New Geek toy - USB Headphones

Those of you who know me also know that I’m an unashamed geek. Usually I keep a rein on my geekiness in my blog, but I’m so happy with a recent purchase that I just have to let everyone know.

I’ve had problems with sound cards in my computers – and I’ve never been happy with the standard ear buds for my MP3 player. I’ve found that I like a Sony earpiece that wraps around my ears – the quality is fair, but it is still small and easily packed away when not in use.

But for my computer I use headphones, usually headphones that still allow outside sound through – which is okay at home but not so good at work when I’m disturbed by distracting noises from my cube farm neighbors. And my headphones still relied on a computer sound card, which usually hissed, or didn’t have enough gain, or the audio jack would degrade over time…

So when I upgraded my work computer to my current duel-core P4, 2.1 Ghz monster machine, it didn’t bother me that the IT department forgot to add the sound card. I went looking instead for headphones that plugged in via USB.

What I got was the Ezonics EZ-638, a 5.1 surround sound USB headset that is semi-studio quality. I got them from New Egg for $30 – which was great because when I went to Circuit City and Best Buy in person to find USB linked headphones all I could find were things near the $100 range.

When I received my headphones I plugged them in and put them on. Windows XP recognized them immediately and installed them. But something was wrong –

They were way too quiet. No hissing at all. I honestly thought they were broken.

So with a sinking heart I started up Media Monkey and chose one of my current song favorites – and there it was! Beautiful music! It was as if I were hearing Jonathan Coulton for the first time all over again!

So now I’m telling you. You need headphones for your PC, take a look at these! They are definitely worth the price! No, they are not the same as a top of the line sound card hooked into your home media center with 7.1 surround sound and subwoofer, but they are much better than any standard computer sound – and when there is no audio they are completely quiet. And they do a good job of reducing exterior sounds. And they sound great!

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll go back to listening to “Skullcrusher Mountain”:

I’m so into you
But I’m way too smart for you
Even my henchmen think I’m crazy
I’m not surprised that you agree

If you could find some way to be
A little bit less afraid of me
You’d see the voices that control me from inside my head
Say I shouldn’t kill you yet

The false dilemma of the "Gum Game" - Abstinence and sex education.

I’m getting so tired of conservative religious black and white thinking. I have friends and strangers both tell me that what I call a system of rational thinking will inevitably lead to horrors. The popular belief is that if anyone gives immorality an inch, it will take a yard. And then they define what is or is not immoral.

Recently a county in Maryland halted a faith-based abstinence only education program that was taught in high schools there. They halted the program because part of the lesson contained the “gum game”, where students were asked to chew the same piece of gum. This was in an attempt to show that students would succumb to peer pressure, even when they were sharing mouth germs in gum. The sharing was strictly voluntary, and I assume that students with bleeding gums were excluded. The germs were no different than those you get while kissing.

One of the parents of a Montgomery County student was overcome by the ‘ick’ factor and complained, resulting in the halting of all abstinence only education from groups who used this game. Of course the religious crowd who believes they have a divine right to tell you and me how to live has bemoaned throwing the baby out with the bathwater – they acknowledge the game is unsanitary and shouldn’t be used, (even though it didn’t bother them for the last 9 years) but say they should still be allowed to teach abstinence.

The gum game analogy shows the weakness of black and white religious thinking. The message is supposed to be, “You wouldn’t share gum germs with everyone in the class, so why would you share sex with everyone in the class?”

The gum game analogy doesn’t follow the analogy to other possible, equally valid conclusions. Perhaps an individual could vigorously chew his or her own gum – as Dr. Joycelyn Elders famously suggested. Perhaps we could share gum when it is wrapped inside a protective, disposable plastic envelope. Yes, it won’t taste the same, and won’t be quite as fun, but it is sure better than sharing germs with an unknown person. Besides, I'm sure someone would invent flavored plastic envelopes with intriguing shapes and textures.

Perhaps we should get to know the person we are sharing the gum with, wait a while, learn to ask detailed background questions, talk to their friends and family, until you feel you can trust they haven’t been sharing gum with other people. Perhaps we can start a program of voluntarily and frequently testing the gum for germs.

You can see that I don’t have a very high opinion of this analogy. And my opinion of religious based sex education is also pretty low – it is a sort of oxymoron in the same vein as “jumbo shrimp” or “military intelligence”. Faith-based sex education teaches nothing about sex, instead sex is defined as a boogeyman and students are warned away. Everyone is supposed to grow up to become the mythical Television married couple. Loving, devoted mother and father who sleep in separate beds and never ever mention sex. Kids are supposed to find out about sex the old fashioned way – on the street or behind the shed with the bra section of the JC Penney catalog.


I have no problem telling kids to wait to have sex. A lot of young adults, even high school graduates, are not emotionally mature enough to handle a sexual relationship without the risk of incurring emotional, psychological damage. Some of the most vulnerable young adults don’t realize that they are vulnerable – and they need the strength and the encouragement of being told that it is okay to wait.

But the urge to mate is hormonal, and it is a formidable force for young people. The reality is that many will not be able to wait. The opportunity will present itself. Young people are likely to make poor decisions and to not foresee consequences to their actions. We can lay the foundations to protect young people even in these situations, by giving them the tools to evaluate their partners, by providing ways to protect themselves when they are awash in a tidal wave of hormones.

Carrying a condom isn’t a license to have sex anymore than wearing a seatbelt is a license to crash. You give a young person a helmet; you don’t forbid him to skateboard.

And speaking from experience, under the right conditions sharing gum is not only okay, it’s a lot of fun.

Friday in the atelier: "L'escrimeuse" by Jean Béraud

I’m going to admit to a guilty pleasure this week. I like Jean Béraud!

Yes, I know; I’ve just lost any street cred’ that I might have held among art snobs. I do apologize – it can’t be lobster and caviar every night! Sometimes it’s just hotdogs and a diet Coke; and that’s okay too.

Béraud is like hotdogs for the eyes; interesting while you consume it, satisfying, and somewhat forgettable afterwards. You won’t be poleaxed into awed silence by a Béraud painting, but you won’t be ashamed to serve one up during a party with your friends.

The first painting I’m displaying is a cropped detail of “The Swordswoman”. I love the saucy way that she looks directly at the viewer, in a sort of joyful challenge and with a love of life. I’ll bet she is good with that piece of metal in her hands too!

I’m also displaying a cropped detail of, “Envole d'un Biplan Type Wright”. This painting brings out the geek in me. (Well, even more than usual.) The “Beautiful Time” in France is the setting to many steampunk stories, and what can be more steampunk than a Wright brother’s style biplane? This painting commemorates Wilbur Wright’s famous public demonstrations of the Wright Flyer at the Hunaudières horse racing track near the town of Le Mans, France. It also encapsulates the Belle Époque as a time of science and Enlightenment.


Béraud lived from 1849 to 1935. He used both academic and impressionist styles, and his subjects were of the Belle Époque of Paris, or in the religious genre. His father was a sculptor who died when Jean was only four years old. There is no indication that Béraud painted or was interested in art as a child – instead as a young adult he studied to become a lawyer. Upon graduation instead of practicing law he decided instead to study under Léon Bonnat. This probably had something to do with the Franco-Prussian war and the invasion of France by German forces, which began about the same time Béraud graduated from law school. The post-war government suffered significant changes which may have made a lawyer’s career unattractive.

After the war, life in Paris started to become more normal. There was a lot of debt, but peace between France and its European neighbors allowed a period of greater prosperity and technological progress. This was the beginning of the Belle Époque, the “Beautiful Time”, when people were very optimistic about the future. Coffee shops, cabarets, workshops, art galleries, concert halls and living rooms of the middle class became focal points where the ideals of Enlightenment and science were discussed.

It was during this time that Béraud studied art under Bonnat and then exhibited his portraits at the Salon de Paris. His breakthrough painting was titled, “On the way back from the funeral”. I wish I could find a digital copy of this painting online; could someone help me out here?

At the age of 38 he was appointed Chevalier of the Legion of Honour for his increasingly popular works. He displayed a series of religious paintings over several years, starting at the age of 42 with "Mary Magdalen at the Pharisee's". This painting was considered daring because it adapted Gospel figures to modern times.

As the century came to an end, Béraud painted less as he became more active in the politics of art communities. His artistic output during the last 30 years of his life was minimal, even as he lived in the thick of the art world.

No one else has said it, so I will. I think the politics of art - setting up juries of art critics to judge exhibitions, sitting on committees and assisting in the creation of art societies - all fulfilled a need that Béraud had given up as a young law school graduate. I think his heart had been set in practicing law in pre-war France, and when he saw that he could do something with his earlier training he jumped at the chance.

I don’t think Béraud was unhappy at being a second-best painter, I think he was delighted that he could again practice his first love; law and politics in beautiful Paris.

Bush's "War On Veterans"

In case you haven’t noticed, there is a steadily increasing trend of combat casualties from Iraq. The number of people who are missing body parts and who are recovering from severe psychological problems is on the rise.

So why is Bush’s budget DECREASING care for these people? From the 2008 budget, on page 890, under “Workload”:

Provision of Veterans Health Care.--
Acute hospital care.--Costs for 2008 are estimated to be $6,984 million 
for operating medical, neurological, surgical, contract and State home 
hospital beds.

Estimated operating levels are:

                        2006 actual  2007 est.   2008 est.
Patients treated............     528,143    548,470     553,521
Average daily census........       8,426      8,874       8,925
Average employment..........      31,304     31,560      34,469


Rehabilitative care.--Costs for 2008 are estimated to be $374 million 
for the provision of rehabilitative care, including spinal cord 
injury care.
Estimated operating levels are:

                        2006 actual   2007 est.   2008 est.
Patients treated............      14,175      14,431      14,262
Average daily census........       1,119       1,138       1,126
Average employment..........       3,045       3,070       3,498

Do you see what happened? The budget projects a requirement of only 5,000 extra “beds” for our Veterans. Perhaps that is enough; I’m certainly not qualified in hospital logistics but it seems low to me. What really gets me riled is that the budget projects a DECREASE in rehabilitative care! Is the President doing lines in the Oval Office? Hasn’t he seen the trends? Rehabilitation for some soldiers takes years of work, and he is cutting that short!

Psychiatric care.--Costs for 2008 are estimated to be $1,034
million for the inpatient care of veterans with problems related to
mental illness, including alcohol and drug problems.
   Estimated operating levels are:

                              2006 actual    2007 est.     2008 est.
Patients treated............      101,895      104,194       102,807
Average daily census........        4,394        4,141         4,038
Average employment..........        7,507        7,876         8,392

Oh right. A DECREASE of inpatient psychiatric care by over 1,300 Vets. Current casualty numbers do not agree with this predicted trend, and there are a lot of our troops that are just barely holding it together as it is.

And here is something else… when I was Active Duty I never had to worry about medical care. If I needed a doctor, I went to sick call and was taken care of; including office visit, treatment and prescription. The only thing I had to give the doctor was my ID card. When I got back to the states and started seeing off-base doctors I had this wonderful Military insurance policy that paid for everything – the only hassle was leaving my paperwork on the base. I’d get my prescriptions from the on-base pharmacy so I didn’t even worry about a co-pay for them.

When I was active duty I noticed that the retirees didn’t have it as easy as me. They were seen “space available” in the on-base clinic, and their insurance was more complicated and costly. I didn’t think much of it then, but some of these people were retired with a medical disability, and they were not being treated with respect.

Well, that level of disrespect has gotten worse. From the budget:

Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF).--VA estimates collections of more than $2.3 billion, representing 6 percent of available resources. VA has the authority to collect inpatient and outpatient co-payments, medication co-payments, and nursing home co-payments; authority for certain income verification; authority to recover third-party insurance payments from veterans for nonservice-connected conditions; and authority to collect revenue from enhanced use leases. These collections also include those collected from the Compensated Work Therapy Program, Compensation and Living Expenses Program, and the Parking Program.

The new budget is squeezing Veterans out of benefits – now they can collect payments from your civilian insurance for “nonservice-connected conditions”. If you slice open your finger due to PTSD flashback while chopping onions, and you require stitches, well that’s ‘non-service connected’. It’s also bullshit.

And look at the co-pays! I’ve seen VA co-pays before, and I have to tell you I have smaller co-pays for my civilian insurance! In some cases the co-pay for a bottle of pills is more than the pills would cost if purchased outright.


Okay, and now the topping on this evil cake is the Sunday Washington Post article about the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. This scandal probably won't make more than 10 seconds of airtime on Fox News, but if you don’t read this article then there is no way you can say that you support the troops. From the article:

While the hospital is a place of scrubbed-down order and daily miracles, with medical advances saving more soldiers than ever, the outpatients in the Other Walter Reed encounter a messy bureaucratic battlefield nearly as chaotic as the real battlefields they faced overseas.

On the worst days, soldiers say they feel like they are living a chapter of "Catch-22." The wounded manage other wounded. Soldiers dealing with psychological disorders of their own have been put in charge of others at risk of suicide.

Disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and overworked case managers fumble with simple needs: feeding soldiers' families who are close to poverty, replacing a uniform ripped off by medics in the desert sand or helping a brain-damaged soldier remember his next appointment.

"We've done our duty. We fought the war. We came home wounded. Fine. But whoever the people are back here who are supposed to give us the easy transition should be doing it," said Marine Sgt. Ryan Groves, 26, an amputee who lived at Walter Reed for 16 months. "We don't know what to do. The people who are supposed to know don't have the answers. It's a nonstop process of stalling."

Soldiers, family members, volunteers and caregivers who have tried to fix the system say each mishap seems trivial by itself, but the cumulative effect wears down the spirits of the wounded and can stall their recovery.

"It creates resentment and disenfranchisement," said Joe Wilson, a clinical social worker at Walter Reed. "These soldiers will withdraw and stay in their rooms. They will actively avoid the very treatment and services that are meant to be helpful."

…

Staff Sgt. John Daniel Shannon, 43, came in on one of those buses in November 2004 and spent several weeks on the fifth floor of Walter Reed's hospital. His eye and skull were shattered by an AK-47 round. His odyssey in the Other Walter Reed has lasted more than two years, but it began when someone handed him a map of the grounds and told him to find his room across post.

A reconnaissance and land-navigation expert, Shannon was so disoriented that he couldn't even find north. Holding the map, he stumbled around outside the hospital, sliding against walls and trying to keep himself upright, he said. He asked anyone he found for directions.

Shannon had led the 2nd Infantry Division's Ghost Recon Platoon until he was felled in a gun battle in Ramadi. He liked the solitary work of a sniper; "Lone Wolf" was his call name. But he did not expect to be left alone by the Army after such serious surgery and a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. He had appointments during his first two weeks as an outpatient, then nothing.

"I thought, 'Shouldn't they contact me?' " he said. "I didn't understand the paperwork. I'd start calling phone numbers, asking if I had appointments. I finally ran across someone who said: 'I'm your case manager. Where have you been?'

"Well, I've been here! Jeez Louise, people, I'm your hospital patient!"

Like Shannon, many soldiers with impaired memory from brain injuries sat for weeks with no appointments and no help from the staff to arrange them. Many disappeared even longer. Some simply left for home.

I am so disgusted with 59,054,087 Americans. Hopefully most of you have come to your senses now. But if you still think that Bush supports the troops, that his is good for America, and that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, then you deserve him for a leader.

Yes, this has degenerated into a rant against Bush supporters – and I know that many people would automatically discount my words because of that. Frankly I no longer care what the Peterbilt-hat-wearing population thinks. Go back to your O’Reilly / Limbaugh / Coulter yellow ribbon church potluck dinner pep rally and keep feeling good for yourselves. The rest of us are picking up the shovels to muck out the mess that you left in the stables.

Personally, I’m going to ask my representative why the hell he isn’t helping me do something to keep my fellow Vets off of skid row. I think we all owe them more than that.

Friday in the atelier: "Cleopatra Testing Poisons on Condemned Prisoners" by Alexandre Cabanel

History and allegory have always been popular subjects for painters. It seems that during those times when expression was restricted to what was deemed “moral” painters who wished to paint nudes were often able to do so by associating them with a religious allegory, or by referencing a historical figure. In this context they could equate “nude” with “purity” and reduce their risk of incarceration or worse.

Historical paintings were often officially sanctioned because they were valued as a method of instruction. Incidentally, government endorsement was worth a great deal to the painter. I’m sure that at least a few lesser painters saw this as a gravy train, and tried to ingratiate themselves to their governments through works that embellished loved figures, or denigrated hated figures. To take liberties with a Winston Churchill quote, “History is painted by the victors.”

As I remarked in my last atelier entry, Jules Lefebvre made his name with the allegory of “Truth”. William Bouguereau also painted allegorical and historical paintings – “The Flagellation of Our Lord Jesus Christ” which I think is probably his best religious historical painting.

By the late 1800s art lovers in France were becoming jaded with history paintings. I can imagine why! The Salon de Paris, which held exhibitions twice a year, was picky about the artists who could exhibit their works. This led to frustrated artists who created splinter art exhibitions for styles such as Impressionism (Salon des Refusés), and for traditional, conservative artists (Salon du Champs de Mars). Smaller exhibitions were also prevalent as other groups formed.

So by the late 1800s it must have seemed like art exhibitions were held every other week in France. And historical and allegorical paintings were in all of these exhibitions, often painted by artists who tried to play the system with historical art in order to make money. Connoisseurs of fine art took to calling historical paintings, “Firemen Art” (L'art pompier) as a derisive label – the label came from the Greek style helmets worn in the paintings, which looked similar to the horse-tail helmets that were worn by French firemen. The name was later used by 20th century critics to sneer at all such work, regardless of the quality of the artist.


The painting I’m displaying today is a historical painting that may have been dismissed at one time as L’art pompier. The painting is Alexandre Cabanel’s “Cleopatra Testing Poisons on Condemned Prisoners" As usual, this is a cropped detail – click on the image to see it in full.

I only like a few of Cabanel’s paintings; sometimes the faces in his paintings have too much of a Renaissance style for my tastes. He also wasn’t as interested in painting “beauty” as Bouguereau, so seems to me that some of his best work is of mediocre people. Even so he was very skilled, and he is an important artist to know because he taught painting, and through his teaching he influenced hundreds of pupils who did paint “beauty”. The works of Cabanel’s students had a huge impact on the French “Beautiful Era” (Belle Époque).

Cabanel was born in 1823. When he was 17 he entered the National School of Fine Arts in Paris. He first exhibited his paintings at the Salon de Paris at the age of 21, and won the Grand Prix de Rome scholarship at the age of 22, which allowed him to study at the French Academy of Fine Arts. At the age of 40 Cabanel created the famous painting "The Birth of Venus" which helped win his appointment as a professor at the School of Fine Arts in Paris, and assured his place in history.

Cabanel won the Grand Medal of Honor three different years at the Salon de Paris exhibitions of 1865, 1867, and 1878, and he was elected time and again to sit on the Salon de Paris jury.


As for this particular history painting, stories and history about Cleopatra always include accounts of poison. One of Cleopatra’s older sisters tried to poison her; her younger brother (and co-ruler of Egypt) died mysteriously – probably poisoned – leaving Cleopatra in charge; (although she did appoint her son from Julies Caesar to be her male co-ruler.) Cleopatra was more than somewhat familiar with poison, and Cabanel’s painting illustrates a possible method that she may have used to increase her knowledge. This painting shows a coldly interested Cleopatra watching as various poisons are tried on prisoners condemned to death.

She’s beautiful, and she’s as deadly as the asp that was said to kill her. I think Cabanel shows this very well.

Cutting Veteran Health Benefits

I've already spoken my disgust at Bush's proposed cuts for Veterans health care. But a story in today's Fresno Bee about a returning Iraqi Vet puts the Bush stupidity into a brighter spotlight.

From the article, "Glad to be Alive":

After he was shot eight times and blown out of four different vehicles by roadside bombs, San Joaquin native Army Spc. Francisco Rosas started to think he might not survive his tour in Iraq.

...

But this time it's different, and it's clear that Francisco Rosas' recovery will be long and painful.

The top of his Kevlar helmet is deeply grooved by a bullet that knocked him unconscious, and his foot bears a deep purple scar from the roadside bomb that exploded directly under his armored vehicle.

That lingering injury leaves him in constant pain, and he still faces the possibility that doctors might have to amputate the foot.

Even after nearly two years, his hands shake and nightmares sometimes force him to sleep alone on a couch so that when he lashes out in the night he won't harm his wife.

He can't chase his 2-year-old daughter as she plays, and his hands shake from post-traumatic stress.

As he talks about these things, there are times when his voice fails him. But then Rosas smiles and talks about how much worse his life could be.

"I look at myself and say, 'I'm pretty lucky.' I saw a lot of other soldiers that were burned or lost their legs or arms. I'm lucky."

Rosas spent 18 months in various hospitals, with Lucy usually nearby. A month ago, he was given the choice to stay at an Army hospital in San Antonio or return to San Joaquin and travel to the veterans hospital in Fresno for treatment. Rosas chose to come home.

His choice was to stay in San Antonio or travel to the Fresno Veterans hospital. Speaking from experience, the hospital in San Antonio is MUCH better than the one here in Fresno - that's because San Antonio is a hub of military bases including the huge Air Force bases, Lackland and Randolph. (I went through basic training at Lackland AFB.)

If Rosas has complications that need special treatment he will have to either choose a civilian doctor (that will require money out of his pocket, even as a veteran) or he will be required to travel to a large VA hospital that can help him. There is a nice one at Nellis AFB, Las Vegas NV. I understand there is another facility in San Diego.

And what rates as 'special treatment'? Any surgery that isn't minor, any dental work, access to specialists like doctors who are familiar with the problems of amputation patients. Access to high quality psychologists familiar with Post Traumatic Stress. Don't get me wrong, you can find all of that here in Fresno, but the military won't pay the full cost of civilian doctors for Veterans. Heck, they didn't pay the full cost of civilian doctors for those of us on Active Duty, even though we were treated much better than the Vets.

"Jesus Hypothesis" is testable

The existence of Jesus is a testable hypothesis. The problem is that so many people want him to be real that no one has really looked at the question of his existence with real objectivity.

The Center for Inquiry Transnational is going to investigate whether or not we can say that Jesus actually lived. I have no idea if they can do this objectively, so I'll wait to see their methods demonstrated.

From the ExChristian.net article:

"What if the most influential man in human history never existed?" Without any assumptions or conclusions in view, that is the daunting task of the new Jesus Project, announced on January 28th at the University of California at Davis before an audience of Biblical and Koranic experts.

The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER), a project of the Center for Inquiry/Transnational, announced the new project at conclusion of its January 25-28 “Scripture and Skepticism” conference at the University of California at Davis. Articles featuring the new endeavor have already appeared in the Ottawa Citizen (January 10) and the Buffalo News (January 29).

The Jesus Project will be devoted to examining the case for the historical existence of Jesus, based on a rigorous application of the historical critical method to the gospels and related literature.

Unlike the “Jesus Seminar,” founded in 1985 by the late University of Montana Professor Robert Funk, the new Project regards the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure as a “testable hypothesis.” R. Joseph Hoffmann, chair of the Committee since 2003 and former lecturer at Oxford University, said that the project has been called for by a number of scholars who felt that the first Jesus Seminar may have been—for political reasons—too reluctant to follow where the evidence led. “When you have pared the sayings of Jesus down to fewer than twenty, one begins to wonder about the survivors,” Hoffmann said.

According to Hoffmann, the goal is not to "disprove" Jesus or to sensationalize the question of his existence, but to acknowledge the question and examine it impartially—without theological or apologetic constraints.

It will be interesting to see their methods, findings and conclusions. But hey! Let me practice being psychic! I'll look into the future and predict that Christians don't like the conclusions, they won't like the study or the methods, and they'll heap lots of scorn on the whole idea because of course Jesus existed!

There. Will that prediction win me a million dollars?

Stick magnetic ribbons on your SUV

I enjoyed this, hope you do too.

Bush supports wounded troops by drastically cutting their health care.

How many American military members have been wounded in the Iraq war? Oh yea, over 23 thousand. And that's just those who were wounded in action - if you count the military members who were also hurt on the job while in Iraq the number increases.

One of the reasons why I left the military at my 10 year (and 11 months) mark was because I had researched what kind of life I would have as a military retiree. The answers I found were not very encouraging. VA centers and hospitals around the nation were closing, veterans were camping out in tents and RVs for days or weeks at the campsite at Nellis AFB, Las Vegas just so they could meet a "space available" medical appointment at the local hospital.

I wasn't impressed for the way our country was treating veterans who had given up limbs or organs in the line of duty.

And now Bush wants to cut that. Now that literally tens of thousands of wounded veterans are returning from Iraq. For some reason Bush thinks the way to balance the budget is to cut health care to the same people who sacrificed their health to follow Bush's order to fight in a war that wasn't necessary.

From the Yahoo news article:

Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years — White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends — its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office — sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget. "Or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."

Edwards said that a more realistic estimate of veterans costs is $16 billion higher than the Bush estimate for 2012.

In fact, even the White House doesn't seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don't represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.

The veterans cuts, said White House budget office spokesman Sean Kevelighan, "don't reflect any policy decisions. We'll revisit them when we do the (future) budgets."

As a Veteran, I have to say that I'm extremely unimpressed with our Commander in Chief. As we said in the military, I respect the rank of his office, but I have no respect at all for the holder of said rank.

I'm sure Bush's rich friends appreciate him putting wounded troops on the back burner so that they can keep their tax cuts.

Isn't it bad enough that private organizations have to form to help out those vets who are already under served by their country? How can anyone say that they are "supporting the troops" if they let the President drop Veteran's health care? It's time to rip off that dollar store yellow ribbon from your SUV and get on the stick people.

The article points out that the GOP isn't really serious about the budget, that they'll change it later. Excuse me? Why even bother to make a budget then? Didn't I just watch Bush on TV crowing about how this new budget would put us back into the black? If it isn't worth the paper it's written on, then why be so happy with it?

Bah. Bush is either evil, or an idiot. Anyone who hasn't realized that by now is also an idiot.

Evangelical Atheism

At the time I didn’t realize it, but my first step toward Atheism came in the form of a Jehovah’s Witness who knocked at the door one hot, sunny day.

It was late spring, but hot, well into the high 80’s or low 90’s. He had brought his wife and daughter with him; both dressed in Sunday school dresses. His wife looked tired, and his daughter – who couldn’t have been 8 years old – looked hot and tired. He just looked driven, perhaps even a bit oblivious to the condition of his wife and daughter. I noticed that the knuckles of his hand were scuffed and raw and I remember wondering what drove him to keep knocking.

Usually I would have just said “No thanks” and shut the door, but I was in a mood to talk that day. The condition of his daughter worried me, so I offered them all some water. We sat outside in the shade, drinking ice water and talking for maybe 20 minutes. Re-hydrated, the little girl had perked up and started playing with the neighbor’s cat. After a while I realized I had other things I needed to do that morning, so we said our goodbyes.

That wasn’t the first time I had spoken to someone who evangelized door to door, but on that occasion I asked myself why Jehovah’s Witnesses believed that THEY were right, why this man would be so passionate about his beliefs that he would cause himself and his family pain and discomfort. This led me to study and compare various religious beliefs over the next 3 years, which eventually led to my own Atheism.


My church didn’t officially practice any sort of door to door evangelism, although members were welcome to do so on their own. So I found the subject interesting when my bible study leader invited her friend from a Southern Baptist church to speak with our group about her experiences.

I recall that she had a lot of doors shut in her face. For every person that shared any sort of meaningful conversation there were twenty or thirty firmly shut doors. Out of the people who actually spoke with her about God, only a very few ended up becoming new church members. For this woman, that was enough to keep her going. I recall her saying something like, “If I only bring just one more person to God, then it is worth it!”

This was somewhat in contrast to the beliefs of the church in which I grew up, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). We didn’t go in for door to door evangelism much in the DOC; instead we were taught to bring people to God by “living a Christian life”. We were supposed to live a good life that others would wish to emulate. If someone asked, then we could attribute everything to our faith in God and Jesus, and oh-so-gently see if we could get the questioner into a church.


Churches evangelize. Should Atheists do the same? And yes, I realize that “proselytize” is the better word because the definition of “evangelize” doesn’t apply toward Atheists – but the connotation is similar and it’s better understood. And the question remains, should Atheists evangelize – ah, proselytize?

I’ve asked myself this before and came to an unsatisfactory conclusion. I had cause to examine this again the other day, when a friend of mine invited me to hand out fliers on evolution at a church sponsored meeting held on a high school campus. According to my friend the church had scheduled a several day event, and spent the first day teaching anti-evolution using the worst, most easily overturned, anti-evolution arguments. I was reluctant and raised objections based on how I would have reacted to such a tactic when I used to be a firm church member. Ultimately we decided it wouldn’t be productive to try this.

I’m convinced that outright Atheistic evangelism would be worse than useless when applied in this manner, but it was Daniel Dennett who helped me put it into words. Dennett said in “Breaking the Spell” that the strength of an insular, cohesive group comes from the price that members must pay to join or to leave, and one of those prices is insularism – the “Us versus Them” and “Our religion is under attack!” beliefs shared by all Christians to some degree.

Any sort of evangelical Atheism specifically targeted toward a church would be seen as an attack. Christians who perceived it as such would only wrap themselves tighter in their illogical beliefs, vindicated in the price they were paying as a member of their chosen group.

But this does not stop Atheists from evangelizing. It could be argued that Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are all evangelists for Atheism. More radical people include Normal Bob Smith, Brian Flemming, and Abe, famous for his “Atheventures”.

So is evangelism (ah, proselytism) good for Atheism? Without it, how do we grow?


I once had a conversation with one of my pastors who spoke to me about how to grow a church. His was a small church serving a niche market – his church was for Korean people living on the island of Okinawa Japan, and I was active in that church through my wife.

Pastor Kim told me that there were really only 3 methods of growing a church – a church has the ability to ‘create’ new members through birth to existing members – which is a slow process but reliable as long as existing members are happy. A church has the ability gain new members by evangelizing to the undecided. An undecided person might actually be a non-participating or low-participating member of a rival church, or it could be someone who is seeking a religion, or it could be someone who never really thought about religion before. Last, a church could grow by enticing new members from the existing membership of rival churches.

Of the three methods, poaching members from rival churches was by far the hardest, but it offered the promise of the largest gain. If done right, a lot of people would switch their allegiance in a very short time. Of course the reverse can happen – the pastor’s own church could suffer a sudden drop in membership if the pastor did or said something that would cause members to flee.

Good rewards but hard to achieve versus easy smaller rewards. It is easy to see why most churches take the middle choice and evangelize the undecided. The only problem is that there are so few people in the “undecided” group.


This is where Atheism, Skepticism, Rationalism, Secular Humanism and others are now. We are trying to spread the word and increase the membership of the “Reality Based Community”. That membership can only be increased by internal growth (births) or evangelical growth from the undecided or from rival groups (i.e. the religious).

The Atheistic / Rational community is operating at some disadvantages. First, we lack group cohesiveness because our price of membership is very low. Yes, we do have a little of the same cost of membership that Christian groups claim. Persecution for our beliefs; disapproval, anger and shunning from family and friends. According to people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins the cost for leaving the Rational and Atheistic community is the slow decline of our science and technology based civilization.

But those prices are more abstract than the price of joining or leaving a Christian group. It is perfectly acceptable to be a closeted Atheist, and the vague decline of society sometime in the future doesn’t compare to the immediacy of Eternal Damnation that any Christian could stumble into if they accidentally died while in a state of sin. On top of this Christians are expected to pay dues in real money and in volunteerism; ten percent of their wealth or more, and at least a half of a Sunday worth of their time. More insulated Christian groups or those higher on the ladder of devotion pay greater membership dues.


So we end up proselytizing to Christians because it has a huge potential payoff, but we do not do this as well as Christians because we are not as invested in our group as they. Knocking on doors, aggressively handing out flyers, holding signs, and even more extreme tactics give little return and only serve to get Christians to “circle the wagons”.

In my opinion, the best way to bring Christians to rationality and non-belief is not through aggressive means. The best way is by gently planting seeds – questions – that cause Christians to examine their own faith-based belief system honestly. Any Atheist who has come to his beliefs rationally, through study, is most likely very familiar with these questions.

Instead of aggressively handing out flyers it would be better to present an ‘information’ table with flyers ready to be picked up by passers-by. Instead of knocking on doors I think it would be better to “live an Atheist life”, showing people through your actions that you are a good person who doesn’t believe in God. Instead of picketing I think it is better to write, write letters to the local paper, write in your blog; write on opinion sites – all while being fair, honest, and non-confrontational. Instead of presenting arguments, present questions. The Socratic method of discourse is very powerful, and does not easily lend itself to arguments over who is right or wrong; instead it leads subjects into discovering the weakness of their position for themselves. (It also leads to learning for the non-believer, and new knowledge is a good thing.)

There are other venues where we can try to spread the word, for instance Col. Robert Ingersoll had great success with his frequent speeches. Other rational speakers like Penn Jillette, George Carlin and Sam Harris also have success in speaking to the public. Their success stems, I believe, from the nature of their venue – they always allowed for voluntary participation, requiring listeners to choose to attend, or not. Whoever arrived at such an event, whether they were Christian or undecided, was at least willing to listen.

And we in the Atheist / Rational community must be ready for those who have listened and now have more questions that must be answered. We should answer those questions calmly, even if they are hurled at us like insults. And I realize how hard that is, how easy it would be to retaliate in kind, because it is human nature to lash back. I’ve done so myself, and I will probably – despite my best intentions – do so again. Still I will do my best to remain calm and patient.

To do otherwise wouldn’t be demonstrating a good, Atheist life.

Happy Darwin Day!

Happy Darwin Day!

"Hey Y'all - Watch This!"

Usually I don't do this, but...



I seriously expected the non-animated outcome of a Wile E. Coyote stunt - right into the side of the hill.

What are these idiots thinking? Perhaps they were attempting to test Natural Selection?

Bush wants to hear Big Bird’s Swan Song

I got a quick notice from my friend Sumi (from the WickedEye’s Quotient blog) about something that was buried in the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget of the United States Government. Once again the GOP is trying to put the axe to both National Public Radio and to the Public Broadcasting Service.

Okay, I know the image of these stations is, to much of the conservative population, one of a continual telethon punctuated by left-leaning commentary. But from my own experience with NPR most of their commentary is more moderate than you would think – and is sorely needed in America where the right-wing is so huge that the country is only able to fly in circles.

This is not the first attack on public broadcasting by President Bush and his cronies. They’ve been upset with Public Broadcasting because they tend to speak the truth, and are not easily intimidated.

You may recall that President Bush appointed Kenneth Tomlinson as Chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting back in 2003. Tomlinson, who is a close friend of Karl Rove, set about thanking the president for his appointment by starting a crusade to rid Public Broadcasting of what he perceived to be “liberal bias”. Tomlinson resigned as Chairman in 2005 over findings of ethics violations by the CPB Inspector General.

Bush then appointed Cheryl Halpern as Chairwoman. Halpern is a Republican critic of NPR and has called it “anti-Israel”. During her confirmation she suggested that public broadcasting journalists that editorialize should be punished. Halpern supports her ideology with her money, and has donated approximately 300 thousand dollars to Republican campaigns. However, compared to Tomlinson she is a voice of reason.

Previous attacks against Public broadcasting include:

In 1995 Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) had tried to “zero out” funding for Public Broadcasting.

In 2005 a Republican-dominated House subcommittee panel voted to eliminate all federal funding for Public Broadcasting by 2007, apparently in response to Tomlinson and to Bush administration criticism of the PBS show “Postcards from Buster.”


Telethons actually raise only local monies for local stations. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is funded almost entirely by Federal appropriations. Traditionally a part of the CPB appropriations have been earmarked for advanced funding in order to support long term projects and programming that require commitments of several years.

The new budget will remove advance earmarked funding, including $50 million that was already appropriated by Congress for 2008. But it goes further than that. According to the 2008 budget: (p. 1046)

The Administration proposes that the Corporation receive appropriations like other programs that receive Federal assistance. Therefore, a 2009 funding request for the Corporation will be proposed in the 2009 President's Budget.

That’s right, no more advanced budget at all. This was recommended along with a decrease in the “Ready to Learn” project. “Ready to Learn” requires earmarked funding to continue operating – and removal would mean the end of the project. Programs that are part of the “Ready to Learn” project include “Sesame Street”, “Dragontales”, “Clifford the Big Red Dog” and “Arthur”.


Republican legislators in the past have been quick to point out that cuts to Public Broadcasting have been necessary in order to fund healthcare and education. In 2006 House Representative Ralph Regula (R-Oh) said:

We've got to keep our priorities straight. You're going to choose between giving a little more money to handicapped children versus providing appropriations for public broadcasting.

Sorry. I don’t believe that their “priorities” are actually that high-minded. NPR and PBS have been traditionally open minded and accepting about things that right-wing Republican conservatives can’t stand. Horrible things like treating children with AIDS and children of same-sex parents as if they were (gasp!) human! Conservatives have problems with programs that don’t meet their agenda, programs that fairly explore science, religion, cosmology, nature and global warming without exposing a Christian worldview.

The President has assigned two different cronies to Captain the good ship Public Broadcasting who yell “Abandon Ship” while he takes shots at it broadside, all while Republicans assure us that it won’t sink.

I don’t buy it. And if you feel as I do, go to MoveOn.org and give your support. Or write to your congress-critters.

Friday in the atelier: "Portrait of Julia Foster Ward" by Jules Joseph Lefebvre

Updated 3 Dec 07:

Hi! If you're reading this article from the Michael Thomas Art History Class 101 website located at allpoetry.com, then I'd like to point out that this article, written and copyrighted by me, Calladus, is being copied by linking - which is a form of plagiarism.

Since the Michael Thomas Art History Class does not seem to mind plagiarism, then I would assume that if you are a student in this class, you would be allowed to do the same.

Thanks all!
Calladus@gmail.com
==========================


Jules Joseph Lefebvre (1836-1911) was a French Academic painter. Although born as the son of a Baker his parents supported his artistic talents and sent him study in Paris at the age of 16.

Lefebvre had his first public showing at the world famous Salon de Paris, the bi-annual art exhibition hosted by the French Academy of Fine Arts. After his showing Lefebvre worked toward winning the annual Grand Prix de Rome, awarded by the French Government to young painters. The award included a scholarship to the French Academy of Fine Arts.

He won second place at the age of 23, and two years later he won the Grand Prix de Rome, winning his scholarship and assuring his reputation as an artist.

Although Lefebvre became fascinated with Italian masters and the female nude, his approach to painting continued to be traditionally formulaic until the age of 30, when his painting “Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi” received extremely poor reviews. A second blow came when his parents and one of his sisters died that year, sending Lefebvre into depression and withdrawal from painting.

He came back to painting with a whole new attitude, and set aside the formulaic approach in favor of a more precise rendering from life. His new style won him praise when he exhibited “Reclining Nude” at the Salon de Paris. His exhibited his first really successful painting, an allegory of “Truth”, at the age of 34; which resulted in his award of Officer in the Légion d'honneur.

Lefebvre became famous for his beautiful nudes, rivaling the works of Bouguereau.

He became a teacher at the atelier Academie Julien sometime in the 1870s where he trained both men and women artists during a time when women were not allowed into French national schools of art. He taught his students the precision of life drawing that had won his own success. Lefebvre was especially admired among American students who sought him out above other Paris teachers.

Lefebvre’s honors increased – he won the Grand Prize at the 1889 World’s Fair (Exposition Universelle of 1889, the Eiffel Tower was constructed for this fair.) He was then made a member of the national French Academy; and he won the title of Commander, previously Officer, of the Légion d'honneur.

Although I have all of Lefebvre’s nudes paintings that I can find in digital format, the first painting I've displayed is his “Portrait of Julia Foster Ward”. (As usual I'm displaying cropped details, click on the paintings or the links to see the full painting.) I absolutely love the detail in this painting, and I just wanted everyone to see it first. The flowers in her hair are Morning Glories, and the fine details in her dress are just amazing.

The second painting I'm displaying is another favorite of mine, “Mediterranean Beauty”, also because of the wonderful detail in the painting.

Okay, because I know at least a few of my readers will be curious, I'll link to two of my favorite nudes painted by Lefebvre. My very favorite is “Odalisque”, although “Mary Magdalene in the Cave” is a close second. I think. Maybe it's the other way around. Uhm. It's so hard to decide.

I think I'll go review them again, just to be sure.

What if married couples were required by law to have children?

In July of last year two court cases about gay marriage that took place in separate counties of the state of Washington were decided together by the Washington State Supreme Court.

Andersen v. King County was filed in King County in August of 2004, and Castle v. State of Washington was filed in September of 2004; both cases were appealed, and made it to the Washington Supreme Court where they were decided jointly.

The Washington Supreme Court denied same sex marriage - but it was a very close thing. Out of 6 justices presiding there was a 3-3 split of opinion, with the lead justice breaking the tie.

But the reasoning given for the denial was absurd!

In the lead opinion the reason for denial of same sex marriage is discussed as:

We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.

And their conclusion is stated as:

The question we resolve today is whether the legislature may limit the definition of marriage to include only heterosexual unions. The case law that controls our inquiry compels our conclusions.

The issue of same-sex marriage has been the subject of intense debate throughout the nation. Although times are changing, the plaintiffs have not established that as of today sexual orientation is a suspect classification or that a person has a fundamental right to a same-sex marriage. Thus, the State is required to demonstrate only a rational basis to justify the legislation. Under this highly deferential standard, any conceivable state of facts providing a rational basis for the classification may be considered. The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children.

(Link to court rulings)

So the justices are saying that it is in the State’s best interest to deny same sex marriage because it is best that only opposite sex couples procreate and raise children that are “biologically related” to both parents.

This is an ill-thought out ruling that leaves holes large enough to lead an elephant through.


In an attempt to show just how stupid this ruling is, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA), a pro same-sex advocacy group, formed late last year. Their goal is to show the errors in the Washington Supreme Court ruling by attempting to pass laws based on that ruling. The first of these laws is to force new marriages to produce children within 3 years or face annulment.

WA-DOMA fully expects these laws to be overturned as unconstitutional, and by doing so they hope to show via an almost Socratic method the full stupidity of the initial ruling.

The organizer of WA-DOMA is Gary Gadow, who in an online statement gives their group’s strategy as:

Over the next few years, we will propose three initiatives to the people, each focusing on a different aspect of Andersen. The first initiative will make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together. The third would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

Each of the initiatives we get passed will, no doubt, be struck down as unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court. Good; that is our ultimate goal. Each ruling against these initiatives will also be a ruling against the basis for keeping the state’s Defense of Marriage Act.

The first of these initiatives is Initiative 957. This initiative was filed in January and accepted by the Washington Secretary of State as part of the filing process. Supporters of this initiative must gather 224,000 signatures by July 6 in order to put it on the November ballot. According to the text of this initiative, if it is passed it will:

• add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
• require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
• require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
• establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
• make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

I think the WA-DOMA group may be overly optimistic in what they can do here, although I applaud their efforts. At the very least, their initiative has generated discussion about same-sex marriage. However I can’t help but see the obstacles that they must overcome to achieve their goals. First, they have to collect enough signatures to get this on the ballot – I think they will be able to do so, but it might be a bit iffy – they don’t have much time in which to work.

Next, they need to have this voted into law by the Washington voting public. I don’t think that will happen. There will be a Christian “Swift Boat” campaign against WA-DOMA and Gary Gadow. Religious conservatives will all point out that this is designed as a ‘slippery slope’ campaign in order to “destroy Traditional Marriage”. I have no doubt that Christians will be quick to equate this initiative with the destruction of marriage – I also have no doubt that they will lie about its content.

Let’s face it, when it comes to the advertising campaign leading up to the November election, the religious conservatives will use their deep pockets to create a campaign blitz against this. This initiative won’t become law, it won’t be overturned by the courts as ‘unconstitutional’, and therefore it won’t become a legal stepping-stone toward same sex marriage.

But it is still valuable in generating discussion, and therefore I think it still worth-while that WA-DOMA try it anyway; sometimes it is noble to tilt at windmills.


This whole argument interested me enough to examine my own state laws on marriage. I found some interesting statements in the California Family code. For example:

Family Code Section 420 ( c ) No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect.

Which means that California really doesn’t care what your church says, if the state thinks a couple is married, they are married – be it in a church or by a Judge. Since I am myself ordained as a minister through the Universal Life Church, I could preform marriages myself – as long as the couple has their required marriage licenses, the marriage is preformed in front of witnesses, and I fill out and turn in the required paperwork afterwards. (And if anyone is interested in getting married by me, send me an email and we’ll work it out. If you’re local to me, I’ll only charge for the costs required by the state of California, if any.)

Another interesting California law:

Family Code Section 352. No marriage license shall be granted if either of the applicants lacks the capacity to enter into a valid marriage or is, at the time of making the application for the license, under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug.

“Lacks the capacity” seems to mean ‘mental capacity’, but it is worded so that it could be more broadly applied, especially when you use the words ‘valid marriage’. What is a valid marriage, exactly?

Family Code Section 308. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.
308.5 Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

This seems pretty clear – the only valid or recognized marriages in the state of California are between a man and a woman, regardless of the laws of the state that you were married in.

There is another qualifier too, only certain people are allowed to receive a valid marriage license:

Family Code Section 301. An unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, and not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

302. (a) An unmarried male or female under the age of 18 years is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.
(b) The court order and written consent of the parents of each underage person, or of one of the parents or the guardian of each underage person shall be filed with the clerk of the court, and a certified copy of the order shall be presented to the county clerk at the time the marriage license is issued.

So to be legally married in the state of California you must be capable of consummating your marriage. I find it interesting that a provision has been made to allow for underage marriages – I have never heard a peep from California conservatives trying to stop this practice, so I guess it is Christian to allow your 15 year old daughter to wed her 40 year old boyfriend; as long as her parents consent. I wonder how this works with the laws about statutory rape?

Still, the “capable of consummating” clause seems interesting. What if you are incapable? Does extreme erectile dysfunction disqualify you from ever getting married? What if you’ve suffered an unfortunate accident?

What if you were born in such a way that you are never able to consummate your marriage? There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are born in such a way that they will never be able to consummate their marriages, they may live as a man or a woman – and even have such stated on their birth certificates – but they are more complex than that. These people still fall in love, and live in committed relationships. Some of them adopt children, a lucky few are able to have their own children through the use of technology and a surrogate parent – but there is no way that many of these people can “consummate” their marriages in any way that would be deemed as ‘natural’ by religious conservatives.


I still don’t buy the garbage that conservatives, religious or otherwise, are trying to push about marriage. I have yet to read any peer-reviewed, scientifically accepted reasoning why same-sex marriage should not be allowed, or why it is harmful to standard marriage. I’ve yet to find any convincing argument against granting same-sex marriages the same rights and benefits as heterosexual marriages.

Someone tell me please, why is a loving, dedicated same-sex relationship of 10 years more damaging to marriage than the antics of Brittney Spears or Ted Haggard?

Ted Haggard says, "I'm not gay, and that 'Mike Jones thing' was just a ... thing, ya know"

Well, Ted Haggard has been cured of "Teh Gay." From the Denver Post:

The Rev. Ted Haggard emerged from three weeks of intensive counseling convinced he is "completely heterosexual" and told an oversight board that his sexual contact with men was limited to his accuser.

That is according to one of the disgraced pastor's overseers, who on Monday revealed new details about where Haggard has been and where he is headed.

...

Haggard, 50, resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and was fired from the church he built from nothing into a 14,000-member congregation after a former male prostitute in Denver alleged a three-year cash-for-sex relationship.

Haggard admitted to "sexual immorality" and a long battle against feelings contrary to his beliefs. He admitted buying methamphetamine but said he never used it. Haggard did not respond to interview requests.

Among other things, the overseers urged Haggard to enter a 12-step program for sexual addiction, Ware said.

Heh. So, it wasn't really homosexuality at all, you see - not even bi-sexual. He just had an 'addiction' to sex and paid for a male (as opposed to female) prostitute.

Hm. He bought Meth and never used it. Doesn't this sound like, "Yes I used Pot, but I never inhaled?"

And oh, great - now Ted wants to get a degree in psychology. That's all this country needs, a shadier, dirtier, more arrogant version of James Dobson.

Blogrolls are so yesterday - bring in the blogclips!

I've made a couple of changes to my site to try to make it a bit more dynamic.

You can blame Atrios for the loss of my blogroll. He's right that maintaining a blogroll is a bit more trouble than it's worth - I can't create links for all of the blogs that I read because I read a lot of blogs, and that would be a very large block on the side. So who do I recommend, who doesn't make the grade, and how do I decide when an old favorite has finally "jumped the shark"?

Atrios recommended a "Blogroll Amnesty Day" - a day that anyone can, without guilt, delete old entries from their blogroll. This just seemed like a continuation of the problem - except that I would clean out my blogroll only once a year. I don't like this idea because it puts blogroll maintenance right up there with cleaning the leaves out of your rain gutters. (Oh ick! It's a dead bird! How long has THAT been in there?)

So I started looking at my RSS feed aggregator to see if I could automate the process. I use Google Reader as my aggregator, which is handy since I'm also using Google's Blogger to host my blog. But there are a LOT of sites in my reader - including a lot of things that are not blogs. Shoot I even have my own blog in my reader feed! As I said, it would make for a very long, cluttered, and boring blogroll.

Google has made a sensible suggestion. Instead of a blogroll, how about a dynamic box of content that I found to be interesting reading? Google Reader offers this service - now I can mark a particular entry from my reader and have it show up in my blog. I turn into a sort of blog 'clipping' service - except that I decide the content of these clips - not my readers.

Okay, NOW we have something!

So take a look to your right and you'll see a box titled, "Blogs I'm Reading Now" which shows the last 10 items I've read and have found interesting enough to share. If you like, you can click the "Read More" link at the bottom of the box and read all the content through the Google Reader interface.

I'll still have a blogroll of sorts, but those links will be few, and will be dedicated to friends and family. (People that I correspond with somewhat regularly.)

But the dynamic content will consist of blog clippings that I find interesting. Time will tell if anyone else agrees with me.

Rush Limbaugh fails at Math, Belittles US Troop sacrifices

Once again Rush demonstrates his intellectual ability and educational achievement as a flunked freshman from a Missouri Frat party college; all while disparaging American military forces in Iraq.

Media Matters for America pointed out Rush’s lack of mathematical comprehension in his 31 January broadcast where he made the erroneous claim that it is safer to be a soldier in Iraq than a citizen of the city of Philadelphia. Rush doesn’t archive transcriptions of his broadcasts for all to hear, but Media Matters does:

We're concerned with death here. We're concerned with body counts. We're concerned with the breakdown of law and order. [inaudible] Insurgencies, gangs, whatever you want to call them. They're out of control in major American cities, and Philadelphia is just one example, and where are the hearings on this? Oh, I know. Senator Biden and Speaker Pelosi are too busy trying to weaken the commander-in-chief so we can't win the war in Iraq. They are not only invested in defeat, they can't allow victory. They simp -- politically, they cannot allow it. Four-hundred-and-six Philadelphians murdered last year; unbelievable. We have lost just over 3,000 soldiers in Iraq in nearly four years, about 600 of those were due to non-combat accidents. There were 821 deaths in Iraq, troop-related deaths last year; 406 in one American city! And consider the media attention. We hear about how out of control Baghdad is. We hear about how nobody can control it, and Bush can't control it and the U.S. military can't control it.

Let's get a little proportion and let's talk about the fact that it is not safe to walk in parts of our own American cities. Democrat-run cities, liberal politicians. The contrast in big media coverage, especially the TV networks, is sickening. If we were to follow the way Democrats want to deal with Iraq and apply it to how we should deal with Philadelphia and other crime-ridden big cities, we should do the following: Cut off all federal funding for Philadelphia. Withdraw all federal agencies and FBI offices, any federal law enforcement, get them the hell out of there by 2008 so Hillary Clinton doesn't have to deal with it when she's inaugurated in January of 2009. It sounds to me like there's a civil war going on in Philadelphia and in other major American cities, and we ought not be in the middle of it.

Following the sources quoted in the Media Matters article, we can see that Philadelphia had 406 murders during the 2006 year. Philadelphia’s population is between 1.46 and 1.5 million people, and last year’s death rate of 27 people per hundred thousand puts it at the top in US cities. From Reuters news:

In Philadelphia, homicides rose 7 percent to a nine-year high of 406 last year, giving it the highest murder rate per 100,000 people among America's 10 biggest cities, according to a survey of police departments by the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper, which keeps runs a tally.

So I took a look at icasualties.org, and counted only US soldier deaths due to hostile action, and came up with 703 deaths of American military members during the 2006 year. As of late 2006 there were 152,000 US military members in Iraq. This adds up to a death rate of 463 people per hundred thousand troops. If we were to apply that math to Philadelphia’s population then that poor city would require 6,945 deaths to equal last year’s US military death rate.

But those are just deaths due to hostile action. The vast majority of Iraq casualties are living wounded – they live with missing limbs, missing organs, and all too often with missing mental faculties. During the 2006 year 6,372 US military members were wounded due to action in Iraq, 4,192 wounded per 100,000. When I apply this rate to Philadelphia’s population I see that Philadelphia would require 62,882 wounded to equal Iraq’s rate of wounded casualties.

That’s 62,882 people wounded by explosives, firearms, physical attacks – leading to dramatically changed lives with missing limbs and organs.

Rush couldn’t be more dishonest if he called the Iraq war a cakewalk for American soldiers; by playing down the dangers of Iraq he is mocking the efforts and sacrifice of military members. In telling progressives that we are overplaying the dangers over there, he is instead coming across as a pompous ass to our military. What next? Will he tell the military to quit whining, will he start telling them they should be grateful because of how ‘good’ they have it over there? Bah!


I’ve complained about Rush before. Now I hope everyone can see that he’s just another Chickenhawk. Yes, I understand that he “4-F’d” the draft with a legitimate reason, but he had a choice – his medical deferment could have been easily fixed.

When I completed Air Force Basic Training in January of 1985, I was required to wait a few days before my bus ride to my technical training squadron at Keesler AFB in Biloxi Mississippi. I spent those 3 days doing garbage patrol for the Air Force and living in the Medical Hold barracks. My roommate in those barracks was my guide around the base; he had been living on Medical Hold for 6 months when I met him. He was on hold for Hyperelastic Skin, a condition that allowed him to stretch his skin to unbelievable lengths. He was a very active person, and never saw his condition as a problem. He saw it as a benefit because it had allowed doctors to sew up a gash on his arm that he had suffered during a nasty accident; he had a barely noticeable scar from that, where I would have had a long tear.

The Air Force didn’t know what to think about my roommate’s condition, and had cautiously accepted him into basic training – I think they expected him to flunk out, but he fooled them by doing well and graduating boot camp. So they placed him on medical hold while they tried to figure it out. After 4 months he got tired of being in limbo and hired an attorney to force the issue – he was fighting to gain entry!

I don’t know what became of him; I left him behind and tried to put him out of my mind while I spent the next 7 months concentrating on electronics school. Although I’ve forgotten his name, I never forgot him – and I’ve become more impressed with his determination over the years. He was determined to join, and determined to prove to the military that his physical condition was not a hindrance to his being a good Airman.

Compare this to Rush, who has an easily treatable problem and who grabbed his chance to be sure he wouldn’t be drafted. This is the kind of person who is pooh-poohing the dangers of Iraq – a person who was assured that he would never subject his pasty-white lard butt (sorry for that image) to military conditions. Rush has never had to wonder if his next deployment would put him in harm’s way – and he’s never had a problem bellowing at those of us who would like to make sure we don’t send our troops into unnecessary danger.

Personally, I think Rush is two-faced – it’s just that one of those faces has a cyst on it.

Friday in the atelier: "Comparisons" by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema

Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema was probably the most successful painter of the Victorian era; certainly he was the most successful in England. He was a prolific painter who specialized in paintings of classical history, including Egyptian and Roman settings. Alma-Tadema was often described as having a child-like sense of joy, as being both warm and bigger than life. It was hard to not like him as soon as you met him.

Born in Friesland in the Netherlands, he was given the name of his Godfather, Laurens Alma, to which his family name, Tadema, was added. He later changed his first name to the more English spelling of Lawrence. The Art Renewal Center has an excellent biography on him, and goes into much more detail than I am willing to write.

He was a master at painting marble and flowers, and voraciously studied historical artifacts from Egypt and Pompeii in order to get the details exactly correct in his paintings. Often Alma-Tadema would repaint a detail 5 or ten times until it met his approval. As you can see in the painting “Sappho and Alcaeus” he was an expert at rendering hard materials like marble and metals. A good example of his ability with plants and flowers can be seen in his painting, “Among the Ruins”.

I really had a hard time deciding which of Alma-Tadema’s works I would show as an example. I finally settled on this cropped detail of the painting, “Comparisons”, where again Alma-Tadema’s skill in painting hard, reflective marble is apparent. This is balanced with the soft portrayal of the women two lovely women. The painting that I use in the header of my blog is from Alma-Tadema’s painting, “The Discourse” – which is itself a wonderfully detailed combination of art and Roman history. I'm showing a cropped detail of that painting here.

In his later life Alma-Tadema was active in theatre design, and also in the design of furniture.

In the tragedy of most Victorian era painters, and all Romantic Realism painters, by the end of the Victorian era in 1901 several influential and self-important art critics started to deride Alma-Tadema’s works in favor of Post-Impressionism and Cubism. (“Modern” art.) His paintings were shunned and could not be sold even for a fraction of their worth; almost wiping out this wonderful legacy merely because it was deemed ‘technical’ by so-called experts.

But even as his art was shunned by collectors, Hollywood saw his worth and used Alma-Tadema’s paintings as a sort of ‘blueprint’ when recreating accurate Roman architecture on movie sets. The sets for the movies “Ben Hur”, “Cleopatra” and “The Ten Commandments” were all based upon Alma-Tadema’s paintings.

In the last 3 decades his work has again become popular, and is once again drawing high prices at auction. I have no idea how many paintings he created, or how many are available online, but there is a wealth of them – and they are all worth your viewing.

Molly Ivins

I keep making this mistake. Isaac Asimov, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan. And now Molly Ivins. How many more times will I do this?

Richard Feynman’s death came as a surprise to me. His books had a huge impact on my life, made me focus on learning and showed me how to feel the joy in science. His words helped me to question my religious beliefs and ply them with logic. I wanted to thank him, but it was too late – he had died.

After Dr. Feynman’s death I made a promise to myself that I would write letters of thanks to those people who influenced my life, those people who I had held up as role models. I’ve been somewhat successful in doing this – even though my voice is very small and not likely to be remembered I’ve thanked quite a few people for their effect on my life. But I keep missing out on some of them.

Like Molly Ivins.

I’m a latecomer to Ms. Ivins writings – and I feel cheated of her wit. A few months ago I read, “Who Let the Dogs In?” as my first exposure to her writing style. I’ve been hooked on her columns ever since. But I guess I’ll be deleting her from my Google news reader now - which somehow makes it feel so much more... final.

Molly had class – She’s been called “spicy” and worse, but she had real class. She knew the difference between the use and misuse of satire:

There are two kinds of humor. One kind that makes us chuckle about our foibles and our shared humanity -- like what Garrison Keillor does. The other kind holds people up to public contempt and ridicule -- that's what I do. Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel -- it's vulgar.

Molly used her wit to expose idiocy in powerful people. Compare this with Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Michelle Malkin, who have no qualms about using their soapbox to attack the downtrodden and the helpless. Molly had genuine old-fashioned down-south Texas manners and charm that people like Tom Delay only pretend to have.

In her last ever column, Molly still reminds us that we live in a country that is ruled by its citizens. “We the people.”

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war.

Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and are trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge.

We run this country – you and I. Not the suits in Congress, not the President or his cabinet who try to convince you that running the government is “hard work” and therefore should be left to the so-called “professionals”.

Goodbye Molly – I wish I had found you earlier in my life.