1 only somewhat completely unrelated. are your trackbacks broken?

2 If you look good in orange?

3 Hey - I like orange!!

4 But those prison jumpsuits are cut SO BADLY! Not flattering AT ALL.

1 sounds great..... Emptying it ought to be fun....

1 Nope.

2 As a child, I had imaginary friends. As an adult, I don't think it has changed. They are all quite different and lead exciting lives, though. Some have superpowers.

3 I'll do political philosophy. Libertarianism is absolutely right! If you aren't doing it in public, and it's not hurting anyone (else at least), go for it. Fiscal conservatives are absolutely right! Stop spending so much damned money Congress! Good job on keeping taxes in line though. Neo-cons are absolutely right! The only way to peace is through freedom of every individual in the world. Or at least we'd know we're attacking them for good reason. Liberals are absolutely right! Some people need a temporary leg-up to get out of a tragedy or bad mistake in life. (The 'temporary' part is not so liberal, but I didn't want to leave them out.)

4 Darrell, I am real. Really. Thought you'd want to know. --Joy

5 What do you think all the others say? ;-)

1 Getting the money: the #2 reason I should never have my own business. The #1 reason being I hate selling myself.

2 Of course, one always is--in one way or another.

3 One way to avoid this crap in the future is to ask clients (or potential clients) that are forever slow or you suspect will be either slow on non-paying, to pay half up front, to "cover your expenses". If they refuse to do that, don't work for them. They will be difficult to collect from always, and aren't worth your time, which would be better spent looking for clients that WILL pay on time. Put your time and effort where the money is, not where it's difficult to obtain.

4 Pay upfront? Good luck with that! The biggest clients set their own rules and you have the choice to accept or decline. They have standard contracts you have to sign without modification beforehand. I haven't seen one that gives the consultant/freelancer/subcontractor any relief for late payment. If you modify their contracts to include relief, they won't sign it. Periodically, some new "rising star" at a company gets the bright idea to increase company profitability by using "float" with the 'little guys that make success possible'--they delay payment as long as possible to improve co. cash flow. They can't do that with equipment vendors that make purchasers sign their own contracts with late-payment provisions. Some times, they even decide not to pay freelancers if they got you to work on spec. My longest 'late payment'? Sixteen years and counting. In my line of work, everyone needs the work 'yesterday.' They always want me to start now while the contract is going through the approval process. Most times it all works out. I haven't heard of anyone having a satisfactory result with legal remedies. The fees make the loss even greater. And there that little thing about nobody doing business with you after-wards. You have to trust your gut and look for all the little signs. When I worked for big companies, I often paid freelancers out of my own pocket(immediately) if the company was playing games. They, of course, had to reimburse me when the check actually arrived. That was a different kind of story--a couple of times. What are those games companies play? They have an AP committee that meets only once a month(and you missed the cut-off--or it had to adjourn early). New forms(You used the 'old form' for payment[thanks for not mentioning that for three months and for giving me the 'old form' to begin with]. Losing forms(again, why didn't you bring it to my attention?)

5 Forgot to say, I hope your friend is a good decorator.

6 He is.

7 Like I said before, it's your choice. Put up with this crap or find other clients. If you know theyre going to be slow pay at the beginning, or find out, add 15% to the bill upfront. Hide it if necessary.

8 How about - "Dear client, we look forward to recieving your payment before we turn your invoice over to our new Accounts Due intern - known hereabouts as Little Miss Attilla. Best wishes for your continued health..."

1 I'll save you the bother. There is very little known so far. An ex-teacher confessed. He had contacted the Ramseys' in the past about writing a book on the killing. He also contacted Polly Klass's family. He has details wrong...(says he picked her up from school[she was on X-Mas break], says he raped herDarrell. His ex-wife says they were in Alabama when she was JonBenet was killed. There was 'foreign' DNA at the crime scene, and they took a sample from him and they are awaiting the results. That would go a long way toward making this something to discuss. Problems with the details are not unheard of with real killers. They like to play games. We had a murder in Chicago where one man was convicted of killing a child(before anyone gives him any sympathy, he bragged about it in a bar, and ex-cons dropped the dime on him)and another man, Brian Dugan, in jail, talked to police once, claiming he did it but wanted the death penalty taken off the table before he would talk again. Some of the details he gave did not match the crime scene. Until DNA testing came along, showing him involved, prosecutors couldn't take the chance letting the man they already convicted go free if they couldn't convict Dugan.

2 Here's as good a summary as any so far... http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003018974 From Editor and Publisher...

3 Thanks! Other bloggers bring the news to you. I, however, like the reader to feel more participatory

4 How do you think Glenn Reynolds gets a lot ot his stuff? You actually think he's spending hours a day surfing the web?

5 I'll save you more time by giving you the scoop on that woman that caused a disturbance on United Flight 923, forcing it to make an emergency landing at Boston's Logan International Airport under escort by two military jets on Wednesday of this week. Catherine C. Mayo, 59, a Vermont woman who also lives part time in Pakistan, was charged yesterday in federal court with interfering with a flight crew... Mrs. Mayo began pacing the plane from the front to aft lavatory and asked a flight attendant, "Is this a training flight for United Flight 93?" -- the flight hijacked on September 11, 2001, that crashed into a Pennsylvania farm field. Mrs. Mayo demanded to speak with an air marshal, saying the contents of her bag would be of interest. Her bag contained a screwdriver, body lotion, several cigarette lighters and a bottle of water. The affidavit did not say how she smuggled the items on board, despite being screened twice at London's Heathrow Airport. Mrs. Mayo "took down her slacks and started taking down her underwear, and that's when they got her. They were just passengers on the plane who immediately helped," I smell a lawsuit. Think passengers would have acted so quickly if Naomi Watts had pulled such a stunt? I think NOT!

6 Maybe this would be a better fit in your other post, but "Protesters calling for an end to recent violence in Sri Lanka found themselves brawling with hardline Buddhist monks Thursday, after a rally dubbed a "peace protest" turned unexpectedly violent." http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2006-08-17T181046Z_01_COL276316_RTRUKOC_0_US-SRILANKA-MONKS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22 And.." A Chinese woman has appeared in court accused of transporting panties and long johns soaked in heroin, state media said on Friday." You can find a link at the previous citation. I had a mental image of Bruno, the drug sniffing G Shepherd, finding her at the airport....but alas! No need to buy the tape...

7 Posted: Aug 25, 2006 1:36 PM EVIL, THY NAME IS AMBIVALENCE Evil –thy name is ambivalence , thy name is ambiguity . Evil thou refuses to qualifty arguments —thou seekes the middle ground/ the balance . Evil thou has REFUSED to overnalyze . Thou hatest extreme precision /hatest clear boundaries . Evil, thou are known by refusing to be single-minded ! The voice of evil has a message and if we care about what Plato called :THE GOOD (and we should care) and if we care about Beauty (and Beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder) if the beholder does NOT gaze rightly --i.e. does NOT think rightly) , then we should reject the message that tells us to embrace double-think . The voice of evil has a message and the message it tells us is : “Don’t be so single minded” and we should indeed always REJECT that message . The voice of Good (if I may use that rhetorical phrase) has another message. The voice of Good tells us , ‘ DO be so single minded ! Always be single minded ‘ . After all ambivalence–the tendency to balance what is intrinsically virtuous with that which is intrinsically crass –is the ESSENCE OF MEDIOCRITY . Intrinsic virtue we should always seek to take to extremes , ladies and gents ! And the worst sort of mediocrity —is respectible mediocrity ! Yet all such discussion ought to reflect on the particulars of what is happening in our neighborhoods –what is happening in particular to our civilization –lest it should seem like a mere “academic discussion “to be thought on found interesting for a while and then the same shuffle of people going back to their daily lives of day to day mendcaities where people ask , ‘what’s on t.v. ?’ WELL IT’S WHAT’S ON T.V. THAT’S THE PROBLEM FOLKS ! I .SOULLESS SPECTACLES AND TOLERANT SELL-OUTS What’s on t.v ought to show everyone who hasn’t come around to insight just how ROTTEN the sensisbilty of that weird, mediocre , pusiilanimous , pansy-effeminate thinking called relativism (or postmodernism, anti-foundationalism–or what funky new name they are calling it lately) which is that “conflicted” tendency of thought to respect beliefs or so called “points of view” regardless how crass , unfounded or otherwise skewed such beliefs are (i.e. selling out) …how pathetic it is ! What’s ON T.V.IS THE APPARENT MURDER AND RAPE OF A LITTLE GIRL IN COLORADO TEN YEARS AGO BEING TREATED *AS IF * IT WERE SOME SORT OF ENTERTAINMENT !! !! Hello people if there is anything that ought to show those who still have some shred of caring for some semblance of wholesome sentiment towards how life should be lived it is that , and hence if there is anything that should show people that the whole ever so weird insipid tendency to respect opinions — (or even partially respect them) no matter how crass those opinions are –and this present weird decade of might-boggling crassness –is TOTALLY WRONGHEADED AND WORTHLESS it is the disgusting news and entertainment media circus that treats the rape and murder of a child as something to have fun gossip about . If there is anything that show the stragglers that still want to be tolerant and respect points of view and “look at it from different perspectives”/ be conflicted –want a balance between the light and dark —and all similar insipid garbage ideology –who still have some portion of nurturing feeling towards other living beings left –to wise up and promote that nurturing feeling single-mindedly and with a robust intensity (and say politically correct tolerance be dammed ) then it should be that : seeing that so many have become tolerant of journalists gossiping about the rape and murder of a child like it were some entertaining thrilling spectacle to gossip about . These days the postmodernist/relativist crowd has tried to mislead us into thinking that we somehow shouldn’t have an us versus them approach. Well the us versus them approach is Good . The vindication of Truth, Beauty, Justice and all that is Good demands an us versus them approach ! Ladies and gents, news has become entertainment and entertainment has become news and that ugly sordid trend has been going on for 12 some years now and building and getting more and more sordid each month ! What we are seeing —and it is indeed totally contrary to the enterprise of philosophy and hence the concern of philosophy with the Good of civilizations is a trend that should be best called CULTURAL ENTROPY . Before the phrase culture entropy is explained –it is best to turn attention to the four golden axioms which sooner or later we should always return in thought to and keep in mind . These glaringly obvious axioms should have been fessed up to by everyone long decades ago . AXIOM 1 : *NOT* every belief –including not every belief regarding matters of morals and/or esthetics is mere opinion . There AXIOM 2 : NOT every opinion deserves any respect . (How unspeakably bizarre it is that so many people in this present era , speak AS IF the mere fact that some people –or even many people –express a belief is somehow grounds for giving a belief some ad hoc respect. Would you respect, say, the belief where someone expresses the notion that having an interest in sordid celebrity gossip is even partially okay ? IF SO that is pathetic !) AXIOM 3. The beliefs that a person expresses are NOT at all part of the person. Such beliefs are NOT at all a part of their identity. Merely because they have some relation with the self doesn’t mean they are a part of the person’s self . (Though if a person supports ugly beliefs long enough , they can take on a rather ugly demeanor though) . AXIOM 4 . Since beliefs are NOT part of a person –therefore, there is nothing at all un-compassionate or un-loving about telling someone that the belief they support is totally wrong, without a shred of merit , and worthless . One of the better acts you can do for a person is belittle the opinion they’ve expressed if that opinion is crass, lazy minded or otherwise murky . There is certainly nothing un-compassionate , nor rude (provided one avoids phrasing the terms in a personal manner) about doing that . If MTV told you otherwise then they told you wrong folks . (Always keep in mind that judging a belief that someone has /condemning the belief is NOT necessarily the same as judging or condemning the person who supports it . It is good to always keep that in mind –lest some relativist should quote the adage, “judge not that ye be not judged” *out of context* as I’ve often seen them do . Furthermore, the part about , ‘he that is without sin let him cast the first stone’ –applies to real physical stones–it does NOT apply to verbal criticism . ) Us versus them is good . It is helpful even to the them, as well as to Truth, Beauty, ect . II CULTURAL ENTROPY With those four golden axioms in mind let us turn attention to the term cultural entropy . By entropy I am NOT specifically referring to the thermodyamic context of the word entropy –but I am referencing what Webster’s On-line Dictionary apparently lists as 3. CHAOS , DISORGANIZATION Such chaos is NOT liberating . It is certainly not to be confused with the far separate creative ferment and unbouding energy of the freewheeling artist eccentric . Such chaos is NOT that –so its important that noone should equivocate , for such creative artistic ferment is NOT chaos –as some refer to it . By chaos I’m NOT referring to fractals so don’t equivocate off onto that tangent . By chaos , I’m NOT referring to the primordal stuff in ancient cosmoganies either–so don’t equivocate off into that separate topic . The CHAOS of cultural entropy is a meta-theme that subtends the various interrelated themes of death –and the glamourization of death , breakdown, dysfunctionality, polymorphous perversity, hype , fractious modes of living and thinking . In this present yuppie influenced, media -saturated era (and the yuppie subculture , by the way, is pervaded by the characteristics I just previously described and it is they who provide much of the supply and demand , in this present news and entertainment saturated state of affairs )…morbidity coupled with crass and tacky, sex- laced kitch has become the dominant motif . According to Erich Fromm , Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza once wrote of two contrasting/opposite dispositions (that a culture or a person could support). The good one to support was apparently called the biophillic . The biophillic disposition was life affirming it was enamored of living organic beings and was interested in the ferment of ideas –one would imagine vital ideas ones that were characterized by a mood of vigor of inclination . The necrophillic disposition , in contrast, was enamored of death . It was morbid …death affirming rather than life affirming . If memory serves righly, it was also pervaded by a venal liking for monetary wealth (the mystification of wealth) The collective pop culture mood fostered by the mass entertainment and news media–which has creeped into many households in this present weird yuppie decade and desensitized a lot of people into partially accepting vapid, unwholesome, dysfunctional modes of thinking and living)…is necrophiilic . After all –WHY IS THE STORY OF JON BENET RAMSEY BEING RAPED AND MURDERED FEATURED ON A PROGRAM LIKE ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT ? Jon Benet Ramsey was NOT a Hollywood actress —and it’s bad enough they make sordid, weird unwholesome gossip about actual hollywood actresses that were killed or experienced tragedies –but she wasn’t even a hollywood actress nor was she a rock star ! Here is a social phenomenon so bizarre that so nmany treat AS IF it were some normal par for the course affair. Just 20 years ago , It’s a safe wager, that if Entertainment Tonight had aired a story about a little girl being raped and murdered — many of the media pundits would be dripping and spewing with shock and so would much of the general public ! 40 years ago if a t.v. entertainment show had tried to peddle lurid voyeuristic trash that gossiped about a little child being killed–it’s a safe wager that there would be so much outcry that it would be the last show such a program ever did –and the producers would have to look into chapter 11 pretty darn quick ! The proverbial frog in the kettle is already half cooked . Now creepy shows like that grotesque skanky yuppie-minded Nancy Grace Show on CNN go swimmingly in this present creepshow of a decade ! And don’t believe any postmodernist pip queak who even implies that that trend is some sort of progress it isn’t . III .THE MOST DERISIVE ADJECTIVES SEEM AN UNDERSTATEMENT . I could churn out derisive adjectives like , HIDEOUS , FIENDISHLY VAPID, SOULLESS, DEPRAVED, MEDIOCRE , SKANKY …and a host of other off the charts vehement adjectives enough to fill a giant almanaac and keep on deriding the worthless opinions of those that think it’s okay (or even almost partially okay) to bandie about sordid details of tragedies, like the Jon Benet Ramsey case, till what might seem like the 12th of never , and yet lately even the most vehement adjectives and descriptions at ther most caustic level seem like an understatement—even seem NOT nearly hard enough on these ugly worthless opinions of those that support the ugly society of the spectacle . IV .WARNING SIGNS No sooner than someone single-mindedly denounces the ugly opinions expressed by those that support the status quo of sordid sleaze and mediocrity of t.v. saturated suburbia –then all so often one or several people will play the pipsqueak and respond with these typical of this present era but no less weird, pod people responses , like saying …”well that’s just your opinion” or “don’t be so judgemental” or “look at it from another perspective” or “another side” —and similar limpwristed comments all of which are just euphemisms that try to get the person to sell out /to settle/ to accept/ to embrace the mediocrity by balancing light with a little darkness . Here are some warning signs that the person who is responding has gone over to the dark side …some tell tale phrases that evince the ugly worthless ideology called relativism . Some phrases , statements , and questions that are indicative of relativism are : the use of the term “self-righteous” to lambast those that aspire to be single minded about principles and, hence, REFUSE to sell out . Someone asking a person “are you ever wrong?”, when that person they ask is making a single-minded claim as to some value , is another warning sign of the ugly ideology of relativism being near. Someone who speaks or posts AS IF “always being right or always “having to be right” were somehow bad, is another warning sign ! Someone speaks of “finding a balance” or any sort of balance–if they speak or post of such balance with approval– on some issue where there is some crass tendency happening . Someone who speaks or posts claiming “that there is another side” on some issue or claiming that allegedly there is somehow more than one side –to an issue . Someone referring to being “preachy” AS IF being preachy were somehow undesirable is another warning sign . Someone referring to so-called “shades of grey” and claiming an issue is not black or white is another warning sign . Someone claiming that someone else is allegedly “arrogant” or “pompous” because that other person that they (falsely) accuse of being “arrogant” REFUSES to sell out/REFUSES to respect opposite beliefs , is another warning sign that the person communicating that is a relativist . Another warning sign is if a person uses the word “totalize” AS IF totalizing were something bad–which postmodernists often do . Describing people who are single-minded in outlook as “fanatics” or “fanatical” is another warning sign . Referring to being rigid AS IF it were somehow bad to be rigid (it’s NOT bad to be rigid) is another warning sign . Another warning sign is if the person accepts being conflicted as if somehow it were okay. “Learning to accept ” or “learning to adapt” or “adjust” –when people approve of such terms being applied to crass activities is another warning sign . Another warning sign is the weird tendency of some people, in recent decades, to claim “life is give and take” and apply that to even situations that are sordid, crass, or otherwise unjust. Another warning sign is the unwholsome weird tendency to refer to someone living a “sheltered life” AS IF living a sheltered life were somehow bad . Often the implicit message of speaking of the “sheltered life” AS IF it were somehow bad is to suggest that if a person hasn’t learned to accept and adapt sordid, weird thinking and ways of acting as “part of life” that there is allegedlyt something wrong with the person. The truth is those that have learned to accept sordid , arbitrary, coarse crass modes of acting –they are the one who has something wrong with them . The truth is: everybody ought to live a sheltered life. The sheltered life is good. It is weird that the sordid now has become treated as the yardstick for guaging what is tolerable . V .PEOPLE WHO DEFEND WHAT THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT . In this weird present era–there are a lot of people that don’t like superficiality , don’t like sordidness and want to foster a more nurturing , life -affirming culture , but weirdly enough among some of those people there are what might be called the ‘ambivalent progressives’ or ‘ambivalent humanitarians’ who have embraced the weird ambivalent “conflicted” outlook that is tolerant of ambiguity . Such an outlook doesn’t want to get rid of superficiality, sordidness in human affairs altogether but instead wants to settle for a sell out “balance” between what is noble/life-affirming ect, and the opposite: that which is sordid . They don’t want to get rid of the sordid altogether they just merely want to tone it down . Such a weird ambivalent ethos often wants to accept sordid modes of thinking and acting as “part of life too” . They want to ameliorate the intrinsically bad- but *not* try to get rid of it altogether . They want an ameliorated good and an ameliorated bad . They want a lukewarm , diluted middle ground between the inherently good and inherently bad . That ever so weird an weirdly automatic tendency to ameliorate the good and ameliorate the bad instead of maximizing the intrinsically good and getting rid of the intrinsically bad–that ameliorating middle of the road tendency- characterizes the spirit of this present weird age . Virtue requires that when it comes to intrinsic virtue WE SHOULD EITHER FISH OR CUT BAIT . Aside from the ownership fallacy which is also equally depraved and ridiculous , the most ridiculous notion in human history is the ever so bizarre notion that seems to think as if somehow a virtue somehow becomes a vice when taken to extremes . It does NOT ! Intrinsic Virtue when taken to extremes does NOT become a vice . Taking an intrinsic virtue to extremes means …MORE VIRTUE . It truly is that simple ! LET US THUS REFLECT ON TWO OTHER AXIOMS . AXIOM 5 : An intrinsic virtue when taken to extremes does *NOT* in any case become a vice . When an intrinsic virtue is taken to extremes it results in ….MORE VIRTUE ! The notion that an intrinsic virtue (and that is different from a mere extrinsic sort of virtue) when taken to extremes becomes a vice is a false cockamamey notion people . AXIOM 6 : Rigid consistency in mentally supporting intrinsic virtue in thought and belief is always right . That is concurrent with axiom number 5 . Yet these present days there are the ambivalent humanitarians/ the ambivalent sorts of caring people who defend what they complain about ! These people often enough often express a lot of passion and outrage and campaign for good causes —but then they wax weirdly ambivalent in thought and say stuff “well there’s another side”, and “let’s have a balance” and speak of going beyond the us versus them and want to sell out by respecting or partially respecting the opinions that are CONTRARY to good causes /contrary to an edifying society . Again an us versus them approach is GOOD –provided it is NOT based on illicit violence (and an us versus them approach does NOT always habe to lead to illicit physical violence ) Loving ones enemies does NOT to any extent involve respecting the wrong opinions they express ! i’m reminded of a young man I knew in the autum of 1997 who was a member of an animal rights group I was a member of –that in typical ambivalent MTV genration relativist fashion made the squishy namby-pamby statement to the effect of, ‘animal rights is right to us , (but for the person that supports killing animal for the sadistic fun of it ) that was somehow allegedly “right to them” ! IF SO then why bother . It is not just important that we have the right actions that support the right cause. We should also NOT be *duplicious* in belief towards supporting inwardly the right ethical causes either . Duplicious thinking betrays good ethical causes in a way that is far more fundamental in terms of meaning –then actions that do not fit the cause . Though hypocracy in terms of actions is bad–duplicity in belief is often ultimately worse –and a worse betrayal of the ethical or esthetic goal one is supposed to be striving for . The problem, by the way –is not in the complaining–the problem, by the way, is in people defending what they complain about . Complaining can be good–but don’t defend what you complain about . Be consistent . To respect the opinion of those that intentionally support that which is crass or murky , if one is disappointed by the situation supported by that opinion –is DEFENDING WHAT YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT ! (In deriding the ugly tendency of people to respect opinions they do not agree with , I am not by the way referring to the civil right of someone to express that opinion . There is a difference between respecting the civil right of someone to express an opinion no matter how worthless that opinion is –and the separate matter of respecting the opinion itself . respecting the right of somebody to express an opinion does NOT to any degree involve respecting the opinion itself . It is high time that the MTV Generation –by the way–stop glossing over that difference !) IIV .NOT A MATTER OF GOING “OVERBOARD” . Relativism is totally worthless and a culture that accepts the creepy portrayal of the rape and murder of a little girl as fodder for gossip and entertainment evinces that worthlessness . It is NOT a matter that relativism has gone overboard since relativism is intrinscally worthless and, hence, never had any good points to it to begin with . Another factor in this present era that is all so disgusting is even among some of the people that express some disapproval of relativism —there is an odd ambivalence where even some of these people want to find a middle ground between absolutism (with its high ethical and esthetic standards) and relativism.! Ladies and gentlemen, there is NO “too much ” absolutism . Such finding a middle ground between relativism and absolutism is selling out . An all or nothing approach towards the evil of relativism (and the pop culture soulless kitch it tolerates and often subtly fosters ) is long overdue. We should not talk like relativist pod people once in a while, or for a few minutes on Thursdays, and then be resolute about values the rest of the week . We should go the distance on high standards all the time. The author of this present text often is quite disgusted with himself in the past for not being resolute at times in the past, so don’t presume (as relativists sometimes weirdly do presume) that he holds himself above reproach . It is quite jarring to see even *some* people who are in the main absolutists weirdly enough make those weirdly automatic statements about so-called “different perspectives” and, occasionally (at odd intervals) get ambivalent and want to respect “points of view” …We should go all the way with absolutism go the distance . Ugly sordid opinions that endorse crass activities like media gossip , racism , wife-beating , watching something on t.v. “because there’s nothing else on” , and other murky tendencies should NEVER be respected at any hour of the day . All so many people these days have lowered standards /have “learned to accept” to be “realistic” in accepting sordid , crass situational reality . Like the men in the Dylan Thomas poem (who the poet with apparent sarcasm says and one would most likely imagine uses the term wise men –sarcastically) “know dark is right because their words had forked no lightening” , they accept /resign themselves a little …to mediocrity . We’ve got to ‘ RAGE , RAGE AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT .’ Piss on the tolerance and acceptance that allows tragedy as fodder for media gossip . Away with the respectible mainstream mediocrity of those who have learned to settle for the so called “different perspective” of duplicity .

1 You hold out a glimmer of hope for us poor Roman Catholics? How open-minded of you!

2 I have to. I'm one myself. But among some of my, um, "Bible-thumping" relatives there persists the perception that Catholicism is, by definition, a cult. The doctrinal differences between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics seem, to my mind, to reduce in number all the time, but they are real enough for us to maintain separate communions. I still believe a lot of the differences are cultural, myself.

3 I know how to spot a Rastafarian...

4 I could see where the "snake handlers' could consider RCs a cult. I do remember what you said in the past. I just have a hard time deciding what the situation is today. ;-) And, oh, wear pants when you're around the snakes!

5 SHouldn't the question eb reversed? How do you think you can be saved by not being Catholic? :p Anyways, after 10 years of barely Catholic edducation aka Jesuit Education (which leads to another discussion on why I'm not a marxist now) I find that merely being Catholic does not warrant being saved, it requires the good works associated with it. However it seems to be more of a tendancy that merely believeing in Jesus is enought to be saved in other Christian Doctrines (Doctrines not cults) and the good works flow from that. So it leads one to think that the act of beleving in Jesus would be enough to save a Catholic in the eyes of Christians except for the eyes of the Catholic him/herself. Which brings us to Catholic guilt... As far as the Church's stance, I could be wrong here but I believe the Church has changed it stance on the "being saved" if one is not Catholic given some of the "minor" problems the Church had in the past.

6 Have you ever met a Charismatic Roman Catholic? I have and they are super scary... really. I actually believe they are the reason I am now a recovering catholic...

1 "in...but not of..." I know someone may pipe up and claim it doesn't actually say that. But in so many words, it does. It depends upon how you define fellowship. And that may be something each individual believer has to discern for him/herself. If you find yourself following after the way of the world, in violation of what you know or perceive to be your biblical/spiritual values, then it may be time to take stock and reasess how your relationships may be corrupting your walk. There are lots of spiritual paths. Not all go where they claim to, and they're not all the same in the end. Obviously one ought to be confident that the one followed is the correct one. But what one does after that is the difference. Me, I'm perfectly content to let someone go to hell-in-a-handbasket after I've made my requisite appeal to the Way. After all, I could be completely full of shit and my only afterlife will be spent in the alimentary tract of an earthworm. In the final analysis my trust in Jesus Christ as the only one capable of saving me out of death into life is not shaken by whether anyone around me has come to the same faith. I kinda like you all though, and I'd really hate any of you to suffer the fate prepared first and foremost for the Enemy. Although my basic misanthropy does tend to temper my enthusiasm for zealous proselytization. That and the fact that I have realized that it is not so much me doing/saying anything, as it is a work of the Holy Spirit. It's my job to remain sensitive to his movings and to move accordingly.

2 I always make sure I'm twelve steps from a Krispy Kreme.

3 Sean: you're an APOSTATE LUTHERAN! Repent! Lacking that, admit that you're POWERLESS OVER DOUGHNUTS! Or be prepared to be cast into the lake of fire. I'm serious, Bro . . .

4 DC: I think you're a phenomenal witness for the Lord, partly because you're not wasting energy living up to other people's role expectations for what a Christian ought to be. I do happen to think you're right in something you mentioned a year ago: when the joint came round, Jesus would have taken a hit--at least at 70s potencies (the current stuff is stronger). He wouldn't have gotten wasted, but He would have been one with the sinners he ministered to, and participated (somewhat) in their customs. Without getting fucked up or using His Spidey powers.

5 Not wanting to get too off-topic, but the potency thing is a red herring of the anti-drug hyperventilators. All that means is it takes far less to get where one wants to be, and also there's far less tar, CO and other crap to take in. Healthy choice! It's self regulating. Think of it like this: no one would drink three full cups of espresso like they would three cups of regular coffee. When you've had enough you stop. He drank wine. Not just a sip or two, but as much as the regular folk of his day did. A glass was part of any meal. And the Pharisees accused him of being a glutton and a drunkard. He was not, of course, but it serves to illustrate that he did not abstain, and that it was not "grape juice". He came to teach one thing, that all of God's will could be summed up in a single word: Love. Everything else, all the rules and regulations that the Pharisees had added to God's word, were peripheral and were distractions to the central message: "Love the Lord your God with all heart and soul and mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." Everything else is the "how", not the "what". For example, it's not love to drink in front of a recovering alcoholic or to offer him some. "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable.", and one measure of that "profitable" is that if you love your neighbor as yourself, what you do in your own freedom that negatively impacts your neighbor, is not love. And since the sum of the law and the prophets is Love, in that circumstance it is therefore not lawful. In that same vein, appearing to condone that which is contrary to the love of God, might also apply as a lack of love to one's neighbor. Perhaps this is where I slip sometimes. Gotta run to work. L8r

6 I'm sure, though, that the "appearing to condone"/"suspension of judgment" gives you awesome opportunities to witness to others.

7 I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school thru college. Later became a self-proclaimed agnositc, then discovered Christian Science, and metaphysics in general. (No, I *don't* mean channeling dolphins or ETs.) From where I stand, it's about mind creating our environments thru multiple means - our choices to act being the most likely. That said, I've learned to look for *similarities* in faiths, not so much differences. If metaphysics (as ever so briefly described above) works, then one can 'judge a tree by its fruits'. It doesn't seem to matter what the nurturing faith might be.

8 My faith doesn't so much separate me from other people don't things I don't approve of as much as my conscience and my fear of getting caught do. Few believe I've never touched an illegal drug. I have never been offered any either, not even in college. Sure, I went to plenty of college parties where it was happening, but I avoided the temptation and the potential for getting caught. Attila, did you temporarily take in the Martin Luther's spirit? You sounded like it. P.S. Put a dozen, warm original Krispy Kremes in front of me and I'm conquered.

9 Yeah--the girls tell me margaritas work, too . . . could be just a rumor, though. Sean, is there a distinction to be drawn between faith and conscience? Or is conscience socialized, and faith something one acquires later on? Re: Martin Luther--nope. He was anti-Semitic

10 Rumor has it I can be conquered by margaritas too. Faith I'm sure influences conscience along with socialization and if your parents happen to beat you into acting properly. For me, I feared doing something that would make my mother tell me she was "disappointed in me."

11 Hm. Any feedback on your earring?

12 Hanging out with sinners may involve temptation, but their is nothing inherently wrong with hanging with sinners only giving into the temptation.

13 The earring appeared in sophomore year of college. I heard nothing negative from the parents. Now, if I had tried that in high school...

14 John: Pharisees and Fundamentalists feel differently, as I understand it.

15 12 steppers aren't supposed to hang out in "slippery places." If you hang around the barber shop, sooner or later you are going to get a hair cut. I don't tell people what I believe because it usually upsets them. When I want to rattle someone's cage, I usually try to get them to explain why they believe what they believe. Having studied some philosophy in college - that included the Skeptics - it really isn't a fair fight.

16 Actually, Z.D., there is a passage in the "Big Book" of Alcoholics Anonymous that discusses the notion of going to a bar, and states that it hinges on your motivations for being there: if there is a "legitimate social or business reason," then it's okay. But one has to know one's own mind. As a matter of fact, the Wharf Rats started as a group of sober people who liked to attend Grateful Dead concerts. It was all about, "how can I go there and listen to the music without it turning into a self-destructive thing?"

1 Still working? Be careful. You might strain yourself.

2 Works fine...don't prune me.

3 Sean, that wasn't a pun, was it? I promise not to strain anything.

1 I say use the real thing if it gets the bastard to talk.

2 Fake? Not while Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Tara Reid, Charlotte Church, Madonna, Nicky Hilton, Hilary Duff, Ashlee SImpson, Anna Nicole Smith, Nicole Richie, et.al., live and breath...I apologize to everyone for leaving your favorite Skank off the list: Feel free to add yours.

3 Oh.... and a big old plate of BBQ's pork ribs at din-din time. With a tall glass of premium beer. Served by a Hooters chick.

4 I think the jihadi would enjoy the Hooters outfit, though feel obligated to try to waste her, given an opportunity. For, you know--inciting his lust. (Like men need their lust incited at all . . .)

5 Like men need their lust incited at all . . . That's how you eviillll women have been influencing men since the dawn of time.

6 So that's how Eve got Adam to eat the forbidden fruit.

7 The old "push the shoulderblades together" gambit . . .

1 I couldn't agree more. I was finally intrigued enough to go see what you're talking about. What a bunch of disgusting bullshit. I despise Malkin and always have. I don't go there to read - tried a couple of times, because I'm always curious. But she always seemed obviously full of shit to me. Having set this BS off without, apparently, even reading Helen's post in the first place looks completely in character to me. She never was interested in truth or rational consideration of various points. Quite the opposite. She's always been all about spewing, and about ideology, instead. And embodied in her ideology is this self-righteous stance that it's not only okay, but *GOOD,* to do all she can to *shut up* people who disagree with her. I have no respect for that mindset and never will. What confuses me is the number of otherwise rational people who are either surprised by this turn of events, or think it represents some change in Malkin's behavior. I had no idea so many people bought into it. I really find that pathetic. I guess I thought they were just going over there to laugh at her or something. Now I'm afraid this means people actually *buy* that idiot Coulter, too.

2 They are both clever women, but they both are masters of superficial analysis--Malkin from a sort of "Pep Squad" perspective, and Coulter as a comic of dubious merit. They preach to the choir, but do little or nothing to advance real debate. One can glean facts from the work of both women (they do plenty of homework), but one must filter out the continual spinning as one does it. I would still like to read Malkin's tome on immigration, mostly because the premise is so outrageous that I'm deathly curious about how she defends it.

3 Also: I do have a soft spot in my heart for Malkin. She sends me plenty of traffic, and there's no earthly reason for her to have me on her blogroll, since I've publicly disagreed with her plenty of times on her signature issue (immigration). It's pity, or integrity--or perhaps a bit of both.

4 I read Helen's post. The only problem I had with it was that she was asking why security wasn't better, and complaining that she didn't like the very things needed to make it better. Which I told her in a e-mail. Haven't read Malkin, but 'moonbat' seems way over the top for what Helen said.

5 I know everyone's going to get mad at me, but I think it comes from being an American living in the U.K.--the American side of her wants maximum liberty, and the British side leans more toward feeling that the authorities ought to make people perfectly safe. They are conflicting impulses. But, again--it was a piece about subjective responses. It made no pretense to objectivity whatsoever. That isn't (usually) my style of blogging when it comes to issues of such gravity, but one needs to judge it on its own terms.

6 Let me have my book on a plane. If I can't air travel is worthless to me. Planes are uncomfortable enough as they are, no book means I'll be bored to death. They might as well drug me after I board then use the smelling salts after we land. That's how horrible air travel could become.

1 What, no "Freebird!?!"

2 I vote for cutting your own. Some of my favorites to rattle the windows (no neighbors, at least not for 0.2 miles). When the Bullet Hits the Bone, Golden Earing. Bring Me to Life, Evinesance (sp). Hella Good, Gwen Steffani Twilight Zone, Golden Earing. Self Control, Laura Branigain. If it Makes you Happy, Sheryl Crow. Talk to Me, (can't remember). In the Air Tonight.

1 While I was out West recently, there were various pamphlets with advice as to what to do if confronted by an aggressive wild animal. The advice included things like "don't run," "don't let your children run," and "make yourself look as large as possible by standing upright and putting a child on your shoulders." In other words, think what a liberal would do, and do the exact opposite.

1 Literacy is the most dangeroud weapon there is. Thus the book ban.

2 Why do you ban books on the plane? Well, because in the immediate timeframe of something like this you ban everything that is not essential. Yes, books may not be a high threat item (although, I could very easily hide stuff in the bindings of a hardback) but do you really have time to sit down and list all the different things that really are high threats and then train and ensure compliance with said policy? Not a chance. So you ban everything now, and work out the fine details later.

3 Maybe it's a trick to catch Islamic Terrorists. Banned items are confiscated and thrown in trash bins,no? The Koran is a book. Koran goes in trash, zealot goes nuts and gets caught.

4 Cute, Bob.

5 I'm not sure you really want to know, and I hate to give anyone ideas, but the pages of a book could be soaked in any number of chemicals and left to dry. They could be used as incendiary devices, smoke producers, feedstock for more complicated binary or trinary chemical concoctions(when rewetted). Pages can also be glued together, hiding double-edged razor blades or utility knife blades:ceramic knife blades if you are nervous about x-ray machines. The handle can be something else you bring aboard-like a cane handle. Hard book covers can be hollowed and used to conceal a number of things; piano wire for a garrotte, ricin powder, explosive sheets, gel explosives or incendiaries, etc. Canes and crutches could be rifles or shotguns if one had access to a machine shop. Done well, few could detect them. They can also be dispersal devices for that ricin powder, combined with, say, an oxygen tank--if the airlines really let people bring their own aboard these days. Have the airlines sealed all those entry points to mechanicals hidden beneath the floor of the cabin? In these days of fly-by-wire, a determined terrorist could bring a plane down from there without even accessing the flight deck. It goes without saying that knowledge works both ways. Passengers will attack terrorists now. Terrorists know this. I'm sure their tactics have now evolved to the point of killing all the passengers when they get the chance. You have to act immediately if you see something happening. Carry Bic pens with you at all times--the old style "stick pen" with the polycarbonate shaft and "dyomite"(tungsten carbide) ball tip. Learn where the carotid artery is, and practice on a heavy vinyl (naugohide) bag from a dollar store(fill it with sand). The key is not hesitating -when the time comes--and not stopping until the threat is neutralized. That means dead. Practice stomping your foot with all your weight on a padded surface, with an emphasis on your heel. That action will be applied to a neck lying face-up on a hard surface. The neck should be behind your heel. These are not the times for timid responses. Or delays. Assess the situation to make sure it is really happening(someone being killed is a good clue), then act. Be vigilent. Be ready to act. Act. If you don't want to place yourself in this situation, don't travel. But, if you do, you have to do whatever you can to keep the innocent alive. Fights for life are not part of everyday life anymore(thankfully). Start thinking about what you have to do and get training and practice-now.

6 I guess this means I have to go back to jujitsu class . . .? Or at least dust off my copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook. What I really don't want to do--but should consider--is wearing high-heeled shoes. Awful to wear through an airport, but a fabulous weapon.

7 But ask your instructor to put together a short program of deadly maneuvers for use in a closed space. He(She)can set chairs up in a hallway to demonstrate.They usually don't teach the deadliest of moves because they don't want you using them in everyday circumstances. Here, you don't want to spend more than 15 seconds or so on any one individual. Stiletto heels are great for teaching two-letter English words to students("No"). I'd prefer to see you flying in flat-soled boots, preferably with a steel tool and bottom plate. I know that makes it hard to remove them for inspection, but "speed laces" make it a little better. It affords additional protection in the case of a crash/fire/emergency exit. I'd like to see you in a heavy leather jacket, too, one designed to handle "road surfing" in motorcycle accidents. The pants that go with the jackets are good too, but heavy denim jeans will do as well. It wouldn't hurt if the jacket's sleeves were along enough for you to conceal your hands and fingers when disarming someone with a knife/razor. It makes a big difference in a fight. That's why gangs used jackets like this even if they didn't own motorcycles. Wear an oversized heavy t-shirt, one where you can pull it up over your mouth and nose for smoke/poison gases. Order that bottled water and have some available to wet your shirt.

8 Maybe it's time to just make everyone fly naked. That would stop the female version of the jihad in their burkha'd tracks. Now, about the male version: refuse them tickets on any airplane anywhere. You're an Arab? Take a boat or drive. Profiling? Tough. I wonder how comfortable that idiot Mineta would be on a plane filled with nothing but Muslim men.

1 No water means I'll be hitting that call button now. Never used it before, but that thin dry air really parches the throat.

2 It's a mystery to me exactly when America and the world became ravenously thirsty. Growing up, I don't remember people running around with bottles of water. They used a water fountain if they were thirsty. Since when did the world develop an continuous thirst requiring bottles of water that cost more than gasoline? Makes no sense.

1 Ms. Attila: Here's a guaranteed method to go to sleep, which worked on me every time I needed it. I bought a book on the economics of the Weimar Republic of Germany in the early 1920's. Read it. Guarantee you won't be awake after five pages. I never finished the FIRST chapter. Book was worth every dime. zzzzzzzzzzzz

2 Title?

3 heh heh! I used to do exactly the same thing with an eco textbook! Macro, I think. Can't remember.

4 It was Max Headroom in that Art of Noise song... now what the heck was it called? Nice to know I'm not the only person in the world filling up crucial mental space with obscure trivia.

5 Ah! It was 'Paranoimia'. Thank you, Google and Wikipedia. Where would I be without being able to instantly answer almost any question of fact?

6 Paranomia. As I recall, they recorded it without Max, and then added him later. Supposedly there are tons of versions of that thing out there. It spoke to insomniacs

7 I don't remember the exact title, but ANY book on the Weimar Republic's economics would do the trick. Or, just go whole hog and get a copy of the Congressional Record from any year. Line-for-line verbiage from the floor of Congress will but the most sleep-deprived into a coma in a heartbeat.

8 "put" the most sleep-deprived, not "but" the most sleep deprived. Hell, its' early here. Back to bed. zzzzzzzzzz