another scene or conversation. In this post I'll give you my brief take on the movie based on one viewing, plus some thoughts I've had in the past couple of days about the nature of the controversy.

First, the movie. All in all it was very well done and, as I said before, respectfully handled. Ben Stein and his crew told the stories of several people on both sides of the Darwin/ID debate and did a great job of letting each side speak without interrupting or insulting the speakers. Stein, a phlegmatic but droll speaker and thinker, didn't ambush anyone or resort to gimmicks to throw the people he disagrees with off balance, and even gave them opportunities to restate and clarify their beliefs and positions; whether this was a good thing for those people or not you can decide if you see the movie. All in all it was a very pleasant and stimulating experience, though the section dealing with the Nazi atrocities was (as always) difficult to watch and I know some of who have seen and liked the movie have complained that it was still a reach to draw a direct line from Darwin's theories through the Eugenics movement to the Nazis.

They may have a point, in that the brutality that man has visited on his brothers throughout history is not limited to a particular doctrine or worldview. Atrocities in the name of faith can be documented as well. Hitler and the Nazis, however, could have been pure hatred and evil, but the scientific footing provided by Darwin and Eugenics supported the idea of inferior races and "useless eaters" and stripped the humanity — in the eyes of the Nazis — from their victims. A more effective analogy in the film was the comparison of the squelching of ID in science and academia to the Communist regimes that built walls, stifled dissent, assassinated (careers in this case) and ruthlessly intimidated those who didn't go along.

Again, this is not a trait exclusive to Darwinists, though it is a mockery of the noblest principles of scientific exploration and curiosity. Faith, too, has squelched and scorned when it found itself threatened; the fact that the "new" faith does the same is sad and but not surprising, and is even ironic in how its disciples refer to ID proponents as "flat earthers". Back in Galileo's time, most people knew the world couldn't be flat; practical experience with sight-lines over distances showed that and those who watched the stars (there wasn't television then) could get an idea that maybe everything didn't really revolve around us. Still, talking about this (in the Church's eyes) threatened the status quo and social order. Today, if people stop to really think about it, they can sense at a gut-level that the complexity of life (not just the statistical improbability, but impossibility of even a single cell coming into existence randomly or spontaneously and then being able to replicate, mutate and evolve before being destroyed doesn't make sense, even to those sworn to believe it, as the movie points out). The stakes for protecting the status quo today, however, are much the same, or even higher, as Brent Bozell noted in his review of the movie:

It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay "rights." Abortion "rights." On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism's power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia, and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension. (HT Are We Lumberjacks?)

If one area can be questioned then what might happen to the other pillars of what passes for "intelligent" thought in our world today.

In either camp, it ultimately comes down to faith. Personally, I don't dwell a lot on Genesis or Revelation in my faith. I know, beyond a doubt, that God is real and what he has done in my life through my faith in his son, Jesus. Exactly how it began and exactly how it will end don't interest me as much as what God has done and is doing in my life today, and what I can do for others. I need go no further than the miraculous lives of my two daughters who, while they may be unusual, are certainly not mutants even though it was nigh on impossible for them to be conceived.

I would have liked to have seen more discussion of the tenets of ID in the movie in addition to the stories of the remarkable and consistent persecution of those who dared to try to follow the evidence where it leads. Certainly the part about the complexity of cells both boggles and fires the imagination, while the rhetorical contortions of the Darwinist scientists as they try every explanation but God (crystals, space aliens, lightning striking a mud puddle) to explain how life came to be inspire giggles, not boggles.

Make no mistake, Stein didn't stack the deck when he lined up people to speak on camera for the movie. He had some of the best known names and noted intellects sit down in front of the camera and talk, even though their dismissals of ID theories or research were typically ad hominen attacks on their counterparts or insulting speculation of their opponents' agendas, with little offered in terms of refuting the ID argument on anything other than its premise.

Toward the end of the movie Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, reads an excerpt from his book describing God — if he exists — as a petty, violently jealous, homicidal tyrant (among other things). If Dawkins is correct in his description, perhaps there is no God because if there were Dawkins would surely have been struck down. Or, perhaps it means that God is real and is as loving and merciful as others say. If so, why wouldn't Science want us to even consider the idea?

UPDATE:
Here's a thoughtful take on the movie from Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost:

The film doesn't attempt to present the scientific case for ID (though Stein promises this will be included on the DVD version) nor does it attempt to undermine the credibility of neo-Darwinism (though the Darwinists in the film do a masterful job of that, albeit unintenionally). Stein's primary focus is on the freedom of academics to merely consider an idea that is deemed verboten in the Ivory Towers. He uses a series of interviews, interspersed with Cold War imagery, in a way that that is both entertaining and enlightening. It is only when it veers off into the historical connection between Darwinism and Nazism that the film stumbles. The conjunction between the two is indisputable, though ultimately as irrelevant as the connection between religion and ID. Scientific theories must be judged on their merit, not on unfortunate outcomes that may result.

Another caution is that Expelled isn't a fair movie. When Stein interviews advocates of ID he selects scientists and philosophers that are thoughtful and sober while the Darwinists tend to be either a bit nutty (Bill Provine) or unable to keep from damaging their own cause (PZ Myers). Likewise, he stacks the decks in ID's favor by interviewing intellectual heavyweights like David Berlinski while allowing neo-Darwinism to be defended by Richard Dawkins, a man who is highly educated but of only modest intellect. The result is a film that isn't balanced and isn't fair. But it is both funny and infuriating. At least it is, as Stein would no doubt say, if you value freedom. Rating: B+

Here's a really fun little video posted in honor of noted cat blogger Gino:

An Engineer's Guide to Cats.



When you are finished watching the video you will know all about "corporal cuddling", fun games to play with your cat (and - if you're an engineer - with unsuspecting women), and experiments in renewable energy using static electricity. The clip also notes that no cats were harmed in the making of the video, though they were annoyed.

UPDATE:
Comments have been enabled! I'm not sure why they weren't on initially.

Whoops! I almost forgot to post about cupcakes!

First of all, what is a cupcake?

The all-knowing Wikipedia says:

A cupcake (the common US term) or fairy cake (the common British term), is a small cake designed to serve one person, usually made in a small paper cup container. As with larger cakes, frosting and other cake decorations, such as sprinkles, are defining characteristics of modern cupcakes.

Cupcakes are often served during a celebration, such as children's classroom birthday parties. Additionally they can be served as an accompaniment to afternoon tea. They are a more convenient alternative to cake because they don't require utensils or dividing into pieces because they are smaller.

A simple cupcake uses the same fundamental ingredients as most other standard cakes: butter, sugar, eggs, and flour. Nearly any layer cake or loaf cake recipe can be used to make cupcakes.

Yep, I think that's a pretty straightforward explanation of what cupcakes are. Fairy cake? heehee!

Let's see if Noah Webster's 1828 has anything to say on the subject...Nope. Nothing on cupcakes. Maybe fairy cakes? Nothing there either. Darn.

Well, in honor of British terms, I shall link to Airy Fairy Cupcakes.

And now, story time! Late in the afternoon on Wednesday I was at work rolling a perm for like the second hour in a row. It's not because I'm slow, it's because the lady was Chinese, and so, of course, was her hair. Meaning it was really super thick (it was also shoulder-length, but that's not because she was Chinese). We were all talking about politics or some such thing that was doing a good job of putting us in a crabby mood. We unanimously decided that we needed to change the subject. Here was my chance...

"We could talk about cupcakes!", I offered in my excited-to-talk-about-cupcakes way.

"I don't like cupcakes", said Carole, my boss's client.

"*GASP*! Carole! What is wrong with you?", I exclaimed. (Carole is a lovely lady who has been coming to the shop longer than I have, and knows I was joking.)

"Well," she said, "I just think they're too dry."

"That is terrible. I am telling your mother." (Carole's mother is one of those wonderful little old ladies that comes to the shop every Thursday to get her hair set for the week.)

The next day when Virginia came to the shop (yes, I was done with the perm by that time, thank you), I asked what was wrong with her daughter. She laughed and said "How much time have you got?"

We watched a movie recently called The Jane Austen Book Club. It is very cute, and I would recommend it to ladies who love chick-flicks. The movie is about five ladies and one man (they all live in Cali) who decide to do a Jane Austen book club (surprise, surprise). They did one book a month for six months.

The characters:

Bernadette: An older lady who has been married six times and wants to get married one more time.

Sylvia: Just got a divorce from her cheating husband.

Allegra (Sylvia's daughter): Lesbian. 'Nuff said.

Grigg (not Greg): Very naive. He was invited into the club by Jocelyn.

Prudie: A French language teacher who has never been to France. A little stuck-up.

and Jocelyn: The lady who claims to 'never want to fall in love', so she raises dogs to fill that gap. She invited Grigg in hopes of hooking him up with Sylvia, but he has no intention of that and focuses his sights on Jocelyn.

The book club was started in February and ended in July. The first book they read was Emma, and they ended with Persuasion.

Grigg, who wonders why he's in the club, buys all Jane Austen's novel in one big book and thinks that they are all sequels to each other.
Allegra goes through a couple girlfriends throughout the movie. Prudie always happens to be just in time to see one of her students (that she falls in love with, despite the fact that she has a hubby) involved in questionable behavior with his girlfriend.

Jocelyn is generally blind to the fact that Grigg doesn't want to hook up with Sylvia. Sylvia is very torn up for the first 30 minutes or so over the fact that her hubby was cheating on her. Bernadette almost always wears a crazy quilted jacket, which seems to match her personality perfectly.

I would probably give it three and a half stars out of four. I would definitely recommend it for a "girls night" some time. Very cute.

Ciao for now!

Is Ben Stein's new movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" a know-nothing polemic ... or ahem, an inconvenient truth? I imagine the movie's debut will stir up quite a lot of response from differing viewpoints, or it may just sink beneath a wave of apathy. Either way, our family is going to see it tonight while we can.



The trailer above certainly poses some interesting questions; among them Stein's observation that every area of our society tolerates freedom of speech (even, or especially, if bizarre — such as the theory that life was "sown" by alien visitors) except when it comes to Intelligent Design, and nowhere is this more vigorously persecuted than in academia (I guess I'd at least question Stein's view that free speech is tolerated in academia given the events at the University of St. Thomas in the last year).

Watching this movie should be an interesting counter-point to a show I happened to come across the other day on the History channel: Life After People. The show speculates on what the earth would be like if all humans suddenly disappeared, using CGI technology to illustrate conditions 30 to 10,000 years after "we're gone." The show was interesting, if somewhat snicker-inducing at how seriously it was taking itself. I found myself following along as each millenia rolled by, revealing what a wonderful place this could be. Somewhere around 1,000 to 2,000 years into the "future" I started to wonder if — with all this abundant life — the show would forecast the evolution of another human race.

In fact, the show did, toward the end, ask the question if whether tool-using primates would evolve into humans, capable of not only looking at the starry night sky but also viewing it with wonder and imagination. The conclusion offered, however, was that, though certain primates may become somewhat more advanced, it was extremely unlikely they would become humans. Soooo...I wonder how the producers of the show figure that humans ever showed up in the first place?

Maybe they could have asked Ben Stein....

UPDATE:
Rich Karlgaard posts his thoughts and encourages comments on a similar theme in his blog today.

The picture below may look a little unusual, but it's really Tiger Lilly's latest weapon in her ongoing war against the terrorist cows "Cow-spiracy": Tactical Bovine Observation and Neutralization Equipment (T-BONE).



This specially designed vehicle lets Tiger Lilly infiltrate unobserved, eavesdrop on secret plans, unleash a devastating surprise attack and then make a speedy getaway quicker than the cattle can say "Mooove-on.org."

The factory rep brought this over for her to inspect. Channeling Christian Bale in "Batman Begins", and thinking of the ninja cows, Tiger Lilly's response was: "Does it come in black?"

In one of Garrison Keillor's Lake Woebegone Halloween monologues he reminisced about how the wild imaginations of he and his young friends could get taken with the scary thought that cougars were hiding in the low-hanging branches of the trees along their trick-or-treating path. Of course, he said, you knew that cougars were more afraid of you than you were of them, but what if it was an old, sick cougar...an old, sick cougar with nothing to lose?!

I thought of that today when I saw the Fox story about Chicago police shooting and killing a 150-pound cougar on the city's North side. I guess a 150 pound cougar doesn't sound like it would be too old or sick to me, and if it really had nothing to lose it would have gone for the South side of Chicago and the baddest part of town. Still, it's something to keep in mind if you're ever out trick-or-treating again.

The University of St. Thomas has yet another speaker controversy on its clumsy hands. Just months after inviting, then disinviting, then re-inviting Archbishop Desmond Tutu (he respectfully declined) to speak at the school, the University has now blocked another speaker from appearing: author and pro-life advocate Star Parker.

Enough people (see the links above) are covering this latest development that I really didn't feel the need to cover it here. That doesn't mean, however, that I didn't have an unction to apply the needle a little bit to the young woman who works for me as I left the office today. She's a St. Thomas grad. "What's with your old school and it's treatment of would-be guest speakers, anyway?" I asked. She wasn't up on the news of the day (I work her too hard for her to peek at headlines).

"What now?" she asked, with a roll of her eyes.

I gave her the quick rundown, and wondered why a Catholic university would block a pro-life advocate from appearing on its campus, especially after the Tutu hoo-doo. "Don't they have PR people over there, or at least someone who'll tell them that if you try to play in the middle of the road you get run down by both sides?"

I don't have her exact quote, but she showed the kind of keen mind and insight that caused me to hire her in the first place. The gist of it was, "It's not the politics, it's the money." She said she used to work the phone bank on campus, calling alumni to ask for money. "So many times I'd call and get someone who was angry about this speaker or that speaker who had come, or a book that was selected for a class, and they'd say they weren't going to give any money because of that." She finished by saying something to the effect that St. Thomas was more concerned about the money drying up rather than, say, the same thing happening to free speech.

Wow — here I was, thinking that St. Thomas wasn't interested in principle, when it turns out that principle and interest are pretty important to them after all!

Both the blogs and the MSM have been featuring Obama's estimation of why just plain folks seem to not be warming to him in Pennsylvania:

"So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

[Image HT to Gino, via The Lumberjack, who really knows how to get his whacks in.]

While the blogs tend to feature the entire quote, the MSM (or the apologists offering commentary in the MSM) tend to focus on the "bitterness" part of the statement while ignoring the rest of Obama's ignorant statement. I say "ignorant" here not in terms of "stupid" but according to the "lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified" meaning of the word. Essentially, Obama's statement is an ill-informed assumption on his part, based on his experience or world-view. I say it's ignorant because I was reminded of a Pew Research Center study that I blogged about back in 2005 after reading about it on Craig Westover's blog. My post read, in part:

The study suggests that the old political party stereotypes of rich and poor, educated and less-educated no longer hold up as the two major parties now have similar demographics in terms of the distribution in these categories. The primary difference is now along the lines of attitude. From the Washington Post article:

The most striking differences between lower-income Republicans and lower-income Democrats come in their perceptions of the power of the individual. Both Pro-Government Conservatives and Disadvantaged Democrats include a substantial number of people who consider themselves to be struggling financially. Overwhelming majorities in both groups say they often cannot make ends meet.

But where they part company is in their overall sense of optimism, with the Republican group expressing much greater faith in personal empowerment. Three-fourths of the Pro-Government Conservatives agreed that people can get ahead by working hard, and four-fifths agreed that everyone has the power to succeed. Just 14 percent of Disadvantaged Democrats agreed with the first statement, and only 44 percent agreed with the second.

Meanwhile, this faith in one's ability to overcome may be rooted in a greater faith:

For all their similarities on income and education, Enterprisers on the right and Liberals on the left diverge on religious habits and cultural attitudes. For example, almost half of Enterprisers attend religious services at least weekly, while just a fifth of Liberals go to religious services that often. A fifth of Liberals are classified in the Pew study as secular - defined as atheists, agnostics or those who say they have no religious affiliation - compared with about one in 20 of the Enterprisers.

So, the way I put this together is that even though they are about the same in terms of income and education, the group with the more positive view of the future is the one that puts its faith in God and in themselves. The group with the most pessimistic outlook puts its faith in the government.

Which group do you figure already knows who its Savior is, and which one is most likely to turn, in their bitterness and hopelessness, to the next one that happens to come along?

Nevertheless, Obama has proven himself to be nothing if not resilient and adaptable. I expect that once he leaves the high-falutin' San Francisco fund-raising circuit and returns to campaign in Pennsylvania his next quote will be, "Git 'er done!"

I think I could have scored better, but it's an audio test and sometimes it was hard to get the previous song out of my head when the next song was playing.

I scored a Far Out
85% on theQuiz by SheGoddess: Lose Weight Fast

So as of late I've acquired a new addiction. Cupcake blogs*.

It all started quite a while ago when I was on Surly Dave's site, looking through his blogroll of cooks. I found one that I absolutely love! Its Simply Recipes Food and Cooking Blog, run by a lady named Elise who posts wonderful, user-friendly recipes. If I'm feeling down, instead of turning to food consumption for comfort, I turn to food blogs, complete with pictures! Yay! I even got a notebook and started putting together my own little cookbook with the recipes I find there, and so far all of them have been delicious.

From that site I found another, of course. These things just tend to escalate, don't they? Anyway, the second site is Vanilla Garlic, run by one Garrett McCord, who has a thing for putting together interesting ingredient combinations and creating original cupcake recipes. So of course in his blogroll he has a category just for cupcake blogs, which of the eight listed I favorited, um.....seven. Actually, I would have favorited all of them, but one isn't running anymore.

Perusing these cupcake blogs has been so inspiring, but it took me a little while to try my first batch of cupcakes. I finally did on Monday, and the results were so wonderful!! I was so impressed with myself! The recipe comes from How To Eat a Cupcake, which is a super-fun site. Go check it out! I ended up buying a second notebook just for cupcakes. I think I shall post a new cupcake blog site every week! Bwa-ha-ha-haaaaa!

...Sorry.

So! Now you have something exciting to look forward to! Yay for you!

*Yes, there was reason behind the madness that was Benny's blog background yesterday.

I may seem a bit distracted the next few days. You see, I've got a large LCD TV. I've got HD. I've got DirectTV. And I've got an itchy trigger-thumb on my remote.

DirectTV is featuring four full-time channels devoted to the Masters the next four days. One channel is dedicated to the main broadcast feed of the tournament; a second channel to the day's highlights. A third channel is devoted exclusively to "Amen Corner" while the fourth focuses solely on Holes 15 and 16. In case I can't decide which one to watch, I can WATCH ALL FOUR AT THE SAME TIME on one screen, plus have access to several interactive features that will let me pull up additional information!

Let it snow all weekend, I don't care.

I discovered another blog with an appreciation for Courtship: iPandora. Blog founder Matthew has been joined by co-blogger and future bride, Grace, aka American Texan.

Currently at the top of the page are their two stories of how they met, became friends, then reached the decision to court and now, ultimately, are engaged. An "engaging" story indeed, told from two viewpoints but with a common vision. Check it out.

Today is Tom Lehrer's 80th birthday, and yes, he's still alive. I posted a video from him several days ago, but thought I'd celebrate the occasion with another of his classics that has eerily remained relevant more than 40 years after it was written (the text inserted briefly in the middle of the video was not from Lehrer).



Edgy, cynical and more than a little liberal, Lehrer still had a gift for sticking his needle right in your funny bone. Despite his television exposure in the 1960s, he ultimately chose a lower profile in academia. In an interview he once said he would have gone crazy touring and doing the same songs every night. Besides, he said, "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

Happy birthday to one of the greats!

In general I'm not a big fan of disruptive protests, seeing them as typically producing more inconvenience than enlightenment. That said, I've taken an untypical satisfaction in the multiple protests around the world seeking to shame China in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics. While I'd personally feel more of a connection if the protesters were trying to call attention to the persistent persecution, monitoring and attempted intimidation of Christians instead of Tibetans by the Chinese government, any ridicule that can be heaped on that totalitarian regime is ultimately in the service of a good cause.

To be clear, I don't support or endorse any violent or destructive protests, but I am amused by the daring ingenuity of the protests that have made use of international landmarks in London, Paris and San Francisco. The Chinese government's objective of using the Games as an image booster is blowing up in — and causing it to lose — face.

When China was first awarded the Games I found it regrettable that a country with such a heinous record on human rights and of suborning it's capitalist partners such as Google had received such a boon. Surely they would use the opportunity to present a more enlightened face to the world while continuing to betray the truth and it's own people. If nothing else, the protests have shown Beijing that not everyone is buying it or is willing to kowtow or look politely the other way.

(On a related note, last Sunday I heard a man from the Gideons relate how the organization had been granted the privilege of bringing Bibles into the country and placing them in Beijing hotels for the Olympics — on the condition that they would subsequently be removed from the country as soon as the Olympics are over. We prayed that there won't be a single Bible to be found when the Gideons go back because the guests and staff will have — safely — taken them all).

I know some say embarrassing the host country is improper and rude and that the Games should transcend politics and be about the spirit of athletic competition. Others say the protesters are depriving the torch-bearers of a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Well, if you're concerned about the athletic spirit and the ideals of fair-play, sportsmanship and a level playing field then I would suggest that China itself has already thrown these principles to the dragons, and it's only fair to call them on it. I do feel some sympathy for those of good faith looking to honor the Games by carrying the torch who are being deprived of this opportunity, but on a lesser scale than those deprived of liberty and even their life for trying to uphold the light of freedom.

Embarrassment is too mild a price for the Chinese government to pay for its abuses; at the very least I would that they be mortified.

The NuttyBuddy — a next-generation upgrade on the athletic cup — is getting somewhat infamous in certain, um, parts of the blogosphere. My friend KingDavid, unpaid and unofficial spokesperson for NuttyBuddy, gave me one of the company's promotional tee-shirts for my birthday last week. While I'll proudly wear the tee-shirt, I don't know that I'd go to the lengths the guy in the video below goes to to demonstrate the efficacy of this new technology.

It's hard to tell what is more disturbing, this clown's (let's call him a "Crush Test Dummy") willingly and repeatedly standing in front of the Nuke LaLoosh of pitching machines, or the constant cackling of the off-screen woman who was feeding the (supposed) baseballs into the machine. Somehow she reminded me of the sound Hillary must have made while coming up with her health care proposals.



One positive thing about this video, however, is that at the end — after taking repeated shots to the gut and thigh and a couple direct hits on the NuttyBuddy — the guy says, "I don't think I'll ever be able to have kids."

On behalf of the gene pool and future generations, I thank him in the name of all humanity.

Mitch had a shout-out yesterday recognizing National Tartan Day, the holiday for Americans of Scots descent. Some commenters on Mitch's post took playful swipes at the manly custom of wearing kilts, to which I quoted The Virginian,: "When you say those words, smile."

In the book, TV shows and movies the Virginian's name is never used, but it's a good bet he was of Scots ancestry. Virginia was a popular destination for the Scots-Irish immigrants of the late 1600s and 1700s and their well-known traits of being independent, quarrelsome and inherently mistrustful of authority played a role in the founding of this country. As recounted in the book The Scots of Virginia by Horace Edward Henderson (also here):

By the time of the Revolution, Virginia had the largest population and it ranked as the most important colony both politically and economically. The largest concentration of Scottish people in America was in Virginia and they played a highly important role in helping Virginia to attain its position of pre-eminence in the new world. But it was not the “aristocratic” planters or gentry in Virginia that lit the first sparks for independence and freedom from Great Britain. It was the Scotch-Irish of Virginia who were the Champions of Liberty and Independence in America. The first calls for individual human rights came not from those who were well-off and prosperous in America but by those who had suffered for centuries from the aggressions, prejudice, harassment and discrimination of the British first, in Scotland, then in Northern Ireland and lastly, in Virginia. And it was not in the privileged sanctity of the Anglican churches or the hallowed halls of the Capitol at Williamsburg where the first cries for freedom rang out in America - but in the roughhewn Presbyterian churches of the Virginia frontier where the earliest calls for freedom were proclaimed.

The fact was that the overwhelming majority of the planter gentry with English blood in Virginia had little sympathy for the initial demands for independence from Britain, much less for any radical ideas about the democratic equality of men. The Scotch-Irish have often been called “the first political radicals in America.” The frontier-spirit of taking justice into one’s own hands, the independent individualism, the competitive spirit to win whatever the obstacles, and their almost ruthless determination to progress that became well-established parts of the American character, are generally considered to have come from Scottish traits. While most Americans of English descent either opposed independence or were non-commital, the majority of the patriotic continental troops were Scotch-Irish. In fact, a Presbyterian loyalist was unheard of.

On the other hand, thirty regiments of English-Americans fought against the patriots with the British forces. Actually, the number of American Loyalists in His Majesty’s army “exceeded in number the troops enlisted (by Congress) to oppose them.” It is estimated that 20,000 Americans fought with the British forces during the Revolution. In fact, George III called it a “Presbyterian war,” many in Britain referred to it as “the Presbyterian revolt,” and the British Prime Minister said, “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson, and that is the end of it.”

And finally, most of the Scots who had come directly from Scotland to America, either went back to Scotland or fled north to Canada. Conclusively, it was the Virginian patriots of Scottish origin who first articulated the demand for liberty and independence which brought freedom and democracy to the United States of America. They also gave America its distinctive characteristics which have made it the most powerful nation on earth based upon its unparalleled spiritual and economic strength. And nowhere in America were these unique Scottish characteristics more in evidence, and of greater influence, than in Virginia. Truly, the Scots of Virginia were America’s greatest patriots!

National Tartan Day is also a good time to remember the Declaration of Arbroath, i.e., the Scottish Declaration of Independence (1320), which famously contained the words:

“It is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”

Fort Worth, Texas, Easter Sunday, 1958: an excerpt from my mother's journal that she kept last year when my father was ill. It arrived in the mail yesterday...

When I was first pregnant with John, it was difficult for me to accept that we were going to have a baby so early in our marriage. We'd had two weeks while he was on leave after we got married. Then he was gone seven months and bingo! Pregnant! I was working, had been working before we got married. My salary was needed because as A1/c [Airman, first class. NW] the pay was meager. Benefits with medical, but buying groceries, paying for a car and putting gas in it, plus payments on our 'palace' on wheels that measured 8' x 28' including the hitch didn't allow us to run the little oil stove at night. In Texas, there's nothing to stop the north wind but barbed wire, so we turned it off around nine o'clock, went to bed when it started cooling down. Chuck got up at four a.m., ran on tip-toes and pranced while he lit the stove and got it started again. He'd jump into bed and touch me with his cold feet, wanting help to warm them. THANKS!

Before we knew it, I got up one morning hemorrhaging. Off to the hospital, admitted for three days, baby saved. How weird. This is October 11, 2007 and it was October 11, 1957 when this emergency happened. But, I had to quit work. No housework, not even sweeping. Stay off your feet and lay low. Then in November, I got the Asian Flu which was the first of the many flu bugs that started taking the nation for years. Into bed, racked with chills and fever, sick and afraid I was going to lose the baby I hadn't thought I was ready for. Chuck said at the time he felt that I really needed him. I had been so darned independent and sure of myself.

John was born April 3rd, three weeks and two days early. He was six pounds, 1/2 ounce. We had some dreadful experiences after he was born. He was put into the incubator and Intensive Care. The pediatrician and obstetrician told me while I was still in a deep fog from being over anesthetized, "Mrs. Stewart, we usually take the mother to see her baby before she goes to her room from recovery. However, we are very concerned. He's having some difficulty. We aren't sure if it's the heart or the brain, but for his sake we can let you see him through the window but you won't be able to hold him." So I said, "I understand, better safe than sorry," and went back to sleep. I did see him through the window. It was hard to believe that this was our baby. But I was still so groggy that I was asleep in the wheelchair before I got back to my room.

The next morning, Chuck was there. "What's wrong with our baby?" I cried. "He's fine, Marilyn, he's fine." So throughout the day as I awakened more and more I was torn apart by wanting to hold him and not being able to. The girl in the room with me had her baby. She was a minister's wife and they named him John Paul. The next day, about ten o'clock, a nurse came into the room. She glanced at the chart at the foot of the bed and said, "Stewart. Oh, honey, we nearly lost your baby early this morning. If it hadn't been for the intern on duty that suctioned him and suctioned him, he wouldn't be here. In fact, we don't know if he'll make it!"

I was terrified, but supposed to act like an adult, I don't know. I called and called for Chuck. He didn't answer. Visiting hours came and I was still calling and he wasn't showing up. Where was he? Didn't he know our baby was about to die? I was racked with anguish and anger, where was he when he should be here with me? It was Easter Sunday, too. About three o'clock I got out of bed and went to the window and looked out, as if I could see anything. While I was standing there, tears running down my face, I heard, "Marilyn, what are you doing!" I turned around and there was Chuck with my Mom. He had called Mom and Dad in the wee hours of the morning and told them what was happening. Mom got the first plane out of Indianapolis headed for Fort Worth. They were both upset that a nurse would tell me something like that. I bemoaned that I hadn't even had a chance to hold my baby. And couldn't they at least let me do that, just for a few minutes? They did arrange it. I held this tiny bundle that looked up with blurry eyes, a very unhealthy baby with jaundice. That scared me, too, but I'm a MOM, and he was the most precious thing I'd ever held, other than his Dad. "John Avery, you will make it, you WILL, do you know that?"

Mom stayed a couple of days after we got out of the hospital. A week after he was born, the pediatrician said, "I can't believe that this is the baby that was so sick. This is a miracle. We didn't expect him to survive but we released him to his parents with hope against hope." Now look at you, John, you big old woolly bear. You still curl your hair with your fingers when you read, just like you did when you were a baby, and guzzling a bottle empty, contented and full.

TechnoChitlins directed me to the story and PHOTOS from Zombietime.

It was a grand time last night at Keegan's, and not necessarily because my team - "Fifty Sense" - ended up tieing for first place in the 8:00 p.m. challenge.

Really, what was special was seeing so many MOBsters back at Keeg's for the traditional Thursday night match - man, was the place LOUD and HAPPY last night. I'll probably miss someone or some-two, but those in attendance included Learned Foot (or was that Joe Tucci?) from Kool-Aid Report, Derek and Guy from Freedom Dogs, Swiftee (Pair-O-Dice), Barry (erstwhile Watercooler Wisdom), John LaPlante (Policy Guy), Dan Stover (Northern Alliance Wannabe), Leo (Psycmeister's Ice Palace - all the way down from St. Cloud), AAA (Residual Forces), David and Margaret (too many blogs to mention), Mitch Berg (Shot in the Dark) and Brad Carlson and his gal, Jen. Of course, Ben was there from Hammerswing, along with the complete Night Writer contingent of the Reverend Mother, Mall Diva and Tiger Lilly, plus special guest and commenter Princess Flicker Feather.

Turnout has been kind of sparse of late (and I've been missing-in-action as much as anyone), so it was great to see a lot of the gang in person again. With warm weather perhaps finally upon us and the return of the Paddy O'Furniture and the great outdoors to our favorite Irish pub, I hope to see similar gatherings in the near future. When I started blogging 3 years ago, coming to Keegan's and meeting so many different people was an important to feeling like a part of the community, and led me to make some great friends (but you didn't have to kiss me last night, Strommie). I may ultimately even get a son-in-law out of the deal.

Notably absent last night were representatives from Fraters, Nihilist in Golf Pants and Anti-Strib, and it seems like forever since I've seen Bogus Doug, Doug Bass or DrJonz. Even so it was a prestigious conglomeration and I hope the Thursday night regulars will soon be returning in force.

Also, for those (Marty) who mocked my "Toads" answer to a question about what animal South Africa is trying to exterminate, I'll have you know my answer was based on having read this article during the week (Africa, Australia, who can tell the difference?).

I think this means that there isn't a lot of cussing on this blog. Either that or the on-line rating tool had it's wires fried while analyzing The Kool-Aid Report.



Around 1% of the pages on your website contain cussing.
This is 88% LESS than other websites who took this test.

Created by OnePlusYou

HT: The Llama Butchers

Tiger Lilly, the Mall Diva (and Ben), the Reverend Mother and I will be at Keegan's tonight for trivia and nonsense. I'm hoping Marty asks what the going price is for Geritol.

As you read this I will have completed my 50th year on this planet. Yes, I know, hard to believe – at least it is for me. Somehow in my mind’s eye I still kind of picture myself as I was in the 1980s, though that is a man my children never knew and my wife may even have a hard time remembering, which, truth be told, is probably a good thing for all concerned.

As friends and family members, especially the golfers, have reached this milestone in the past I have commonly bestowed upon them a cheerful, “Good luck on the back nine!” Now it is I turning toward the clubhouse. Though I have my share of fairways and bunkers ahead of me I realize that this isn’t necessarily the half-way point. Fifty doesn’t mean there’s a real-life 50-50 balance between the time I’ve lived and the time I have left. Believe me, I’ve worked with enough actuaries over the years to know about that.

Sixteen, eighteen, twenty-one — they couldn't come fast enough.

Thirty — “what the...?”

Forty — “now wait just a minute...”

Fifty. Fifty? Fifty.

Nevertheless I feel good, I feel strong. My blood pressure and cholesterol are low and everything else seems manageable. If I no longer swing a 20-pound post maul all day in the sun, or polish off 27 spare ribs at a sitting, I can still remember what each felt like and believe that I don’t do those things now simply because I’m old enough to know better.

Yet there it is – old enough. To know better. From this vantage point I can look back and see all the faces that helped me get here who are here no longer. And thanks to them, I see the young faces around me now and I can turn and look into the distance and imagine the even younger faces to come.

There's still time for some practice swings, though, and to work on my game. Yeah, the ol' backswing can't help but get longer, though the important thing now is the follow-through. I'm not familiar with all the holes I have left, but I know I've got a wise coach and caddy who has said he'll never leave or forsake me, so I'll take my time and enjoy the round for there's no sense in hurrying.

I do hear the Clubhouse is spectacular, though.

Back in January Mitch Berg had a post likening the abortion issue to a ribbon in the middle of a tug-of-war rope, with each side trying to move the ribbon (i.e. public opinion) closer to it's position. Mitch thought he was seeing signs that public opinion has pulled more to the right of late. That naturally triggered a comment string that centered around the role of faith in one's view and of legislating belief. Surprisingly, it actually turned out to be one of the most civil debates I've seen on his site, and one I was proud to have participated in.

I've thought about that discussion several times since then, and while the topic at that time was abortion, I've realized that my comments then pretty well encapsulated my thinking on many issues and, unintentionally, provided an explanation for one of the reasons for why I blog, limited as my contribution may be.

I've extracted the main portion of my comment from that day (addressing another commenter, not Mitch) and posted it here to help me remember, on nights like these when I'm really tired, why I keep doing this.

... I merely want to address your view that the abortion issue is an issue of faith. It is a matter of faith, but not necessarily “faith” as in being Catholic, Evangelical or Humanist, but in terms of “belief.” The underlying point I took from Mitch’s post is that what people “believe” about human life appears to be changing, and ultimately what a society believes is reflected in its laws (for good or ill). Inevitably some beliefs are going to be in the minority. Thank goodness the vast majority today believes it’s wrong to hang people from trees, though a few still say it’s okay to threaten to do so, while even fewer would be willing to do it. (At what point prosecution should enter into that example is a topic for another day).

It’s not a process of legislating faith (or belief), but of faith/belief affecting legislation. The fact that some will disagree or be offended by the result is not reason in and of itself to not act on the greater will. Thus the ribbon, as Mitch says, is moved. That does not mean, however, that the minority doesn’t have the right to protest, or to work continually to change the beliefs of the majority, even to the point of risk and sacrifice (since risk and sacrifice are what differentiates belief from emotion). Though I may be in a minority on a number of issues (or because I’m in the minority on a number of issues), I thank God (not goodness) that we live in a society where these beliefs can still be contested.

What Pre-1985 Video Game Character Are You?

Thrust me on this...

I am a Thrust-ship. I am small and tricky - where you think I am, I probably am not. I can work very fast, but I tend to go about things in a round about way, which often leaves me effectively standing still. I hate rocks. Bloody rocks. What Video Game Character Are You?

HT: Leo at Psycmeist's Ice Palace

This was one of the surest bets you could have made a year ago:

Smoking ban has apparently cut into revenue from charitable gambling
The statewide ban, which began late last year, is tied to a significant decline in bar pulltab and bingo receipts, according to a study by the State Gambling Control Board.

By MARK BRUNSWICK, Star Tribune

Affirming what American Legion hall operators and mom-and-pop bar owners had warned, a new report shows that the statewide ban on smoking enacted last year appears to have cut into charitable gambling revenues from bar game pulltabs and bingo.

Gross receipts from charitable gambling were down 12.8 percent in the last three months of 2007, which correlates with when the statewide smoking ban took effect. Even taking into account a weakening economy, the ban is likely to be responsible for a decline in gross receipts of 7.5 percent to 8 percent, or a loss equal to $95 million to $105 million a year, according to the report.

The overall 12.8 percent drop represents the largest decline in receipts since lawful gambling was first regulated in the state in 1985, according to the report released Monday by the State Gambling Control Board, which regulates the industry.

...

The new report shows that towns close to states that have not enacted a smoking ban appear to have been more affected. Sites near tribal casinos, where smoking can be permitted, have seen receipts decline more than the state average for several years, an apparent trend that began before the ban.

...

Charitable gambling officials predict revenue declines of 16 percent to 18 percent through this year. Anticipating the effect, the industry has been pushing for several pieces of legislation that would give them more flexibility in their operations.

So now, what do you want to bet that we'll have legislation liberalizing (good word, that) or expanding gambling to more venues to make up for the shortfall? After all, it's for the children! And the vets! Or are you some unpatriotic child-hater? Come on, everybody pull(tab) together!

The lobbyists and our legislature have focused on getting everyone to kick their Camels ... while letting another camel get it's head further into the tent. (But hey, it's a big tent!)