Pharyngula

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 9, 2010 11:16 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgePbXQitgA

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 9, 2010 11:26 AM

Mattir #1025: Even for a missionary, it can't possibly be all that hard to find a sex partner who isn't a member of the congregation where you've been assigned.

'Tis Himself replies: If I remember correctly, Mormon missionaries are supposed to be in pairs at all times. So unless the two missionaries collude it would be pretty difficult to have the time necessary to arrange to have sex, let alone be able to have sex.

Not only are missionaries not supposed to have sex partners of any kind at any time, they're not even supposed to masturbate. They cannot even have sex with an official fiancé. 19 years old. No sex. This is the set up, and I don't think it's fair to anyone involved. Missionary companions are supposed to tattle on each other if masturbation or sex or kissing or prolonged looking at the opposite sex is going on. (There are Sister missionaries too -- though the bulk of the troops are young males.)

The Bishops and Stake Presidents and Mission Presidents to whom all this reporting of supposedly nefarious deeds is done are NOT trained professionals. They read a manual, but have no training as licensed counselors. The manuals also stress keeping the reputation of the church intact, so it's always the church before the people when it comes to care.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 9, 2010 11:36 AM

Mattir @ 1031

So I could request a pair of the young men from the calendar? This is sounding better and better. Lynna, is there a special kind of mormon "pain" that is particularly delicious and exotic?

If you do have sex with missionaries, absolutely mind-boggling pain can be had by going to the Bishop to confess.

The young men in the calendar are RMs (Returned Missionaries), so some of them might be less strict. Already they have taken off their white shirts and their ties. In the Morridor, this act has been hotly debated, and is seen by most as a sign of The Adversary's (Satan's) influence. Very decadent, and harmful to the reputation of TSCC (The So-Called Church).

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 9, 2010 12:21 PM

Sili @1035: I sent for some more knowledgeable troops to aid in your combat with Katherine-the-mormon. We'll see if anyone shows up.

I asked for a DNA expert, plus some ex-mormons who have delved into the question of what is doctrine when it comes to evolution.

Katherine may have never tested the "free agency" her church leaders spout, but do not honor. If she rises to any level of prominence and then thinks too openly for herself, she may join the distinguished company of other BYU graduates and professors who have been excommunicated.

As a starter course, we could send her here: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon481.htm
You have to scroll down quite a ways on that page to find the bits about evolution (do an in-page search for evolution). Here's an excerpt:

--The second Mormon Church head to utter false doctrine in that capacity was, McConkie told me, President David O. McKay.
     McConkie said that McKay delivered untruths to BYU students in a campus oration, in which he advised them to study the theory of organic evolution and the geologic history pointing to an ancient earth.
     McKay told the students that organic evolution was a beautiful theory, as long as God was not divorced from it, and that the Earth was, in fact, millions of years old.
     McConkie informed me that these claims of McKay had not been inspired by the Holy Ghost.
     McConkie did not admit to having himself made any doctrinal errors himself.
     In this area, his testimony seemed to rest on his own sense of doctrinal infallibility.
     In fact, McConkie told me that his emphatic claim(published in the first edition of his book Mormon Doctrine but edited out of its second edition) that the Roman Catholic Church was the Church of the Devil was true.
    When I asked him to explain its deletion from the books later edition, McConkie insisted that it was removed not because it was not true but because it was too difficult for people to accept.
     PRESIDENT SPENCER W. KIMBALL
     During the course of my BYU research paper on the official LDS stand regarding organic evolution, I repeatedly corresponded with Kimball, who was then Mormon Church President.
     Throughout the course of our exchanges, I had a difficult and increasingly frustrating time obtaining direct and clear answers from him on the subject, even though I made specific and detailed inquiries.
     For instance, on the question of previous First Presidency statements on the physical origins of humankind, Kimball informed me in personal correspondence that he was not familiar with the First Presidency statements I had cited in my initial correspondence with him and requested that I mail them to him, which I did.
     Clearly, whatever confidence Kimball had in the truthfulness of Mormonism was not always based on official Mormon positions enunciated by the Presidents of the Church, some of which he admitted to me he knew nothing....
     PULLING BACK THE CURTAIN AND EXPOSING THE GENERAL AUTHORITY TESTIMONIAL PARADE CHARADE
     The above statements by Mormonism's supposed prophets, seers and revelators speak for themselves.
     Based upon their own admissions, these men do not have persuasive, convincing or complete knowledge concerning the truthfulness of Mormon doctrine or scripture.
     Nor do they have unswerving confidence in the ability of Mormon prophets, including the President of the Church, to speak the truth.
     The Mormon Church is a consumate fraud, based upon myths perpetrated by its leaders in public and confessed by them in private.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 9, 2010 12:37 PM

Sili, here's what Francis Nelson Henderson had to say about scholarship and thinking for oneself. This excerpt is from a much longer piece written in 1999, after resigning from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

Dr. David P. Wright states in a letter of self defense to ecclesiastical charges, "…scholarship is not some sort of sin, a ‘failing of the flesh,’ which an individual recognizes to be an error and which that individual considers to be a blemish to his or her personal integrity. Scholarship, rather, is a constructive activity and is one of the purest expressions of a person’s character. Scholarship involves a failing of the flesh, paradoxically, only when one is not forthright with his or her conclusions, when one holds back evidence, when one dissembles about his or her views in the face of social – or ecclesiastical – pressure. To express one’s views, especially when they fly in the face of tradition, in other words, is hardly a sin but rather a virtue. Because Church disciplinary proceedings treat scholarship as if it were sinful, and even employ along the way the polemical myth that sin is what is responsible for the scholar’s unorthodox views, the proceedings are an attack on the individual’s integrity."
     College President, L. Jackson Newell, writes to Dr. Wright’s Stake President: "For Mormon scholars today, the more free and brave one is, the more likely he or she is to feel the iron blows of ecclesiastical discipline….I hope you will not punish David Wright for the very scholarly care and courage for which we ought to honor him. The test is not whether he is right but whether he is true to the evidence he uncovers and responsible in the words he writes.
     I wouldn’t trade David Wright for all those religion teachers at BYU who look only for evidence that will fit their own particular assumptions about history, or match their superiors’ theology….
     While touting its commitment to families, the Church is brutally tearing many very good ones apart. David Wright, his wife and children have already paid a very heavy price for the Church’s intolerance of scholarship. We hear general conference sermons about ‘the importance of the one,’ then watch our leaders sacrifice individuals’ membership, and families, in the name of the many. I urge you to make a decision about David Wright that is worthy of the ideals spoken… by LDS leaders…"
     University of Utah professor Edwin Firmage, Jr. writes, "…The image that Church trials such as David’s present to the world and, indeed to many Church members, is of an institution determined at all costs to silence dissent, even when offered in a spirit of good will and fellowship. It is an image of a faceless corporation that uses its enormous administrative and social power to bully individuals into submission. It is an image of corporate officers abusing their authority to pursue private vendettas against their opponents and refusing to take responsibility for their actions. It is an image of misplaced obedience on the part of subordinate officers in following unjust and mean-spirited orders. Such trials discredit the institution they profess to defend and bring shame on its members."...

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | May 9, 2010 12:40 PM

We're closing in on the millionth comment. If PZ throws away another cracker we could get there by next week. ;)

Posted by: ronsullivan | May 9, 2010 12:55 PM

(billy)What the heck is wrong with John Denver?

Seems to me that, all else aside, it'd be bad luck* to listen to him in an airplane.

Lynna: (There are Sister missionaries too -- though the bulk of the troops are young males.)

Do the Sister misses get to be Elders when they return intact?**

Also Lynna:The manuals also stress keeping the reputation of the church intact, so it's always the church before the people when it comes to care.

Gee, doesn't that sound familiar.***

*Yeah yeah. It's a rhetorical device.
**That, of course, is a rhetorical question.
***That's so rhetorical it doesn't even deserve a quark.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 9, 2010 1:00 PM

Katherine-the-mormon pointed out to Sili that men and women make mistakes. Joseph Smith was just a man. This is the "get of jail free card" as Sili mentioned.

Here's one of the Fourteen Fundamentals of Faith according to mormon doctrine:

What a Prophet said can be revised depending on the circumstances:
     When the Prophet, the head of our church, says something that is definitely wrong he was not being inspired at that time. He was only speaking as a man. We believe that the newer Prophets can override the older Prophets. We believe we have a prophet on earth today even though he never prophecies anything.
     Reference: Ezra Taft Benson '14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophets' pgs 1-16, 1980: "Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence."

And here's another of the Fundamentals:

Only read church approved materials:
     Any literature which is critical of the church is Satanic and/or written by disgruntled apostates or others who do not know the truth. They can be ignored and any reasonable arguments they have are unimportant since they oppose the gospel of Mormonism.

Does anyone see a recipe for ignorance, for jello doctrine that can't be nailed to the wall, and for arbitrary discipline coming from Church leaders?

What a bunch of stale dishwater.

Posted by: iambilly | May 9, 2010 1:09 PM

'Tis Himself:

But did the boat heel over far enough for a crewmember to teabag? Enquiring minds want to know!

Posted by: Jim | May 9, 2010 1:11 PM

I have to put in my two cents for my favorite godless music:

First off Bad Religion — Not only is it good music, but the lead singer has a Zoology PhD from Cornell and lectures in the fall terms at UCLA.

Great punk rock: Materialist
Slow piano (play this at my funeral!): Skyscraper

And then there's this great song from Cursive: Rise up Rise up

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 9, 2010 1:12 PM

Sili, it occurs to me that Katherine keeps bringing up "doctrine" as if it exists and is a stable set of concepts. Not true. As an ex-mormon wrote today:

Mormonism destroys the concept of loyalty and honesty. By manipulating, coercing, and forcing people to "hang onto" an inexplicable, indefensible, illogical collection of clap trap TBMs are turned into shape shifters. They are like prostitutes who are willing to assume any position to get the job done. The "truth" is something that is ever changing to a Mormon. Every piece of evidence, every statement, and every prior defense can be sacrificed to uphold whatever Mormon position is in vogue in the moment. These people are so inconsistent and everything, including family, friendship, honesty, loyalty, and love will be sacrificed in an instant to follow the wobbling, wavering, fickle, eternally drifting zephyr of Mormon "doctrine". What do Mormons believe, what do they stand for, and who are their family and friends? You need to ask that question every few minutes because the answer changes on a moment by moment basis.

Regarding the question from Ron at #14: Sister missionaries are often the women who failed to get married right away. If they had followed the preferred path, they would have found a husband right out of high school (preferably a Returned Missionary), or failing that, within their first two years at BYU. Babies must follow ASAP (though there are troubling signs that some couples may be postponing baby-making). Sister missionaries can never be Elders. They can never join the Penishood. Sisters can enjoy the blessings of the Priesthood/Penishood by marrying a man whom they can support with soft words of encouragement and a willing smile. They must avoid at all costs being a "licked cupcake", i.e. losing their chastity, or appearing to be soiled in any manner.

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 9, 2010 1:20 PM

The prior thread brought up the subject of Roundup-resistant coca. Over at The Loom, Carl Zimmer writes about the evolution of pesticide and herbicide resistance, and refers to a recent review that details different ways that plants can evolve resistance to Roundup.

  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/05/04/how-to-make-a-superweed/

1) Modify the enzyme that glyphosate attacks by one amino acid (ryegrass, goosegrass)
2) Overload the quantity of glyphosate with massive amounts of the enzyme, via multiple genes (amaranth)
3) Block the internal diffusion of glyphosate, possibly by sequestering it (horseweed and others)
4) Receive glyphosate resistance from a close species via hybridization

Which makes me wonder which (if any) coca evolved, or if it was something different yet again.

While following some of the links to the New York Times and other blogs, I noticed a blog called "IntLawGrrls", which has a post about the whole (hijab/niqab/)burqa-banning issue in France that came up here recently:

  http://intlawgrrls.blogspot.com/2010/05/stripping-women-of-veils-and-men-of.html

Posted by: blf | May 9, 2010 2:01 PM

And I should point out that I have limited sailing experience. Though I did have a schooner capsize on me.

I just wiped off the bar and ordered another.

One of those large Ozland beer glasses, the beer (Canadian, I think), a grizzledstill-standing member of the crew, or a model (of the boat, damnit!) (in a bottle?) on the wall?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | May 9, 2010 2:08 PM

One of those large Ozland beer glasses, the beer (Canadian, I think), a grizzledstill-standing member of the crew, or a model (of the boat, damnit!) (in a bottle?) on the wall?

And if it was in a bottle on the wall, did you start out with 99 of them?
*ducks*

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | May 9, 2010 2:23 PM

I'm in Orange County today, and I heard an odd comment that there was a dearth of godless music. I beg to differ: most music is godless, and I would point to rock as a genre that is almost entirely secular.

While the origins of rock is almost certainly secular, there has been a large effort by American Christians groups to integrate rock as their own genre. IMO, there has been, increasingly, a large number rock groups who identify their music as Christian. (which is funny since only a few decades ago, rock was the music of the devil. Now it's hip-hop. What's next? Arirang?)

Posted by: thornae | May 9, 2010 2:32 PM

As a chorister, I'd just like to point out that it's a well accepted doctrine amongst choristers that all songs are either about God or Sex.

I don't think that PZ's assertion that most music is godless affects this doctrine.

Posted by: blf | May 9, 2010 2:39 PM

And if it was in a bottle on the wall, did you start out with 99 of them?

Carlie is chased from the room by yodelling barkeeper wearing a Mad Hatter's hat and a G-string, who has a tattoo on her right arm showing a dead anteater with the legend “That was not an octopus!”

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | May 9, 2010 2:45 PM

As a chorister, I'd just like to point out that it's a well accepted doctrine amongst choristers that all songs are either about God or Sex.

No, what about songs invoking nationalism, or song about one's "homeland" or "way of life" which also invokes nationalism?

Posted by: thornae | May 9, 2010 3:05 PM

No, what about songs invoking nationalism, or song about one's "homeland" or "way of life" which also invokes nationalism?

Well, first, you don't tend to sing a lot of those in choirs (with the possible exception of national anthems, and then not very often).
Second, most of those (including a large number of the aforementioned anthems) include reference to god or similar at some point.

And third, most songs of that type are also along the lines of "Don't fuck with us or we'll fuck you right up." So, y'know, still about sex.
(Alternatively, sex -> population -> nations -> nationalism.)

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | May 9, 2010 3:08 PM

Second, most of those (including a large number of the aforementioned anthems) include reference to god or similar at some point.

Perhaps in western tradition, but in eastern traditions there exist some songs that are purely devoid of God and sex.

Posted by: thornae | May 9, 2010 3:11 PM

If all songs are about sex or god(s), where do drinking songs (Ninety Nine Bottles of Beer on the Wall for example) fit in?

Oh, you mean proper choral songs.
Well, those are about getting everyone drunk enough to indulge in large amounts of debauched sex. Or at least, they were in my uni choir...

Hm... Maybe I should clarify that the doctrine, while holding up fairly well for rock music, was formulated almost entirely on the sample set of Songs Sung In Choir Concerts.

Although we did used to sing a nice four part arrangement of Rubber Ducky - make of that what you wil...

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 9, 2010 3:15 PM

if it's only one country that holds all the debt

Private creditors exist, too.

the other important question is do the bottles get removed from the wall by being taken down and passed around, or by accidentally falling?

The former.

Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall...

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 9, 2010 3:27 PM

Me @ 41:

This is the one major argument in my marriage, but not something that I am willing to compromise.

Dammit, I've had too many cocktails today. This should read:

This is the one major argument in my marriage, but not something that I am NOT willing to compromise.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 9, 2010 3:37 PM

David Marjanović@27,

The terms of the bailout include large cuts in public sector salaries and pensions, so the Greek government's income will actually go down, because revenue from both direct and indirect taxation will fall - not just from those whose income is directly cut, but from all the people employed by businesses they would buy goods and services from (many of whom will either lose their jobs or have to take pay cuts themselves). So there will be pressure on the government to cut expenditure even further, which it will have to do by further cutting salaries and pensions...

Posted by: Alan B | May 9, 2010 3:51 PM

The talk about who owns the US debt reminded me of this story:

Concern as China clamps down on rare earth exports.

Neodymium is one of 17 metals crucial to green technology. There’s only one snag – China produces 97% of the world’s supply. And they’re not selling.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/concern-as-china-clamps-down-on-rare-earth-exports-1855387.html

Neodynium (Nd) is used to make the strongest type of permanent magnet. Nd magnets are used in a huge range of items where permanent magnets are required and especially where weight is important (e.g. computer hard drives and motors in electric cars).

Where China comes in is that they produce 97% of the world's Nd and are using their massive trade surplus to try to buy up some of the remaining 3% (see the article). This is true for other raw materials. The Chinese are less concerned about human rights in the countries with which they trade and are reputed to be buying up other sources of important metals and minerals. Whether this is to secure their own sources of supply or to be able to close off supplies to other nations depends on your level of paranoia.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | May 9, 2010 3:59 PM

My college's concert chorale sang this:

http://ericwhitacre.com/music-catalog/satb-choral/leonardo-dreams-of-his-flying-machine

The rest of the composer's works can be godly, but this one was a pure ode to humanity.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | May 9, 2010 4:03 PM

Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall...

Heh, at this crazy academic summer camp I went to as a teen/preteen, a group of us who took Number Theory realized that scanned. It became the national anthem of the pseudo-nation we declared ourselves members of.... oh, David, you just reminded me of good times. ;-)

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 9, 2010 4:10 PM

Any advice would be super appreciated!

1) Have girls and avoid the issue.
2) If you have a boy anyway, divorce before he's born.
3) Compromise with a halfway circumcision, so you'll both be equally unhappy.
4) Threaten to divorce (or other emotional blackmail) if circumcision is carried out.
5) Speaking of emotional blackmail, ask him if he sees the tradition as being a way of making sure that sons are as miserable as their fathers.

WARNING: Not all advice guaranteed to be useful. No liability will be assumed if advice causes misery, conflict, irreconcilable differences, loss of consciousness, facepalming, headdesking, shouting matches, uncontrollable rage, obnoxious sarcasm, death, or a fate worse than death.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 9, 2010 4:15 PM

pixelfish, BTW, that business of Prophet/Seer/Revelator Hinckley lying in Time magazine ... he did the same thing, told the same line in a TV interview. I've seen some ex-mormons report that the lie was the last straw for them, the last shove that sent them out the door. Hinckley only got away with it, for the most part, because a lot of mormons do not know their own history, nor do they read what their prophets say.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 9, 2010 4:19 PM

Lynna #51

All of these sailing adventures sound like great fun to me!

Sometimes being at sea can be a bit more exciting than you might really want.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 9, 2010 4:36 PM

The Dubliners "Go To Sea No More":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUQvZiw1Ouo

I really wanted to post a link to a song called "The River Lea" but the three covers I found on YouTube all sucked.

No more I'll take the first lookout,
No more I'll take the wheel.
No more at the cry "Up aloft" I fly,
While "Aye, aye, Sir!" I squeal.
No more I'll reef those topsails,
For it is no more my trade.
No more I'll brail that spanker in
On board of the River Lea.

No more I'll go to sea,
Beat down the Bay of Fundy.
Forever more I'll stay on shore,
I'll go to sea no more.

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 9, 2010 4:55 PM

1) Have girls and avoid the issue.

Oh, how I wish. But I'm not quite so sure I can control that aspect of reproduction.

Sperm can be sorted.

Another option, if it is a boy, is to tell everyone that he's a girl, and dress him as such, and prevent everyone else from seeing his genitalia until he's, I dunno, ten or so. This may be a high price to pay, but there you go.

See comment #56 for standard disclaimer regarding advice.

Posted by: JeffreyD | May 9, 2010 5:01 PM

Great jumping jets of jeezus jism! I go away for a couple of weeks and the endless thread has metastasized at an alarming rate. Egads Holmes!

Time to dig in and try to catch up with at least the major issues.

Waves hello to all.

Posted by: iambilly | May 9, 2010 5:03 PM

'Tis:

I haven't been able to find it, either. I needed it for a concert I'll be doing on October 1 and was able to (sort of) find the words (which I rewrote to match the version I know (from Makem and Clancy)). I was totally sussed on the chording until I realized it was the same basic structure as "On the Plains of the Buffalo" which is an easy two chord song. I transposed it to C and Gm which works perfectly for my (so called) voice.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 9, 2010 5:19 PM

@ Lynna

A licked cupcake? Really? I think I'd enjoy being a licked cupcake.

@ODS - I posted on the boys with booboos thread about my experience with this exact issue. I would just add that no matter what the outcome, there will be plenty of other, and potentially more important, parenting disagreements to come.

Posted by: ronsullivan | May 9, 2010 5:37 PM

David Marjanović, previous Thread instar: Please adopt "lapsus mentis" instead. There is no form "mentae".
...Yeah, OK, there's a form menthae, but... :o)

Yer right, but "... 'mentibus' " maybe. Same lapse, several alleged minds. Or maybe they left their brainses in their lapses. Or their mouthwash failed.

Ol' Greg: And it sure won't be "Conservatina"...

Accordion to whom?

Sorry; I just keep seeing a very timid accordion player when I see that word. Thank Cthulu I'm not also hearing this marvel.

Speaking of Mother's Day (Or is it Mothers' Day?): Some guy in Parade Magazine pulled a lapsus Lynnae of sorts on his own mom.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 9, 2010 5:47 PM

Yes, the "licked cupcake" is one of those mormon tropes that regularly makes the rounds, especially as a warning to Young Women's groups. The moral goes like this: If you had your choice of all the cupcakes on a platter, would you choose the one that someone else had already licked? [cue "yuck" and "eeww" shudders from the chaste young women]

Here's some great news in Utah politics. This is out of the same GOP convention that was mentioned in the previous chapter of the thread, where über mormon and über conservative Senator Bennett was shown the door for not being conservative enough. At least there's some good news:

Sensing that retired school teacher Claudia Wright was making headway, Matheson put in a hysterical call begging Steny Hoyer to fly out to Salt Lake City to save him. Hoyer did fly out, and begged and cajoled delegates to vote for Matheson, but ultimately failed to secure the party endorsement for him. He came up 5% short of the 60% needed.
     So what about Claudia? Well, how about this? She's Brigham Young's great great granddaughter! And she left the Mormon Church. And she's openly gay and living with her partner. And, better yet, she's a brilliant woman with a solidly Democratic platform that shows Matheson is really nothing but a tarted-up Republican in a blue jersey!...

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 9, 2010 5:51 PM

'Tis @60

Sometimes being at sea can be a bit more exciting than you might really want.

Posted by: pixelfish | May 9, 2010 6:04 PM

@Lynna: We had two different versions of the licked cupcake: the chewed gum and the rose with the petals pull off. Oh, man, church was the place for really bad metaphors regarding sexuality, all commodifying virginity as a single-use resource. (One of the other reasons to leave the church: all the completely daft stuff I don't want my kids to be taught.)

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 9, 2010 6:10 PM

I have much better horrid metaphors. the baseball glove, for example: a brand new one is completely useless and needs to be broken in first, whereas a used one is ready to play from the start!

:-p

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 9, 2010 6:30 PM

iambilly:

If all songs are about sex or god(s), where do drinking songs (Ninety Nine Bottles of Beer on the Wall for example) fit in?

Drinking often leads to sex? ;p

Welcome back, JeffreyD! Did you have a good time?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 9, 2010 6:36 PM

Ol' Greg: And it sure won't be "Conservatina"... Accordion to whom?

I believe that's a concertina. Something I'm more likely to fall in love with than Walton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD8X4-DrNU8

Posted by: JeffreyD | May 9, 2010 6:43 PM

Hello dear Caine, Fleur du mal. Yep, had a good time, spousal unit on plane back to the US and I am back in my cold, lonely flat. (dramatic sweep of arm across eyes accompanied by deep sigh of longing - incidentally hiding grin.) I am beat and my never properly healed broken heel bone and semi shredded Achilles tendon giving me hell...that said, worth it, every step and every pain. How be the Caine and the rest of the clan?

Eyes crossed from reading, going to bed. Will play catch up tomorrow.

Nite all.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 9, 2010 7:01 PM

Yes, the "licked cupcake" is one of those mormon tropes that regularly makes the rounds, especially as a warning to Young Women's groups. The moral goes like this: If you had your choice of all the cupcakes on a platter, would you choose the one that someone else had already licked? [cue "yuck" and "eeww" shudders from the chaste young women]

Because, of course, we all know that women are just cupcakes on a platter waiting to be picked by men, and that they have to measure their self-worth according to how well they please their husbands. They couldn't possibly be autonomous human beings with their own interests and wishes. Oh, no. /sarcasm

Seriously, can the Mormon women in question not see how condescending and objectifying this whole attitude is? Women are not cupcakes, nor are they gifts on a platter for the benefit of men. They're human beings, and they have the right to make their own life-choices in accordance with what they want and what they believe to be right. If they want to be chaste until marriage, that’s fine – it’s up to them to make that choice – but they should do it because they want to, not because they think men want them to.

======

Ol'Greg,

I believe that's a concertina. Something I'm more likely to fall in love with than Walton.

Hmmm.... you're more likely to fall in love with a concertina than with me? Or you're more likely to fall in love with a concertina than I am?

It has to be said, both meanings are probably equally accurate. I can't say I've ever had any particular amorous urges towards concertinas. And the other one probably speaks for itself. :-)

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 9, 2010 7:12 PM

Off-topic: Ol'Greg, I really like your blog. Your photos of Paris and environs are amazing, and are making me want to go there (especially as it's only a couple of hours away).

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | May 9, 2010 7:27 PM

Because, of course, we all know that women are just cupcakes on a platter waiting to be picked by men, and that they have to measure their self-worth according to how well they please their husbands.

Then would the dreaded cupcake cake be an orgy?

Seriously, can the Mormon women in question not see how condescending and objectifying this whole attitude is?

Given that some of them call themselves prairie muffins, I would guess not.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 9, 2010 7:38 PM

*smacks Walton*

???? What did I do?

Sorry if I said something stupid. I didn't mean to.

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 9, 2010 7:42 PM

I'm discovering the joys of the Jadehawk biorhythm. Specifically, I just worked undisturbed till 1 am and actually got something finished, because my brother threw me out of the room at 11 pm.

However, I'm tired now, so I'll go to bed instead of helping Sili.

So there will be pressure on the [Greek] government to cut expenditure even further, which it will have to do by further cutting salaries and pensions...

Ouch. Thanks for the explanation.

Yer right, but "... 'mentibus' " maybe. Same lapse, several alleged minds.

You're looking for mentium, the genitive (as opposed to dative/ablative) plural.

Can Brigham Young's Great Great Gay Progressive Granddaughter Oust a Blue Dog and Win a House Seat in Utah?

Sounds good...

I note with pleasure that teh ECO has recently performed some (much-needed IMO) house-cleaning by getting rid not only of the Blinking Dr. Strangelove War Room Map below every comment box but also his Twitter feed and that ridiculous Top Posts widget, which afaik nobody ever knew what it meant.

Oh. I only noticed the map was gone, and the next day I noticed the activity of this laptop's fan was back to normal. Yes, the Twitter feed was useless, and the Top Posts widget was only good for quickly finding an interesting thread that hadn't been commented on very recently – that occurs once a month or so.

A whole pew of teenagers passed a single piece of gum up and down the row a few times

:-D

If they want to be chaste until marriage, that’s fine – it’s up to them to make that choice –

...though I still recommend against it. If you don't know each other inside and out-, I doubt you should enter that particular kind of long-term binding contract.

(Always funny when I say such things, hmpf.)

Will check out the Paris photos and the whitepaper tomorrow later today.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | May 9, 2010 7:50 PM

@thornae, I suspect that you may be a fellow AICSAn? Shall we start up a Laudate? La's a G, don't forget the grunting and air punching.

If this makes no sense, then sorry. I have discovered that chorister humour around the world is pretty similar, though fine details vary.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 9, 2010 7:59 PM

(and then I'll give him his very own cupcake)

Licked or unlicked?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 9, 2010 8:13 PM

I've just realised that given the context, #101 will probably be interpreted as a sexual innuendo. For clarification, I was actually talking about real cupcakes. :-D

(I occasionally do talk about things other than sex, British politics and my own emotional travails. Sometimes.)

Posted by: Cobolt | May 9, 2010 8:22 PM

Given that some of them call themselves prairie muffins, I would guess not.

I have much better horrid metaphors. the baseball glove, for example: a brand new one is completely useless and needs to be broken in first, whereas a used one is ready to play from the start!

:-p

Posted by: Weed Monkey | May 9, 2010 8:34 PM

#105, I'm no mormon but that sounds just the right kind of kinky for me! Although it just might not be the right way to introduce my new, eh, baseball glove to anything...

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 9, 2010 8:38 PM

I'll say it again, Walton: you're too young to worry that much about this.

Meh. You're probably right.

Go to bed and sleep instead of sinking into depression.

Sleep is overrated... since getting up (at about 8.30am) I've had three cups of strong coffee and about a litre-and-a-half of diet cola, so I'm still on the caffeine high. Anyway, I had eight hours' sleep last night, so don't really need to sleep so much tonight. (I'm in the process of trying to train myself to cram information with less sleep.)

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 9, 2010 8:43 PM

not going to work. you'll just make yourself ill again. stop wasting time on training yourself not to sleep.

At the moment I'm going through cycles: I operate for a few days with four or five hours' sleep a night, but after a few days of little sleep I just get so exhausted that I completely lose the plot and just can't concentrate any more. This week, the whole staying-up-for-the-general-election thing didn't do me much good. :-(

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 9, 2010 8:46 PM

right. so instead of forcing yourself to gain an extra 3 hours a day for a few days, and then lose an entire day due to exhaustion and grogginess, you could instead just get 8 hours of sleep every day and not lose any days at all.

mathematically, my solution gives you more hours. health-wise, my solution is also less likely to make you physically and/or mentally ill.

Posted by: AnthonyK | May 9, 2010 8:48 PM

Sorry if I said something stupid. I didn't mean to.

I'm in the process of trying to train myself to cram information with less sleep

Have you seen how a baseball glove is "worn in"?

After class he told me I could get away with it once but not to do it again

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 9, 2010 8:57 PM

It's 2am. I could reply to Jadehawk's comments about Margaret Thatcher; or I could carry on trying to cram my brain full of tenancies, contractual licences and leasehold covenants in land law; or I could go to bed. Tough choice.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 9, 2010 9:00 PM

go to bed.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 9, 2010 9:06 PM

since getting up (at about 8.30am) I've had three cups of strong coffee and about a litre-and-a-half of diet cola

Yikes! I'm a bit of a caffeine addict myself and even I think that's a bit excessive (though I've probably taken similar amounts when studying for exams).

I actually had a buddy who needed to get a lab report and two assignments done in one night. He drank something like eight espressos and had to be taken to the hospital for caffeine intoxication. So don't take it too far!

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 9, 2010 9:21 PM

Admittedly, this is not a coherent argument about why Thatcher is a horrid PM. But it is a great rave up about Richard Thompson's dislike of her.

Posted by: AnthonyK | May 9, 2010 9:23 PM

I don't envy you Walton, it all sound so...so...well, so

fucking boring

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 9, 2010 9:59 PM

What, pray, is the ultimate goal of all these legal studies? What are you going to do in the world with all this auto-adminstered dentistry?

He has said that he wants to legally help immigrants. I think this is a noble choice (and not exactly the most lucrative position he have could taken).

Posted by: Orange Utan, Librarian of Death | May 9, 2010 10:04 PM

@Rorschach

First impression: slow.

In other news, dog bites man. :)

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 9, 2010 10:09 PM

This is the one major argument in my marriage, but not something that I am NOT willing to compromise.

Bloody owlmirror already beat me to the compromise joke.....

Half a circumcision?! That's absolutely horrifying!

Posted by: Orange Utan, Librarian of Death | May 9, 2010 10:18 PM

@OurDeadSelves

What about leaving it up to the child when the child is old enough to decide for themselves?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 9, 2010 10:42 PM

ODS:

However, Mr. ODS insists on infant circumcision, citing Jewish** tradition. He had it done to him shortly after birth and so did his brothers and so did his dad... you get the picture. It doesn't matter to him that we're not raising our children in any faith, he just can't get over the tradition part.

What would happen if you just flatly said, "No. I'm not doing this, tradition is not enough of a justification to do something to our son he might not choose himself, and I'm really disturbed that cutting his penis is more important to you than taking the default position against any surgery unless it's necessary. Something deeper here is going on, and we need to talk about it. Right now."

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | May 9, 2010 10:52 PM

Off-topic: Ol'Greg, I really like your blog. Your photos of Paris and environs are amazing, and are making me want to go there (especially as it's only a couple of hours away).

Thanks, Lynna! Not that I've read all your posts yet ...

Damn. My sleeping is getting even more fucked up lately. I got up laaaate Friday, didn't go to bed. Tried taking a nap Saturday around two pm, got up Sunday at 5 am. Took another nap Sunday 4 pm and got up today 2 am because I couldn't sleep any more.

And I still haven't bothered to write any applications!

Bugger.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 9, 2010 10:56 PM

Josh:

"No. I'm not doing this, tradition is not enough of a justification to do something to our son he might not choose himself...."

That's my next step, I think. I don't know what will happen after that, except both of us will probably end up crying. (We're both emotional mushballs.)

Geoff:

Are they the sort of person that will go behind your back and do it anyway no matter what the decision?

No, thankfully, he's not.

He's also not insisting that a mohel does it or anything like that, so I'm kind of confused how he can justify pulling the tradition/religion card if he's not interested in doing the whole ceremony.

I realize that I've made Mr. ODS seem like a total jerkwad, but really he's not. Most things we can compromise on, but this is one thing he's totally stubborn and irrational about.

Posted by: Orange Utan, Librarian of Death | May 9, 2010 11:03 PM

@OurDeadSelves

I realize that I've made Mr. ODS seem like a total jerkwad, but really he's not. Most things we can compromise on, but this is one thing he's totally stubborn and irrational about.

You just need to out-stubborn and out-irrational him. Although insisting on tradition but not requiring a mohel to do the ceremony is pretty damned irrational.

Unrelated: damn I love TextExpander for creating my blockquotes for me with copied text currently in the clipboard.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 9, 2010 11:11 PM

Speaking of Windows, has anyone yet used Windows 7? Anything - anything at all - must be better than that nightmare Vista which owns my laptop.

Posted by: Orange Utan, Librarian of Death | May 9, 2010 11:14 PM

His (I'm hoping) hypothetical comment really doesn't work unless you picture the gumby blockquote. :)

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 9, 2010 11:19 PM

Geoff:

Although insisting on tradition but not requiring a mohel to do the ceremony is pretty damned irrational.

I KNOW! And it's incredibly frustrating for me because he's being so damned weird about this! I just want to shake him and say "Stop using your religion as a crutch! It's not doing either of us any good! Think for yourself, dammit!"

Josh:
Oh, I know it's stupid. This whole fucking argument is stupid. That's why I was looking for second and third opinions on the endless thread. ;)

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 9, 2010 11:26 PM

His (I'm hoping) hypothetical comment...

Nope, actual comment from our last "discussion" from a couple of months ago. Or close to it anyway. He did mention his "pact" and tradition, so there you go.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 9, 2010 11:30 PM

@OurDeadSelves - Trust me, there are many many more disagreements over parenting beyond circumcision, even with the general idea that one ought not to snip parts off of babies. And parents have to learn not to brawl - that's a challenge in and of itself. In retrospect, the debate about circumcision has not been the most difficult parenting decision we've faced and fought over. (As I said on the other thread, I did go along with my husband's wish to have it done, but was insistent on anesthesia and pain relief.)

Circumcision is weird and primitive. Being pregnant and giving birth, whether or not one needs medical or surgical intervention, is also weird and primitive. Nursing is weird and primitive. I'm not even going to get into weaning and toilet training, or the whole parenting of teenagers phenomenon. Basically there is no way of being a human mammal that is "natural" (whatever that means) and devoid of cultural influence, whether or not that culture involves religion. Not all cultural influences encourage one to snip parts off of babies, but decisions about all aspects of parenting are influenced in subtle and not-so-subtle ways by religious and cultural pressures.

The issue of how and when to go along with cultural traditions that are or may once have been religious is something that I've been thinking about for the last few days. Holiday celebrations are wonderful, but how does one decide which holidays one is to celebrate? I've heard plenty of people discuss why Christmas is an acceptable holiday for atheists to celebrate. How about Easter, or Good Friday, or St. Blaise's Day (Groundhog Day, when one gets one's throat blessed with candles to prevent sore throats)? Is it legitimate to observe traditionally religious holidays even if that leads some people to misidentify one as a theist?

And actually on the half-a-circumcision joke, the procedure does actually vary in how much foreskin is snipped off. My opinion would be less is more, obviously.

Posted by: Orange Utan, Librarian of Death | May 9, 2010 11:41 PM

@ODS

Send him over to the For the boys with boo-boos thread.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 9, 2010 11:43 PM

Geoff:
That's where I started on my advice seeking trek. Maybe it's high time he sees it, too.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 9, 2010 11:51 PM

@ODS - I have heard (but am not a medical professional and thus not qualified to judge) that mohels actually perform a less extreme version of circumcision than that which is usually done in hospitals. In other words, they actually snip less.

I agree that circumcision is not like the other weird and primitive parts of raising kids. But the arguments used aren't completely dissimilar either.

Just have a girl - it's easier on everyone.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 9, 2010 11:54 PM

OK, I'm going to stop talking about circumcision now (hooray) and go to sleep. I avoided seeing Ironman2, which my spiffy son decided should be my Mother's Day present, and I got to spend quality time with my godless knitting friends and my new sheep fleeces instead.

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 9, 2010 11:55 PM

Sperm can be sorted.

It can, but that sure takes the fun out of things.

Well, if it's fun you want, make the decision be the outcome of some complex and particularly convoluted game. A rigged game, in your favor.

(Really, I don't know why I'm in such a silly mood.)

Posted by: Cobolt | May 10, 2010 12:06 AM

I remember seeing a 60 Minutes article or similar on circumcision adn a Rabai was saying jewish boys should be circumcised, but to circumcise a child for other than religious beliefs was an affront to GOD. ??

Perhaps Mr ODS' concern is that his son should look like him - thus the traditional aspect. I wouldn't know how to overcome this but it may help in understanding his position.

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 10, 2010 12:30 AM

Mr. ODS: Circumcision symbolizes my people's pact with God!
Me: Wait, what? You don't even know if God exists!
Mr. ODS: So? It's tradition!

A lot of religiously-motivated heel-dragging arises from uncertainty that arises from ignorance, I suspect.

I would recommend two books --

Who Wrote the Bible, by Richard Friedman

The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman

Which I read because they were recommended on Pharyngula, as I recall.

They both make it pretty clear that the bible, in which the whole pact with God thing occurs, was made up by various factions, each with their own agenda, trying to advance their religio-political causes.

Also,

  http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html

(which partly references some of the above)

If, after reading all that, he still thinks that there was (or might have been) a pact with God...

Well, I don't know.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 10, 2010 12:44 AM

Walton, maybe you should move to Nevada.....

Virgins to be auctioned to highest bidder

Posted by: JustALurker | May 10, 2010 3:04 AM

Speaking of Windows, has anyone yet used Windows 7? Anything - anything at all - must be better than that nightmare Vista which owns my laptop.

Yeah, I have it on the new laptop I bought. I love it. It really is a lot better. Much easier to use and great features. I haven't had any crashes, freeze ups or other issues. Vista is horrid, XP is better, and Windows 7 is best as far as Windows goes. My computer programmer boyfriend also got one through a program at work and he's in love with it too. He hates switching to other computers to see how his stuff works on other operating systems. lol. I will stop there, don't want to bring back up the hot debate on windows vs. mac vs. everything else =)

Posted by: Rorschach | May 10, 2010 3:29 AM

Sorted out the EeePC wireless issue.One word, ndiswrapper.Got to have the Windows driver and use it in a "wrapper", all good now, actually takes 5 minutes to fix once you know how.Still disappointing that it's not in the kernel OOTB.

I used Win7 in the Beta, faster than Vista(duh !), but it's still Windows.The netbook I bought came with *gasp* antivirus software !! Havent used any of that stuff for 10 years.

Where was PZ again last weekend? I'm perusing pics of him with various freethinkers on FB atm, and there are some hot chicks lovely freethinkers there, for sure !

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 10, 2010 4:15 AM

yes. the dehydration alone can't be good for you.

Posted by: JustALurker | May 10, 2010 4:21 AM

Heh. Well, there you go, Josh OSG. Two completely independant and utterly contradictory reviews of the same product. I hope that helps.

LOL. yeah really. but that happens when you talk to individuals, they have different expectations, experiences, etc. Like with browsers most people here and that I know love Firefox but I can't stand it, it just doesn't work for me. I bought my new laptop that came with it so I don't know about how long it takes to get it up and running on an laptop like with you're experience. Plus, it really depends on what you like and expect out of it. Honestly, even if Windows 7 isn't like big of a improve from Vista, I maybe unhappy about it but I'd still be using it. I'm not a Mac fan because I've had some and never could recover from the major fuck ups that happened. So I would lose everything and be fucked until I could get a new computer. My boyfriend had an old computer that had major problems with the blue screen of death and reformatting it all the time. He still prefers Windows and loves Windows 7. He just backed everything up and adjusted to his problems. Now with his new computer we've had no problems with it. Nothings perfect but it works for me and him beautifully.

For gadget info, it's good to talk to people you know but also look at actual reviews. That's what I always do. When I bought my new mp3 player there were people that had horrible experiences and others that loved it. Those stories made me nervous but there were plenty of good reviews and stories. I went with it because I thought it would work for me. I love the one I bought and haven't had any problems with it but that doesn't mean you will like it or not have problems. Just take it all with a grain of salt. Of course, I'm sure you already new all of that so forget I said anything. =)

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 10, 2010 4:27 AM

also, why are you awake, Walton? you only went away a few hours ago, you have no right to be awake right now. go back to bed immediately, unless there's something you absolutely must do right now that can't be done later.

? I went to bed at 2am, and got up again at about 8.45. That's plenty of sleep. I have tons of work to do this morning, which I'm about to get started on.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 10, 2010 4:40 AM

Not that this'll happen to you - but whither Walton the lawyer?

You may well ask. My career plan has been to become a local "high street" solicitor doing legal aid work, specialising in criminal defence and immigration.

But I'm not even 100 percent sure I want to be a lawyer. I do have alternatives. I've been offered a place for next year on a masters course in "Social Science of the Internet" at the Oxford Internet Institute (assuming I get a 2.i), for which I applied on an impulse. If I take it up and do well on that course, I might go on to a doctorate and see if I can move into academia, rather than a career in the law. But I'm not certain whether I'm bright enough to succeed as an academic.

Alternatively, I've also thought about doing a masters in library and information science, and becoming a public librarian - though the comparative scarcity of library jobs could be a problem.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 10, 2010 4:59 AM

Viruses aren't that bad and you can deal with them.

You misunderstood. My computers don't do viruses...:-)

I think there is about 50 Linux viruses out there, as opposed to ~60.000 for Windows, and that's not counting software vulnerabilities.
And if you happen to have to run Windows at times, you use antivir for antivirus business, it's free, unintrusive and not resource-hungry.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 10, 2010 5:19 AM

If I take it up and do well on that course, I might go on to a doctorate and see if I can move into academia, rather than a career in the law. But I'm not certain whether I'm bright enough to succeed as an academic.

Argh. I should add - as I realise in retrospect that this comment was ambiguous and could be read the wrong way - that I was certainly not suggesting that legal practice doesn't require as much ability: that's not fair and would be somewhat offensive to a lot of brilliant lawyers. (Bride of Shrek wouldn't be too pleased... neither would Geoffrey Robertson QC, in the extremely unlikely event that he's reading this.) Just making clear that that isn't what I meant, as I suddenly realised that my comment could be (mis)read that way.

I'm not doing too well today when it comes to clear communication. :-(

Posted by: John Morales | May 10, 2010 5:34 AM

Walton:

@108: Sleep is overrated... [...] (I'm in the process of trying to train myself to cram information with less sleep.)
@182: I'm not doing too well today when it comes to clear communication. :-(

What you're doing is becoming accustomed to functioning on a sleep-deprivation regime, so you don't notice your loss of ability as it becomes the norm.

(You're also working on increasing your caffeine tolerance.)

Not smart, handicapping yourself thus, and relying on your resilience due to youth and health. Ah well, your choice.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 10, 2010 6:09 AM

Josh:

Speaking of Windows, has anyone yet used Windows 7? Anything - anything at all - must be better than that nightmare Vista which owns my laptop.

Yeah, I'm running it. It came with my Asus laptop. It's okay, after it's been tweaked to remove the large amount of bloatware. For Windows, it's stable. So, I don't mind it, and that's high praise from me, I'm not a Windows fan.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 10, 2010 6:27 AM

The YBF apparently sends young Tories to training camps in USA to meet neo-conservatives and practice firing submachine guns and assault rifles.

yeah, because what we need is to export a bunch of Hutaree-lookalikes to Europe. Bloody hell.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 10, 2010 6:36 AM

Fucking animal wankers.

That's not fair. I have good friends who were involved in her campaign. I think they're wrong, but it doesn't make them bad people. Politics isn't so simple as that.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 10, 2010 6:42 AM

And, Sili: I have to wonder why you're so personally invested in local Oxford politics.

You appear to be slightly in love with Evan Harris... (to be fair, I can understand this). :-P

Posted by: ursulamajor | May 10, 2010 6:59 AM

Just in case you missed it:

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/05/bronte_sisters_action_figures.php

Go, Brontes, Go!

Posted by: John Morales | May 10, 2010 7:04 AM

Made the news here: Stormy Weather singer Lena Horne dies.

Horne is credited with breaking the ground for black actresses to get bigger roles in Hollywood

Posted by: Alan B | May 10, 2010 7:09 AM

I came across a site (can't remember the route) called

http://christwire.org/

My first reaction was it was true - a nutty religious site. Then I thought it must be satire. (On the lines of the Onion.) One of the reasons was that there was no obvious link to the owners of the site - surely they would be proud of standing up for morality in the type of immoral society they portrayed? Then I wondered - there probably are groups that are as nutty as that out there.

Can anyone give a definitive answer? Is this satire? Whether it is or not, who runs it?

Wiki "The font of all knowledge"

Posted by: BarbieWanKenobi | May 10, 2010 7:37 AM

I just don't know why my ability to think and communicate seems to be vastly diminished lately. I suppose it's a combination of sleep-deprivation and being fed up with revision.

You're not the only one- I've just read the phrase 'only homozygotic genotypes will present with clinical symptoms' as 'only homoEROTIC genotypes will present with clinical symptoms' and it took me a good half a minute of eyerubbing and wondering how the hell you'd know a homoerotic genotype from a none homoerotic genotype to figure out where I went wrong! Although it does make me wonder why homoeroticism was at the forefront of my mind....

Stick at it Hon, it'll all be over soon.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | May 10, 2010 7:53 AM

@Josh OSG:

I installed Windows 7 on my PC and discovered I need to upgrade.

It's good, but you need more power in your computer than you think you do.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 10, 2010 7:59 AM

Oh poor Walton! lol

Thank you darling ;)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | May 10, 2010 8:05 AM

I've been on Windows 7 since January, and I really like it. As for my perspective, I found Vista to be an abomination of the sort that I refused to use it on a new computer, and retrofitted it from the installed Vista back to XP. There are a few things that are easier to find - I never even knew Vista had a snipping tool after using it for over a year, and it was right there in 7. It's a little faster, and there are a couple of bells and whistles I really like, including the window preview on the toolbar.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 10, 2010 8:18 AM

Ok, schmalz time....

Robbie-My Way live

Robbie-Sexed up live(disclaimer: do not listen to if currently in doubts about your relationship !)

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | May 10, 2010 8:23 AM

Okay yay, I had a really annoying song stuck in my head all morning... but I beat it out.

With this (fuck yeah)

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 10, 2010 8:34 AM

Oh. Extra empty lines get deleted. :-(

its precise function remains unknown AFAIK

Yes, the state of the art is as you say.

They have a great range of fresh soups - full of vitamins and trace elements and free of all the chemicals they put into diet colas to keep you drinking the stuff, quite apart from what it does to the digestive system. Besides, the walk would probably do you good.

<drool>

Walton, heed that advice right after your nap, which I hope is not yet over.

..... /removes hat and reverts to the theory that this little old lady look is a disguise.

Aw. Come, be our grandma :o)

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | May 10, 2010 8:44 AM

2) Excessive alcohol was probably the main factor in Thatcher's mental decline.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | May 10, 2010 8:55 AM

@Carlie:

I get serious insomnia for about a week a month. Can't sleep, wake up randomly throughout the night, always tired when my alarm buzzes. I used to take sleeping pills for it, but I tossed them and just suffer it for the week.

Then I sleep wonderfully, wake up refreshed and happy and wonder what the problem was for the prior week.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 10, 2010 9:03 AM

To the "can't sleep" whingers....

Try shift work ! If you haven't tried to force yourself to go to bed on a bright warm sunny morning at 9am, you havent lived ! Oh, and try that for 20 years !

Having said that, I love Red Bull....

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | May 10, 2010 9:05 AM

@Rorschach:

I've learned to deal.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | May 10, 2010 9:27 AM

@Rev. BigDumbChimp

I tried chalking the foundation of the house where the ants were coming in and there's something to that. The ants would just walk along the boundary of the chalk line without crossing it. Not a permanent solution, but certainly useful. Thanks!

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | May 10, 2010 9:35 AM

@Carlie:

Well, fortunately for me, my alarm goes off at 5.45 anyway. Still can't get to sleep some nights, but it's not been so bad.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | May 10, 2010 9:50 AM

Rorshach says:

Try shift work ! If you haven't tried to force yourself to go to bed on a bright warm sunny morning at 9am, you havent lived !

Haven't done it for 20 years, but enough to sympathize. If one is working on an experiment based around a particle accelerator, said machines run either 24/7 or they don't run at all, and they cost $$$$ to run.

My dissertation experiment was such a beast. I ran mostly owl shifts--8 PM to 4 AM. But of course there was a hand-off, which meant I usually got in to bed just as the birds started waking up. And of course, occasionally, just to screw you up, they'd give you a shift in the middle of the day. Or if the experiment wasn't working, you be up 24-36 hours straight trying to fix it.

I remember one time--two post-docs, both named Paul got into some sort of informal contest trying to stay up longer than the other. After 76 hours without sleep, we had to assign a minder to each one to keep them from touching anything and breaking it. When the experiment was about to come back on line, we went looking for one of the Pauls and couldn't find him. This is a big thing, as we were just about to send 800 GeV neutrons down the beam pipe. We finally found him asleep inside the magnet nestled up to the warm coils!

I still run experiments like this, only now it's only about one week out of every month.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | May 10, 2010 9:59 AM

On caffeine: I do that too, actually. There tends to be a large pile of Diet Coke 2-liters next to my computer desk. And I will go several days where that's my only source of liquid, some times.

But! I'm trying to get my caffeine from more organic sources in the future. I'm still moving in to my new apartment, but I've got a new electric kettle, a tea infuser pot, and a French Press ready to go as soon as I get desk space. I just need to find a supplier of loose-leaf tea and good coffee around here, and I'm set. ;-)

And I did the whole "I'm an engineer! No time to sleep! Too macho to need sleep! Rawr!" thing during college.... until I was no longer an engineer due to failing classes due to sleeping through them. Just a lowly CS BS. Learn from my tragedy. (And, ok, the fact that Diff Eq and my brain could not get along is a problem, too)

(Seriously, now that I'm out of college and unemployed, I'm finding I need LESS sleep then I thought a "full night's sleep" was, because I'm actually getting what I need (some of that may be growing a wee bit older, too, though). And I feel infinitely more alert and happy and yay!)

Posted by: Rorschach | May 10, 2010 10:04 AM

You still get enough sleep, don't you?

Not on the first day, you dont.You sleep from 10 to 1 or something, and then spend the rest of the day tossing and turning, until you finally get up at 7pm to shower and have dinner.I tell you, Red Bull is your friend...:-)

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | May 10, 2010 10:13 AM

I miss the synchrotron.

Of course, I was never there for more than a coupla days, wasn't allowed to do much but watch and didn't have to do the night shift ...

Posted by: sidhe | May 10, 2010 10:19 AM

*headdesk*

Deserve. Apparently I also fail at spell check. Is it Friday yet?

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | May 10, 2010 10:37 AM

On Bacon: in my recent apartment search, I had a close runner-up of an adoooooorable little cottage, a block from the beach (San Diego), on Bacon Street.

But then I looked at a map, and the places a job would likely be (ie: far from the aforementioned beach, and through a few chokepoint roads that by all accounts are HELL at rush hour), and decided to go for a more centrally-located place.

(But Bacon St. would've been fun, too.)

Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées | May 10, 2010 11:04 AM

MrFire #223:

I had a barista in Naples tell me that you should always break in your new moka (or machine, for that matter) by running salt water through it the first time. Then, several runs of fresh water. You still won't have coffee perfection for a month or more, but at least you don't get the metal taste.

We have a machine. Have had for five years now. It makes even the moka-made espressos taste "off".

When we moved back, we brought a couple of cases of Kimbo.

Posted by: BarbieWanKenobi | May 10, 2010 11:38 AM

Given all the discussion in this thread of Margaret Thatcher, and our typical preponderance of musical links, I'm somewhat surprised nobody has yet posted this (note that this is my typical blind YouTube link; forgive me if it's not what I think it is).

Not as poetic but I think my favourite 'anti-Thatcher' song is here.
But then I am a little (OK, make that a lot) in love with Frank Turner.

Posted by: MrFire | May 10, 2010 11:48 AM

I had a barista in Naples tell me that you should always break in your new moka (or machine, for that matter) by running salt water through it the first time. Then, several runs of fresh water.

Huh, that's pretty interesting.

*puts on bullshitter hat*

I wonder if it's something to do with the chloride ion of salt picking up, or otherwise sequestering, extraneous iron.

*takes off bullshitter hat*

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 10, 2010 11:52 AM

A few comments from ex-mormons in relation to Sili's argument with Katherine-the-mormon on pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/05/06/unintelligent_design.php:

Evolution is incompatible with either the Biblical or Temple stories of creation-- according to Apostle of the Lord Bruce R. McConkie.
     In his book "Mormon Doctrine" he lays out many of the ways evolutionary theory is incompatible with either of the Mormon creation stories. A position he obviously came about "thoughtfully and prayerfully", with the aid of revelation, to which he is entitled being an apostle of the Lord (afterall, he's an apostle, seer AND revelator).
     - Evolution says there has always been death in the world even before the Fall of Man.
- Evolution says Man has not always existed, but is relatively recent. The Bible & Temple both say different.
- The creation stories say the Gods created Man in their image after their likeness. Hard to square that with slow adaptations to the environment made by changing the frequency of alleles in certain populations.
- Even evolution the creation story as a metaphor for evolution doesn't square.
- The prophets, seers & revelators Brigham Young & John Taylor said each species only reproduces its own kind: true generation to generation, but eventually an isolated population has so many different alleles that it can no longer produce fertile offspring with a long separated evolutionary cousin.
- Humans came out of Africa about 100K years ago and were black to deal with the Saharan sun. White/Yellow didn't come about til later. Mo'ism teaches black came about after white.
- The Bible, confirmed in the D&C, preaches that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Again incompatible with Mormonism. Mormons counter with the creation stories being metaphors or the Gods using different calendars than we, but one is mystified why the almighty must play numbers games with we mortals rather than using our numbers, which we could actually understand

threads by Benson, myself, Simon, and a number of others have accurately depicted the church's two-faced and inconsistent views of Darwin and evolution.
     I mentioned Joseph Fielding Smith's, "Man, His Origin and Destiny" was huge for me in deciding the church and LDS leadership was a crock. JFS had just ascended to the leadership of the church in 1970 when I read it (as a senior in high school). He insisted on the "6,000 year old Earth doctrine, and that evolution was incompatible with the Fall of Adam." I think I agree with him on that last point . . .
     Evolution is taught appropriately in many of the biological science classes at BYU, but around a hundred years ago when that university was new and trying to forge a legitimate academic reputation, several individuals were dismissed or resigned from teaching positions--at the behest of a member of the CES--because of the issue of evolution.
     The schizoid split was obvious between Joseph Fielding Smith and his predecessor, David O. Mckay; I'm fairly certain the latter did believe in evolution, albet within the backdrop of a "God-ordered Universe."
     A huge chunk to everyday Mormons reject evolution, of course, and there are the doctrinal/historical problems involving the Universal Flood, etc.
     I'll dig up the stuff about the BYU firings, and maybe Benson is around to add some further illumination . . .
     Seriously though, I would characterize arguing with Mormons on the subject as a "Green Jello mud-wrestling event in the psycho ward" as much as anything . . . Cue up an image of that one as a tag team duel with some participants wearing bikinis or speedos and their opponents wearing garmies . . .
     Absurd stuff requires absurd treatment, IMHO . . .
     Anyway, this latest news of Neanderthal DNA "surviving" in modern humans of European descent offers an opportunity for a useful post on the subject. Actually, the news media histrionics are suggesting it is far more "settled science" than it legitimately ought to be (particularly given how recent the research is); their agenda has always been to get people to read their ragsheets rather than paying homage to genuine objectivity.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 10, 2010 11:56 AM

Sven, stupid was not the right word. Inclusive fitness is not payment to individuals, but to genes, which at best can be described as diffuse masses covering the planet. An ant does not benefit from its own death in battle, while the genes may. But genes can benefit only if a crystal "benefits" by growing.

Being in control of your portion of work is all about you the individual. Marx makes an appeal to personal gain: the exploitation of most of you by a few is not the necessary way of the world.

The difference between autonomy and what Dawkins calls the tyranny of the selfish replicators is too far for the analogy. If Wilson meant no insight, then I'm making too much of it.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | May 10, 2010 12:04 PM

Further update:

Brown will stand down as Labour leader but remain PM for the immediate future.

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 10, 2010 12:07 PM

I wonder if it's something to do with the chloride ion of salt picking up, or otherwise sequestering, extraneous iron.

Would surprise me. FeCl₃ is very well soluble in water; sequestering would mean precipitation. ("You're either part of the solution, or part of the precipitate."

Forgot to mention I watched a short report on the UK election & aftermath on a German public-owned TV channel (ARD). Full of sarcasm. After mentioning the people who were prevented from voting because they hadn't managed to get inside the buildings by 10 pm, it talked about the three losers; "the first loser is the one with the most votes"... then it went on about possible coalitions, and had local talking heads saying that would require rebuilding the House of Commons! It's built for having two sides confronting and attacking each other. They're "deliberately two sword lengths apart", one talking head said. They showed a clip of Clegg calling in obliquely, "like a naughty schoolboy", during a debate because the House only has two sides. The conclusion was that there'd be a new election soon, because negotiating (a coalition government) smells too much of Europe and of foul compromise.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 10, 2010 12:13 PM

Great results in the UK election.

The Lib Dems damn well better get AV as a minimum.

So how does it work, can a party get a legal contract outlining their participation and returns from coalition?

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 10, 2010 12:21 PM

They should try for a contract, because even a court ruling of "factual but unenforceable" could be devastating in public opinion.

Posted by: MrFire | May 10, 2010 12:32 PM

Biochemists probably learned this ages ago, but here is my science awesome for the day:

How does the body distinguish between the structurally (and elctrostatically) near-identical amino acids isoleucine and valine, during protein biosynthesis?

Evidence for the Double-Sieve Editing Mechanism in Protein Synthesis. Steric Exclusion of Isoleucine by Valyl-tRNA Synthetases.

Here is a more recent paper, with structural information on the intercommunicating active sites provided (journal subscription required!).

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 10, 2010 12:45 PM

According to ConservaPOEdia, Nick Clegg effectively deciding the next Prime Minister "is dangerous because Clegg is an atheist"!!! *gasp*

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | May 10, 2010 12:55 PM

"Green Jello mud-wrestling event in the psycho ward"

Posted by: Alan B | May 10, 2010 1:02 PM

#242 MrFire: #250 David Marjanović

I wonder if it's something to do with the chloride ion of salt picking up, or otherwise sequestering, extraneous iron.

The word sequestering or sequestration has a special meaning in the chemistry of metal ions (like iron):

Enclosing a metal ion by one or more polydentate ligands as in a chelate complex.

O.K. I know this is "The Wonder of Wiki" but as a chemist I would be happy with this description.

A chelate is (usually) an organic compound which binds strongly to a metal ion at two or more points on the chelate molecule. For example, a molecule like EDTA bonds the metal ion at 6 "points" and "wraps itself" around the metal ion.

The result is that the metal ion is "withdrawn" (the common meaning of "sequestering") from being able to react with other chemicals. For example, EDTA sequesters calcium ions which can no longer react with soap to produce scum. I understand EDTA can be added to blood to prevent calcium-induced clotting.

Thus, in the sense that chemists would use the term "sequestering", chloride is not a sequestering agent. As David says, ferric chloride is ionised in solution and chloride cannot be said to sequester iron - certainly not at the level in seawater.

Let us assume this is a real effect and the same would not have occurred by just boiling and rinsing with tap water ...

It could be that any plastic or rubber components have ion exchange capacity. If so, iron would be strongly held by ion exchange (being Fe2+ or Fe3+ in solution). Seawater contains high levels of sodium ions and substantial amounts of magnesium (as Mg2+) although about 10x less than sodium. It is possible that these are removing any iron held on ion exchange sites.

This is a guess. (IAAC - I am a chemist - but that doesn't mean I'm right!!)

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 10, 2010 1:08 PM

Sounds intriguing. What nodes?

and no, the following two hours I've spent staring at the uploader. Still didn't finish *sigh*

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 10, 2010 1:25 PM

GHP

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 10, 2010 1:28 PM

One more episode of torrential rain has passed. The darkness isn't going away today anymore.

Remember to watch the video.

Lovely, if a bit dark... but the photo below it belongs on Cute Overload ^_^

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | May 10, 2010 1:33 PM

"If anyone feels like getting me a present for the National Hairy Primate day (yes it's on your calendar you just aren't looking hard enough), this would be nice."

I couldn't get those pork ribs, so I got you some singing Hairy Primates.

Enjoy. :)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 10, 2010 1:36 PM

I couldn't get those pork ribs, so I got you some singing Hairy Primates.

uh...

um...

thanks, but I'll hold out for the ribs or the book

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | May 10, 2010 1:41 PM

An idiot in one of the current threads reminded me of a website I love. It helped me get over some of my last few hangups and realize that I was an atheist. It's got some useful information and essays, and the hate mail section is a hoot.

Carry on.

Posted by: Weed Monkey | May 10, 2010 1:43 PM

All this business with badgers and narwhals... you should appreciate the true power of fungi!

Posted by: MrFire | May 10, 2010 1:52 PM

sequestering would mean precipitation.

*commits seppuku for nth time*

Thus, in the sense that chemists would use the term "sequestering", chloride is not a sequestering agent.

*commits seppuku for (n+1)th time*

Note to self: do not throw around terminology willy-nilly, just because it sounds nice.

Let's see if I can redeem myself...er...

EDTA

Aha!

Posted by: Alan B | May 10, 2010 2:07 PM

#265 No. This is topical:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCfAKoVBNc

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 10, 2010 2:18 PM

David @#209: I couldn't take a nap after lunch, as I had to go to a lecture followed by a revision class. Now I absolutely have to complete the unit of work I'm part-way through, which means staying up late again. And I've got another class at 9am tomorrow morning, so will need to be up no later than 7.30. The amount of stuff I have to do, and the absurdly long time it typically takes me to do it, mean that I have no hope of getting a healthy amount of sleep over the next couple of weeks.

And did I really deserve to be quoted in Comic Sans? :-(

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 10, 2010 2:33 PM

The amount of stuff I have to do, and the absurdly long time it typically takes me to do it, mean that I have no hope of getting a healthy amount of sleep over the next couple of weeks.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | May 10, 2010 2:49 PM

OSSUM! documentary about thermodynamics from Nova. Thank you, US taxpayers.

Towards the end - around the 1:30 mark - you get to hear Lene Hau demonstrate just how godawful Danes speak English. Note the horrible prosody and the /əːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːːː/.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 10, 2010 2:56 PM

I don't feel too great right now. :-(

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 10, 2010 3:02 PM

Clegg has apparently been two-timing Cameron by meeting Brown in secret! If this happens while they are still negotiating the terms of the marriage contract, what hope for a happy long-term relationship?

And there aren't even any muscular guys in showers involved...

(see #326 on previous subThread, for anyone who is entirely confused by this reference)

Posted by: MrFire | May 10, 2010 3:06 PM

Oh for shit's sake. Link @278 borked. Here is Deacon Frost exploding after being barraged by Blade with EDTA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taqnAzd1fyg#t=2m51s

Concerning actual complexation chemistry: I have a soft spot for cryptands. In particular, some cryptands are powerful enough to allow for the isolation of alkalides - that is, alkali metal anions.

e.g.: [Na(2,2,2-crypt)]⁺Na^-.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 10, 2010 3:20 PM

Maybe. I think I'm going to have to nap for a couple of hours before continuing with work. I don't feel too great right now. :-(

Do it, and drink some water too. A rested and focused hour is worth three nauseous sleep-deprived hours IME.

But then I get hyper focused and "forget" to sleep. So ymmv.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | May 10, 2010 3:26 PM

That's right, folks. Mary, mother of Jesus, has been necrodunked by the mormons.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 10, 2010 3:32 PM

Sili, I'm not sure it did take them that long to necrodunk Mary, mother of Jesus. It's hard to tell. As the Helen Radkey info reads:

There is no way to know how many times Mary has been subjected to LDS proxy rituals. While there are multiple listings for her in New FamilySearch, most of these entries show any attached LDS ordinances as "Not available." Numerous submissions, which have been contributed by different Mormons, have been merged into the previously mentioned combined record with various descriptions of Mary's identity, including record KJPL-STD for "Mary Mother of Jesus." Other listings for Mary appear individually. Some "…Virgin Mary" entries indicate "Needs more information." The sizeable array of New FamilySearch records for Mary were submitted by a large number of Mormons-evidence that the idea of contemporary baptism for her is not limited to just a few people.
     On March 2, 2010, "Heavenly Father" was named as Mary's only spouse on a New FamilySearch entry for her with "personal identifier" 9HFF-PVQ. She is described on that record in double sets of brackets as "[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin]." The "family tree" on record 9HFF-PVQ currently indicates Mary is the mother of "Jesus the Christ," and also originally stated she was the mother of "(First Man) Adam (-3170 BC)."
     There was a separate listing in New Family Search, on March 2, 2010, for "Heavenly Father" with his "personal identifier" given as 21JV-899. Details of any marriage sealing of "Heavenly Father" to "[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin]" were marked "Not available." Individual LDS ordinances for "Heavenly Father," like baptism, confirmation, initiatory and endowment rituals, were tagged "Needs more information."
     By March 10, 2010, roughly a week later, the name of "Heavenly Father" had vanished from record 21JV-899, and "Heavenly Father" was no longer listed as Mary's spouse on record 9HFF-PVQ for "[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin]." Also removed from that entry for Mary was the name of "(First Man) Adam (-3170 BC)," previously listed as her son. Record 21JV-899 for "Heavenly Father" now shows "[Unknown Name] (-) Living." The LDS ordinance section of this entry currently reads:
     "This individual is living, and his or her ordinances cannot be displayed. To obtain this information, have the person contact his or her ward or branch clerk."
     Was the name of "Heavenly Father" removed from record 9HFF-PVQ for "[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin"] because he is presumed to be alive, or because this was an off-the-wall entry? Why was "Heavenly Father" listed in New FamilySearch-not only as the spouse of Mary-but as a living being who could possibly need LDS ordinances?

Posted by: Alan B | May 10, 2010 3:39 PM

An article on crowns, crypts, alkalides, electrides etc. Accessible provided you don't mind long chemical formulae (but you biologists are used to super-molecules, aren't you!)

http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/June2001/pdf/June2001p71-79.pdf

Also included is information about octopus ligands (Box 3). PZ got there before all of us...

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 10, 2010 4:16 PM

Which Miliband?

The best comment of the BBC's election night coverage (from one of the time-filling-interviews-with-minor-celebrities in between results):

"I think Miliband will be the next Labour leader."
"Which Miliband?"
"The good-looking one!"

:-D :-D

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 10, 2010 4:41 PM

@ Lynna

First off, is it possible to put one's name on an official LDS DON"T EVER DO A POSTHUMOUS DUNKING RITUAL FOR ME list? That would be as good as submitting my official resignation from the RCC.

Second, I told Mr. M about the licked cupcakes and his opinion was that it would be best to choose the cupcake that had been licked by the hottest woman in the room. And then he asked WTF was wrong with people who taught girls that they were cupcakes.

@ All the Badger References -

reminds me of my favorite curse word, BADGER FLAPS. Which are, apparently, horizontal fence extensions along the ground inside and outside of a fence that keep badgers and critters generally from digging into one's garden. Don't know if this is true or not, but it's still a great curse word for those situations in which one cannot use the more expressive utterances.

Posted by: monado | May 10, 2010 4:54 PM

T-shirts: Shirt.woot has a Darwin-themed image in this week's run-off for your votes. The top 3 shirts get produced.

Posted by: monado | May 10, 2010 5:20 PM

Walton, if you're around, take a look: you're mentioned in a T-shirt!

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 10, 2010 5:42 PM

BWK, you can either approach this from several different angles:

you can talk about how religions used "blasphemy" as a means of suppressing freedom of thought, and that therefore not letting them re-establish themselves as protected from insult and criticism is a threat to a free society.

you can ask them to think about what would happen if people always avoided insulting others; would there still be democracy, free speech, and social progress?

I can't think of anything else right now, but I'm sure others can come up with better ideas.

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 10, 2010 6:06 PM

erm. just to clarify, I'm not finished, not the uploader. the uploader is working at an entirely satisfactory pace :-p

Oh, good :-)

Now I absolutely have to complete the unit of work I'm part-way through, which means staying up late again. And I've got another class at 9am tomorrow morning, so will need to be up no later than 7.30.

Bad.

The amount of stuff I have to do, and the absurdly long time it typically takes me to do it, mean that I have no hope of getting a healthy amount of sleep over the next couple of weeks.

Vicious circle, see comment 284. If you keep going, your ability to learn will decline and collapse "over the next couple of weeks".

And did I really deserve to be quoted in Comic Sans? :-(

That sentence did, yes.

I would like a PM I actually had a chance to approve (or otherwise). I believe it used to be called democracy ... but did that go under the bus too?

Maybe you'll find comfort in the fact that the UK method of selecting a PM is very widespread.

For instance, in Austria the entire government (Administration in US terms! The cabinet!) is appointed by the president. In theory, he* can choose the Seven Wisest Men In The Kingdom, but those would soon get a vote of no confidence in parliament, which would mean they'd be fired. Thus, in practice, he starts by appointing the boss of the party that just got the most votes Federal Chancellor ( = PM; incidentally, there is no other job called "chancellor" in the entire country) and tells him* to form a government. Absolute majorities are rare, so the new chancellor's party usually starts coalition negotiations. These partly secret negotiations, and the rumours about them, are covered in detail in the media. After a couple of weeks, a list of people (notably including the head of the coalition partner** as vice chancellor) is presented to the president, who signs the appointment documents.

When the coalition of conservatives and xenophobes formed in March 2000 following the election of October 1999***, it was obvious that making Jörg Haider vice chancellor or indeed giving him any minister job would trigger an outcry in- and outside the country, so some up-to-then completely unknown yes-man was made vice chancellor****; the president further refused to appoint two members of that party who were on the list of proposed ministers, so they were exchanged for two more unknown figureheads. No party-internal election was held, because that party wasn't that democratic.

The president is elected directly.

* No woman on those jobs so far.
** Austria has never had a coalition of more than 2 parties.
*** Following several weeks of "sondage talks"***** by the Social Democrats with all other 3 parties, and several months of attempts to save the doomed coalition of the Social Democrats and the conservatives that neither party wanted anymore. The Social Democrats had lost in a landslide, but still were the biggest party; the head of the conservatives, and up to then vice chancellor, said before the elections that his party would go into opposition if they became 3rd, which happened, though only by 422 votes...
**** And replaced at least twice on the fly before the next elections. Not a lot of people in that party were capable of fulfilling any job in a government.
***** Sondierungsgespräche promptly became "the un-word of the German language of the year 1999".

Mary, mother of Jesus, has been necrodunked by the mormons.

<high-pitched, loud giggling>

ROTFLMAO!!!

I'll use "necrodunked" at every opportunity from now on :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

What happened to her ascension, her bodily assumption into heaven? The local... serious Catholic once told my dad it must be said that she's still alive [and has, unlike her son, never died].

Deacon Frost exploding after being barraged by Blade with EDTA

Aaaaaah. Won't watch the video right now, but it's deeply satisfying how vampires die in the only Blade episode I've had the pleasure to watch (Trinity). They explode, but the shards dissolve into air! So... clean! :-D

In particular, some cryptands are powerful enough to allow for the isolation of alkalides - that is, alkali metal anions.

What the fuck. I had no idea, because all my books on extreme chemistry (mostly Things I Won't Work With) came out before 1999...

Alkalides. That's almost harder to believe than electrides... no, not just "almost", because I knew about the bizarre solution of sodium in ammonia and about blue crystals of ordinary salt (NaCl) where radioactivity has kicked a few chlorine atoms out, leaving lone electrons in their places.

I'll read the article linked to in comment 300 as soon as possible.

Walton, if you're around, take a look: you're mentioned in a T-shirt!

Complete with moustache :-þ

Posted by: BarbieWanKenobi | May 10, 2010 6:43 PM

@Cerberus & Jadehawk,

Thanks for that. I've been VERY careful all the way through to give examples of the oppressive nature of all religions, in fact I've shied away from examples from Islam except the issue over the depictions of Mohammed. I *think* I'm safe from having nasty things thrown at me tomorrow but I fear my friend isn't. He's a lot less subtle and a lot more 'fuck you'!

And on another note this is the first full on religious debate I've ever had. I've always stood to one side with the 'oh well, leave them to it' frame of mind before. I fully believe it's the things I've learned here that have given me the strength of my convictions to stand up for my opinions.

Thank you :o)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | May 10, 2010 9:35 PM

Ooo, cephalopod teefury today, everybody! Only two hours left. (love the woot shirt, monado!)

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 10, 2010 10:15 PM

Possibly the stupidist op-ed piece I have ever read in a major American newspaper, which is actually saying quite a lot: Kathleen Parker yammering about religion, NDOP, and the hope that science will prove that we are "more than animated meat."

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 10, 2010 11:23 PM

Walton:
Sorry I'm late, but:

Health question: Is it worrying that I no longer drink any liquids which don't contain caffeine? Coffee and diet cola are now pretty much the only things I drink throughout the day. Is this bad for me?

Really? Really? You've gotta ask that? Not only will you totally fuck up your sleep cycle*, but that much caffeine will seriously dehydrate you-- you can look forward to headache, upset stomach, the shakes, etc**. Add in the inevitable caffeine crash and you're asking for trouble.

As a caffeine addict myself, my advice is to cut whatever coffee/soda you're consuming in half and replace with water or milk or something equally healthy. And for shit's sake, get some sleep!

* I know, I know. That's your goal.
** Look at it this way: the best way to avoid a hangover is to hydrate yourself while you're drinking &/or before the drunk wears off. The symptoms of a hangover come from *ding ding ding!* dehydration.

Posted by: 34jlg34 | May 11, 2010 12:53 AM

idiocy from Australia. My Gawd the comments.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/where-women-still-dont-own-their-bodies-20100504-u716.html

A woman who has conceived is no longer an individual, and it is simply an error for her to assume the rights of an individual over her body in that circumstance.

sooo wrong

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 11, 2010 2:57 AM

Argh. I inadvertently slept for nine-and-a-half hours, much longer than I intended to. I now have a class in an hour and no time to work.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | May 11, 2010 3:41 AM

Did you offer to stab him?

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 11, 2010 4:06 AM

the Professor of Emergency here(what ERV would call bossman)asked today for people who want to participate in a, wait for it, Acupuncture for Emergency Doctors course !! - Rorshach

Are you sure he wasn't just looking for a way to flush the wingnuts out of cover?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 11, 2010 4:35 AM

the Professor of Emergency here(what ERV would call bossman)asked today for people who want to participate in a, wait for it, Acupuncture for Emergency Doctors course !!

Rorschach. If I ever wash up in your hospital please know in advance that whatever has brought me to emergency services is something I do not want acupuncture for!

lol

Posted by: Rorschach | May 11, 2010 4:41 AM

So yeah, one other thing, if you must know, there I was wondering why all of a sudden I get unsupervised time with the kid right, when it always was a big fight before.
Turns out, ex has discovered that kid with me = opportunity to boink new boyfriend.
I guess I should want him to have awesome stayer qualities.

My TMI for the night, thanks for listening...:-)

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 11, 2010 4:56 AM

My TMI for the night, thanks for listening...

Oh, I'm sorry you're going through all that :(

Posted by: Rorschach | May 11, 2010 5:09 AM

Oh, I'm sorry you're going through all that :(

The human condition, a tragedy in countless acts....:-)

As long as Australia doesnt run out of beer, I'll be ok....;)

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | May 11, 2010 5:52 AM

Any suggestions? I'm thinking of buying another helmet, but it's almost brand new and not cheap! :(

I would suggest a very dilute solution of bleach, and barely wetting a cloth with the solution wipe the inside of the helmet.

The helmet must be capable of handling some moisture, since 1) it rains and 2) heads sweat.

Then I would hang the helmet outside on a windy but dry day.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | May 11, 2010 6:17 AM

That the Tories could only get 36% when just about everything possible was in their favour shows clearly that the UK is not a conservative country.

I have been surprised about how little the failure of the Tories to get a majority has been mentioned. It was only a few months ago they were showing at 45% in the polls.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 11, 2010 7:18 AM

A Conservative-Lib Dem coalition would be by far the best thing for the country. However, it will not happen. Although Cameron and Clegg are both moderates, and likely to be favourable to a coalition, they have to contend with the fact that grassroots Lib Dem supporters are very hostile to a coalition with the Tories, and vice versa.

If they were to enter a coalition, but it falls through and there is a second election within the year, both Clegg and Cameron know that their parties would haemorrhage votes as a result of the coalition: the Lib Dems would lose some left-wing voters to Labour or the Greens, while the Conservatives would lose some hardcore right-wing support to UKIP. (The Conservatives already lost votes to UKIP in some key marginal constituencies that they might otherwise have won.)

The sensible thing, from Nick Clegg's point of view, would be to enter a confidence-and-supply agreement and allow the Conservatives to form a minority government - making clear from the start that the Lib Dems would vote against the Conservative government if a key issue of principle were to arise. That way, if it falls apart within the year, Nick Clegg can avoid looking silly and will not lose votes from his core supporters.

It should be borne in mind that Clegg is also under pressure not just from grassroots supporters but from the Lib Dem "Federal Executive", which gets a say in any coalition agreement. The trouble is that while Clegg himself is personally moderate and sensible, the Lib Dem base contains a sizeable proportion of loony left-wingers who are unequivocally opposed to alliance with the Tories. And the Tory base also contains a strong loony-right contingent who are opposed to any compromise on electoral reform or Europe.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 11, 2010 7:29 AM

I agree - it's clear that Labour and LibDems have much more in common than LibDems and Tories; and according to opinion polls, most LibDem voters prefer Labour to Tories. Since a LibDem-Lab coalition would need at least passive support from some of the smaller parties, it would have to be effectively backed by parties which totalled nearly 60% of the vote. That the Tories could only get 36% when just about everything possible was in their favour shows clearly that the UK is not a conservative country.

That really doesn't follow at all.

The Lib Dems are a party with no single coherent ideology. Some Lib Dem supporters are left-wingers who are adamantly opposed in all circumstances to a Tory government. Other Lib Dem supporters are moderate classical liberals who much prefer the Conservatives to Labour.

Lib Dem policy on economics is closer to Labour than to the Tories (albeit slightly to the left of either); but on civil liberties, Tories and Lib Dems tend to be in broad agreement, whereas Labour are markedly more authoritarian.

I voted Lib Dem as a tactical vote to remove the Labour incumbent in my constituency. Among the 23% of people who voted Lib Dem nationally, I am surely not the only person who voted Lib Dem as a vote against Labour. My vote was focused on civil liberties: and for people like me who are small-l liberals, the priority throughout this election has been to get Labour out. Accordingly, if the Lib Dems were to form a coalition with Labour, citing their 23% vote-share as part of a nationwide vote for "progressive" or "non-conservative" parties, this would be directly the opposite of what I intended to signify when I cast my vote.

So I wish people would stop saying that 60+ percent of the country voted for "progressive" parties. I did nothing of the sort. I voted against Labour, which, in this constituency, meant voting for the Lib Dems. And I voted for them on the understanding that they would be different from, and would not be natural allies of, Labour. To me, since civil liberties are the most important issue, a Tory-Lib Dem alliance is far more natural than a Labour-Lib Dem alliance.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 11, 2010 7:34 AM

This election should not have been about the economy. The economy will be in an equally shit state for the foreseeable future whoever is in power.

What really should have mattered to people in this election is civil liberties. The Conservatives and Lib Dems both care about civil liberties (albeit only up to a point); Labour don't. It's as simple as that. A vote for Labour in this election was a vote for ID cards, arbitrary detention without trial, more surveillance, detention of innocent refugees and asylum-seekers, more police powers, and illiberal "hate speech" laws. My vote was intended to signify that I actually care about the rights and freedoms of the individual, and therefore that I want to get rid of the authoritarian statist Labour government.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | May 11, 2010 7:39 AM

Can't say it gives me much comfort!

At least it gives an idea of where we are going as we get more involved in a FederalEurope.

The system has not changed in years.

It is just you either cannot or will not understand how parliamentary democracy works. If you really though you were voting for who was to be PM you were an idiot.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | May 11, 2010 7:47 AM

And dead. I doubt she's going to exert much influence on policy from beyond the grave.

For fuck's sake, Matt. Do you really think I'm either stupid or a closet homophobe? Do you give me so little credit?

Just stop saying the Tories care about civil liberties when they did so much to try and derail legislation for civil partnerships.

Baroness Young did lead the Tories in the Lords remembers, and she was never kicked out of the party for her homophobia.

It also was not the Tories who introduced the legislation on civil partnerships, nor even the Lib-Dems (although their party line was to support they legislation). It was Labour who introduced the bill, and the nearly all the opposition came from Tories.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 11, 2010 7:55 AM

If we don't address our economic problems as a matter of priority, things will be in a much worse state than they are now, with widespread civil unrest this year and next.

Sure. But I don't see any significant difference between the approaches of the different parties in this regard. It's important for stability that a new government be formed soon, but I don't see that the exact party composition of the government will make any substantial difference to the prospect of economic recovery.

Posted by: Ewan R | May 11, 2010 7:57 AM

This election should not have been about the economy. The economy will be in an equally shit state for the foreseeable future whoever is in power.

I'd still rather have labour (as I remember them at least, been out of the UK for 5 years now) at the helm under a shitty economy rather than the conservatives - didn't Brown, as chancellor, do some pretty good things with the economy? I'd rather have that sort of thinking in charge than what I remember of the conservatives (admittedly that essentially amounts to being dragged along to countless anti-poll tax rallies - although living through the transition of the UK from pretty socialist to barely socialist under Thatcher also leaves a bad taste in the mouth - which may infact be so ingrained as to be the first example of Lamarckian inheritance)

Although I would have voted Lib Dem, because rather than voting tactically which I think is a bullshit way to approach politics, I fully advocate voting for the party you agree with the most, rather than trying to unseat the party you agree with the least by going for the lesser of two evils - although I can see how without some form of PR this may not seem like a great idea to everyone.

I doubt she's going to exert much influence on policy from beyond the grave.

Do you really think I'm either stupid or a closet homophobe? Do you give me so little credit?

Well... you did almost vote conservative

(prior two blockquotes should be taken under the assumption I was being a tad bit amusing rather than completely straight faced)

and in completely unrelated news...

I recall in the previous thread there was some discussion on this weeks Real Time with Bill Maher - while I concur that Rushdie was "coolness personified" was I the only one who gagged a little when climate change and evolution came up and he completely misrepresented evolutionary theory by claiming that it's probably only 99% there, and has big holes, and (if I'm remembering correctly) that scientists called it a theory because they're reticent about calling anything proven until it is.... I mean ffs the guy makes a living off of words - would it be too hard for him to understand the word theory in a scientific context?

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 11, 2010 8:46 AM

Sure. But I don't see any significant difference between the approaches of the different parties in this regard. It's important for stability that a new government be formed soon, but I don't see that the exact party composition of the government will make any substantial difference to the prospect of economic recovery. - Walton

Not so: the Tories promise immediate and savage spending cuts, which would choke off the fragile recovery. The other two main parties have slightly more sense: this is one reason why a Con-LibDem pact is unlikely. Unfortunately all three main parties are caught in a ZOMG - the deficit!!! panic - although viewed in historical perspective, total government debt relative to GDP is not actually high.

One of the most amusing aspects of the post-election period (it really is a long time since I had so much fun with my clothes on) is the way proponents of the current FPTP voting system have been using the chaos as an argument for keeping that system! The claim is that hung Parliaments would be much more common under PR. They would indeed be more so (but not under AV, currently being discussed, which is not PR, and exaggerates the effects of swings), but of course in countries with PR everyone expects it, and either alliances are formed before the election, or negotiations take place in a much calmer atmosphere. Moreover, FPTP becomes increasingly volatile and unpredictable as one moves away from a pure 2-party system - a shift that has been occurring almost monotonically in the UK since 1951. In that election, Labour and Tories together got 96.8% of the vote (Labour got slightly more than the Tories, but still lost the election). This time, the two together got 65.1% - a post-WWII low.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | May 11, 2010 8:54 AM

On the record Radkey discovered Jesus Ben Joseph CHRIST (born on 1 AD, deceased on 33AD) is listed as her son.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 11, 2010 9:27 AM

If we don't address our economic problems as a matter of priority, things will be in a much worse state than they are now, with widespread civil unrest this year and next. - Jessie

The UK government could make things worse (by early cuts), but can't make them much better - that depends on events beyond its control - which could also cause disaster whatever it does. There's unlikely to be civil unrest in any case - there just isn't the tradition of it there is in France, let alone Greece. If things get really bad, almost everyone who is in economic trouble will be scrabbling to make ends meet, not rioting.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 11, 2010 9:38 AM

Great Britain has a ludicrously arcane system for breaking electoral ties where the queen appoints one of her Corgis as interim prime minister. - Jon Stewart

QFH

Posted by: Ewan R | May 11, 2010 9:48 AM

Tory-Labour coalition, anyone

Pre-new Labour that would have been far more of an absurd statement than it is today. Based on my last few years in the UK however I'd almost say that is a more realistic proposal than Tory-Lib Dem - infact in terms of silliness I'd rate Lab-Lib, Lab-Con, Lab-Lib as increasingly bizarre (not taking into account any shifts I've missed in the past 5 years)

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 11, 2010 9:53 AM

Argh. I inadvertently slept for nine-and-a-half hours, much longer than I intended to. I now have a class in an hour and no time to work.

But you were awake enough to actually follow the class... right? So you understood what was taught in it and won't need to repeat it 3 times on your own, right?

TDS tonight he decided to talk about how the Tories should be handed the reigns of government because they got the most votes; Therefore, a Libdem + Labour coalition government is entirely unseemly and to be avoided.

In Austria, the Social Democrats got (as mentioned) the most votes in 1999, despite their losses. They tried to form a government for months (even the option of a minority government was discussed), which the president had charged them with; it just didn't work. We got a coalition of numbers 2 and 3.

stayer qualities

Is it really called that in English, or did you confuse stay and stand? I do that sometimes.

That the Tories could only get 36% when just about everything possible was in their favour shows clearly that the UK is not a conservative country.

Unlike, it seems, Hungary. <facepalm>

This delay in making a decision is now damaging to the credibility of the Lib Dems. At the moment many commenters on the internet think they are just using the situation to change the voting system to their own advantage.

Which is, in this case, pretty much everyone's advantage! Just not that of the Conservative Party.

Thank you for your contribution about government in Europe.

Oh nononononooooo. That was just Austria. Many countries do have similar systems, but France, for instance, is seriously different (never mind Russia).

At least it gives an idea of where we are going as we get more involved in a FederalEurope.

Why? Your current political situation is the result of your very own election result, nothing else. I don't see where any outside influence on this kind of thing could come from in the future either.

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 11, 2010 10:10 AM

The claim is that hung Parliaments would be much more common under PR. They would indeed be more so (but not under AV, currently being discussed, which is not PR, and exaggerates the effects of swings), but of course in countries with PR everyone expects it, and either alliances are formed before the election, or negotiations take place in a much calmer atmosphere.

Indeed, there is no term for "hung parliament" in German or AFAIK French, because not having a party win a majority is the default.

"Jesus" is a bad translation via Greek and Latin.

It's not a translation, it's an attempt to squeeze the name into the Greek sound system, plus the ending required by Greek grammar.

Quite a few Labour MPs have now come out against a coalition with the LibDems. Tory-Labour coalition, anyone :-p

Absurd though it is, this is the natural state of Austria, for better or and worse. It was also recently tried in Germany (it didn't work, though nothing works in Germany anymore).

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | May 11, 2010 10:41 AM

It's not a translation, it's an attempt to squeeze the name into the Greek sound system, plus the ending required by Greek grammar.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 11, 2010 11:11 AM

Looks like I was wrong, and the Tories and LibDems are making a deal after all :-( Clegg's clearly an idiot - but will he be able to sell it to his party?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 11, 2010 11:34 AM

Looks like I was wrong, and the Tories and LibDems are making a deal after all :-( Clegg's clearly an idiot - but will he be able to sell it to his party?

It will be tough: there is a sizeable left-wing contingent among Lib Dem grassroots supporters, who will be adamantly opposed to a deal with the Conservatives and will want to derail it. If the coalition collapses and there is another election within the year, the Lib Dems will certainly haemorrhage votes. If there is a second election, Cameron also stands to lose some of the hard-right vote to UKIP if he caves to Lib Dem demands on electoral reform and Europe. (The UKIP vote, although not particularly big overall, was enough in Thursday's election to prevent the Conservatives winning some tight marginal constituencies which they might otherwise have taken.)

Both Cameron and Clegg are moderate, sensible people and would probably work very well together. But, sadly, their respective party bases are far more ideologically opposed to one another than the leaders are.

Posted by: mattheath | May 11, 2010 11:49 AM

Walton: Do you really think LD Social Democrats are more likely to be the wreckers of any deal than the Tory right, or are you just being a loyal activist?

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 11, 2010 11:56 AM

Both Cameron and Clegg are moderate, sensible peopletoffee-nosed bladder-heads and would probably work very well together. But, sadlyfortunately, their respective party bases are far more ideologically opposed to one another than the leaders are. - Walton

The result will be a cabinet consisting almost entirely of white men educated in private schools: probably the least diverse in decades.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 11, 2010 12:04 PM

I think we should talk some more about Walton's sleep patterns.

Or we should buy Walton a clue about sleep and human brain function.

Walton, (and I say this with affection), habit will take you a long way. Establish a habit of regular sleep. That habit should be within the norms established for young men, with an adjustment for your needs. You sleep requirement, as far as I can see, is at least eight hours per night. Any less than that and you are building up a sleep deficit, a deficit that cannot be corrected by a single good night's sleep. Expect a deficit to be ameliorated with about three good night's sleep.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | May 11, 2010 12:07 PM

Walton, you're too late! It's been sold for £5m.
Walton Castle

The nutty drama queen Margarita Hamilton mentioned below was my next door neighbour when we were teenagers. She was always coming over and begging me to get my cock out so she could play with it. I nearly always refused.
Seems that she nabbed a millionaire and got the castle as part of a divorce settlement. Wonder if she still wants to see my cock?

In 1984 rumours abounded that wealthy rock stars such as Boy George and David Essex were showing an interest in the £250,000 property, but in the end it was sold to the London-based Hamiltons, who said that they wanted it as a place where they could "relax". They bought a Ferrari and helicopter down with them. It wasn't long before the couple ran into problems, with conservationists, architectural historians and locals on the warpath over the unauthorised removal of the crenellations, or battlements, from the towers, which, as it was a listed building, there were forced to re-instate. Nevertheless, the Hamiltons were prepared to put their money where their hearts were and spent around £3 million on updating the property.
But controversy didn't really begin until the late 1990s when 40-something divorcee millionairess Margarita decided to start holding regular "bashes" up at the old place. As floods of complaints about noise and "goings on" at the castle came in from the local populace, so she retaliated by calling her neighbours "boring, geriatric and spineless". She said there was no fun in sleepy Clevedon, with residents liking an early bedtime. "I think all this is just jealousy on their part, " she added. The ongoing furore resulted in her appearance on the TV show Neighbours From Hell.
Her jealousy jibe may very well be right, but publicly aired comments such as "this town (Clevedon) is just totally depressing with only two restaurants and nowhere else to go" and "living here feels like Nazi Germany" were never going to endear her to Clevedonians. In 1999 Margarita - nicknamed "Queen of the Castle" by locals - applied for a corporate entertainments licence so that the castle could be used for weddings up to three times a month. But when this was refused - following complaints about a previous ball - she decided to sell up and move to her other homes in Zimbabwe and Greece. She also said that, subject to planning permission, she would have liked to have turned the folly into a hotel.
Now the castle has a new owner, South African billionaire Stephen Lumb, who plans to spend £20 million on upgrading what he calls his "Shangri La". He's even said that he would like to buy the local golf club, whose driveway he will have to use to gain access to his new home. But whether he will prove as flamboyant a character as " party girl" Margarita Hamilton, only time will tell.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | May 11, 2010 12:10 PM

I'm sure that we can sort out the mess in the next general election, it won't be very long to wait. The only question is whether the public will get the taste for electoral reform, and force a referendum (and legislation), before that.

Anyway, if one good thing has come out of all this, it was watching Adam Boulton losing it on Sky News, and finally showing the world his big, meaty, David Cameron hardon, only to have it slapped away by professional bastard, Alastair Campbell ("Adam you are a pompous little arse."). TV gold.

Posted by: mattheath | May 11, 2010 12:21 PM

*sigh* Yes, you might well be right. It pisses me off that there is no British party suitable for those of us who hold radically liberal and progressive social views, but who adopt a moderate fiscal-conservative stance on the economy. All too often, a commitment to social liberalism and personal autonomy is seen as the preserve of left-wing parties - which it should not be.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 11, 2010 12:26 PM

The Secular Transition
The link leads to a downloadable PDF. In the abstract, the authors of the study conclude that "....socioeconomic development of countries ultimately leads to a secular transition, curtailing the growth of these religious groups.

The study looks at Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh-day Adventists.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 11, 2010 12:39 PM

Matt Heath: I have serious doubts about the methods of that survey. I just took it, and it labelled me as Left -6.9048, and Pragmatic +4.1937. I wasn't much further rightward than Tony Benn or Ken Livingstone! That definitely isn't (I would hope) an accurate reflection of my position.

Admittedly, maybe I wasn't paying sufficinet attention to some of the questions - and I deliberately answered "No opinion" to a few of the more technical economic questions (because although I do have opinions on those issues, I don't have enough economic expertise to be reasonably sure that I'm right about them). So I can't blame the test entirely.

Posted by: Ewan R | May 11, 2010 12:57 PM

Walton - if you skipped the economics questions (where your views are generally to the right, at least in terms of British politics) and answered the social justice type questions with a bent towards rights and all that, then it isn't really all that surprising that you come out as leftist - at least I'd always figured social equality issues to be a more left wing than a right wing idea - if you entirely left it at that and never mentioned economic concerns then my guess is most people would peg you as a lib dem or labour supporter.

Posted by: mattheath | May 11, 2010 1:07 PM

Walton, bear in mind it's a reduction to two variables that predicts *most* of the answers for *most* people. It will put you in the wrong place because your answers diverge where people in general typically converge. Specifically I guess it's pushing you "left" for your social and civil liberalism and your economics are centrist enough not to push back much (plus withholding answers will add to this). But that it gets you wrong is my whole point; for most people those things *do* correlate. Whatever the virtues of classic liberalism, very few people support it. Economic rightists tend to be reactionaries.

Posted by: Dust.....spy | May 11, 2010 1:12 PM

Mattir @371

The picture in the article is stunning, by the way - Pope pontificating, men behind him laughing as if everything is a joke

I would caption that photo as "Snakes on a Plane"

Posted by: mattheath | May 11, 2010 2:13 PM

Posted by: mattheath | May 11, 2010 2:16 PM

doh! lost quote. me@398 refers to:

But the Conservatives and Lib Dems at least have some ideological commitment to civil liberties, even if both parties often fail to stand by this in practice. By contrast, individual freedom simply is not a part of New Labour's ideology; they don't even really pay lip-service to it

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 11, 2010 3:07 PM

I think we should talk some more about Walton's sleep patterns.

Or we should buy Walton a clue about sleep and human brain function.

Walton, (and I say this with affection), habit will take you a long way. Establish a habit of regular sleep. That habit should be within the norms established for young men, with an adjustment for your needs. You sleep requirement, as far as I can see, is at least eight hours per night. Any less than that and you are building up a sleep deficit, a deficit that cannot be corrected by a single good night's sleep. Expect a deficit to be ameliorated with about three good night's sleep.

I just don't have the time to have that much sleep. :-(

And sure, I need eight hours a night to function at maximum efficiency. But I can usually cope, for a few days at a time, with maybe five or six hours a night, provided I have a longer night's sleep a couple of times a week.

Annoyingly, despite sleeping for nine hours last night, I'm still tired now. But I can't go to bed tonight until relatively late, since I must get more work done.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | May 11, 2010 3:26 PM

David Cameron to form a government. He is leaving as leader of Labour Party immediately.

Bummer. I was hoping that Sir Winston Fur-chill would be appointed.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | May 11, 2010 3:54 PM

It's going to be very amusing if the current (as I type) LibDem meeting doesn't produce the 75% approval needed for a coalition with the Tories.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 11, 2010 4:09 PM

Well, is Walton happy?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 11, 2010 4:13 PM

Well, is Walton happy?

Yes! In all the circumstances, this is the best thing that could have happened. Rumour has it (according to Iain Dale) that the Lib Dems will get six cabinet seats, though it's not yet clear who will get what.

I just hope the coalition lasts.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 11, 2010 4:38 PM

@409: I think that bit of the law is intended to cover the otherwise inevitable case where somebody claims that the noises played over the PA system for people to dance to are not, in fact, music, and hence not subject to the law.

@Walton: I think we've developed about the most stable government that could be produced under the circumstances, and the process of getting there has been fascinating and full of hilarity. I think Nick Clegg (or "the harlot" according to David Blunkett) has negotiated pretty well- getting a referendum on AV out of the Tories was a pretty big ask. Waiting to hear the details of the coalition now.

Somehow, when I saw David Cameron step into number 10 and the door closed, I envisage a senior civil servant saying "And now, Sir, if you would just pierce your thumb and initial in blood this contract with Azathoth, the infernal demon-sultan of mindless Chaos... did nobody tell Sir that this would be required?"

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 11, 2010 5:00 PM

Well, is Walton happy?

Yes!

Eleventh of May. One to mark on the Calender I think.

Posted by: Jessie | May 11, 2010 5:08 PM

Has the Queen had to sit at home for the last five days, waiting for the opportunity to ask someone to form a government?

There's already a new 'I've never voted Tory but....' poster. 'I've never voted Tory but it turns out I didn't need to, thanks to Nick'.

I tried mattheath's political questionnaire (see post 386), which was interesting as I may need to join Walton's new party. There were some interesting questions about whether it is OK to break the law, whether there are any technologies we should not use, whatever their benefits, and whether scientists have any responsibility for the way in which their discoveries are used.

Posted by: monado | May 11, 2010 5:13 PM

John Morales, talk to a veterinarian, who should be able to tell you about urine-neutralizing solutions and sell you one. Gently remove any droppings solid with a brush or rag. Wash with a minimum of water, e.g. soap suds on a rag if you have to worry about the helmet absorbing water, e.g. on a Styrofoam lining. Then apply the neutralizing solution according to instructions and let dry (more than once if necessary).

That's probably your best chance.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 11, 2010 5:22 PM

Has the Queen had to sit at home for the last five days, waiting for the opportunity to ask someone to form a government?

Essentially, yes. H.M. made clear from the start of the process (through her Private Secretary, Christopher Geidt) that it was for the parties to negotiate among themselves, and that she would not invite anyone to form a government until the parties had come to an agreement. In these contentious circumstances, it would have been thought inappropriate for her to play any sort of active political role in selecting a Prime Minister.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 11, 2010 5:30 PM

At exciting times like this, I often think how much I wish I could be an MP. But it will never happen, for three reasons:

(1) I have less charisma and personal appeal than the average tea-towel;

(2) I'm hopelessly fickle and keep changing my mind on everything rather than sticking to the party line; and

(3) most importantly, in any election campaign, some snot-nosed hack from the opposing party would dig up and quote-mine everything I've ever posted on Pharyngula, and leak it all to the News of the World.*

*Considering my changing views, and the immense variety of stuff I've posted here over the last two years, they could either quote-mine my older posts and portray me as some deranged mega-right-wing nut who hates poor people, or quote-mine my more recent posts and accuse me of making sexual overtures to muscular Lib Dems in showers. :-)

Posted by: monado | May 11, 2010 5:34 PM

More t-shirts are at ThinkGeek. Images include sparkly bacon, Self-rescuing princess, scientifically accurate Electromagnetic Spectrum music, You never forget your first Doctor [Who], Hello Schröddy, Cuttle Me, and Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock.

Posted by: Jessie | May 11, 2010 5:38 PM

Walton
All those things make you eminently suitable to stand as an MP.
What are you calling your new party?

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | May 11, 2010 5:46 PM

Evan Harris is on BBC2 Newsnight atm

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | May 11, 2010 5:52 PM

Reminds me, do any of you have movies that left a strong impression on you, but that you would never, ever, ever watch again?

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 11, 2010 6:08 PM

they could either quote-mine my older posts and portray me as some deranged mega-right-wing nut who hates poor people, or quote-mine my more recent posts and accuse me of making sexual overtures to muscular Lib Dems in showers.

Not mutually exclusive. You'll fit right into the Republican Party!

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | May 11, 2010 6:14 PM

Reminds me, do any of you have movies that left a strong impression on you, but that you would never, ever, ever watch again?

Definitely Schindler's List.
I don't know if it counts, but I couldn't even make it halfway through Hotel Rwanda the first time.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 11, 2010 6:30 PM

@Walton - I heard John Cleese talking on a National Public Radio program once complaining that he went back to a college reunion to hear people congratulating each other with "You haven't changed a bit," which he interpreted as "How wonderful, you haven't learned a single thing in ___ years."

Yes, another reason to love John Cleese, on top of Monty Python, A Fish Called Wanda, Fawlty Towers, and that BBC documentary series on the human face.

I apologize to those people offended by my putting punctuation inside of quotation marks - it's possibly the only tangible remnant of my lawyer days, spent proofreading Securities and Exchange Commission filings at all hours. (The main intangible remnant is from law school rather than the years of practice - I can do a wicked Socratic Method on hapless homeschooled kiddos.)

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 11, 2010 6:45 PM

Walton, that's what pseudonymity is for, isn't it? (Comment 432 notwithstanding.)

I got a surprising amount of work done and will be able to go to bed soon. It's really late enough (1/4 to 1 AM), and I'm tired...

But I believe I've heard keeper as in "he's a keeper" and I think that's what Rorschach was getting at?

hehe...

"Hehe" is correct, the rest is not. It's about the ability of the intromittent organ to keep standing upright when the rest of the body is more or less horizontal.

Posted by: Orange Utan, Librarian of Death | May 11, 2010 7:11 PM

48 Hours Film Competition entry from a colleague

Cruise Thompson Presents

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 11, 2010 8:33 PM

Fraud charges are being leveled at the Head Honchos of a faith-based bank.

Founded on Christian principles in 2000 in an Atlanta suburb, Integrity used the motto “In God We Trust.” The bank gave customers free Bibles, and employees prayed together at meetings. Onetime investors included a Georgia state senator and the former CNN host Lou Dobbs.
     But in announcing the indictment, the United States attorney Sally Quillian Yates said Mr. Ballard and Mr. Foster had not lived up to the bank’s name or mission.
     “A number of banks have suffered from the plummeting real estate market, but this bank was robbed from the inside,” she said.
     Mr. Ballard, 40, and Mr. Foster, 42, could not be reached for comment on Friday and will be arraigned at a later date. Mr. Mitchell, 50, pleaded not guilty at a federal courthouse in Atlanta....
     “We weren’t selling religion,” he said. “We just managed the bank on godly principles, like the golden rule.”

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 11, 2010 8:54 PM

Sarah Palin news:

Sarah Palin's new book has a title, "America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag," and a release date, Nov. 23, publisher HarperCollins announced Tuesday.
     The Alaska ex-governor and former GOP vice presidential candidate, whose memoir "Going Rogue" has sold more than 2 million copies, has been working on a tribute to American values.
     It will include "selections from classic and contemporary readings that have moved her," according to HarperCollins, along with "the nation's founding documents to great speeches, sermons, letters, literature and poetry, biography, and even some of her favorite songs and movies."...

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 11, 2010 9:11 PM

a poem:

"Family, Faith, and Flag" ?

gag.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | May 11, 2010 9:20 PM

Congrats, Sven - such a nice feeling. Now don't even look at your email for a week so you don't have to see all the "are the grades done yet?" and "is there any way I can do extra credit now to get a better grade?" and "but if I don't pass I'll be on academic probation!" emails.

Posted by: Orange Utan, Librarian of Death | May 11, 2010 9:37 PM

@Sven

I passed right?

Right?

Posted by: alysonmiers | May 11, 2010 9:54 PM

http://www.tnr.com/blog/damon-linker/another-kind-atheism

Damon Linker insults our intelligence. Atheists would be so much nicer if only we felt the way he says we should.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 11, 2010 10:39 PM

@ODS - Doing a circumcision for primitive tribal cultural reasons is one thing, but you have to actually plan on being part of said community. If you were going to be atheists who observed Jewish cultural traditions, I would say "maybe okay" to the circumcision. If a one-time action that won't be followed up by either cultural or religious practices, that's a ridiculous reason to engage in a primitive tribal ritual.

No matter what you end up deciding, though, you may reconsider the decision as your pregnancy progresses or even after baby is born, and there are still plenty of other issues that are as or more difficult coming right down the pike.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 11, 2010 11:01 PM

but you have to actually plan on being part of said community. If you were going to be atheists who observed Jewish cultural traditions, I would say "maybe okay" to the circumcision.

Besides a couple of holidays spent with family? No, we're not. I'm not cool with the circumcision at all and my question was more aimed at how can I handle talking to Mr. ODS about this from a rational point-of-view. The point wasn't to convince me that it's okay; the point is to help him see how silly he's being.

there are still plenty of other issues that are as or more difficult coming right down the pike.

That's as maybe, but this is something I need to settle now before it's too late. I can't anticipate all of the parenting challenges in the future and I really don't think it's something worth worrying over now, nor does it detract from my original question.

o/t: I just saw Iron Man 2 this evening. I would totally do indecent and inappropriate things to Robert Downey Jr. (But only if he still had the goatee.)

Posted by: John Morales | May 11, 2010 11:34 PM

OurDeadSelves, FWIW, I'm not circumsised, and I'm ever-grateful to my mother for that.

PS Retractability was limited until I was pubescent. Luckily, I was not precocious and didn't try to force the issue.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 11, 2010 11:50 PM

Rorschach:
Hopefully the religious community doesn't come into play (he hasn't been to temple in 15 years), but I know that his family will put their 2 cents in*. A part of me just hopes that he respects me enough to at least hear me out and consider what I'm saying.

John Morales:
Thanks for the link and the... personal information. :)

* Unless we don't tell them one way or the other. Which is exactly why we haven't told them that I'm trying to get pregnant-- I definitely don't need my mom-in-law** all up in my reproductive business.

** Or my mom, for that matter. Congrats, Pharyngulites, you know more about my family planning than my own parents do!

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 12, 2010 12:02 AM

@ODS:

I would totally do indecent and inappropriate things to Robert Downey Jr. (But only if he still had the goatee.)

As would I, ODS. As would any sane person. Rowr. Goatee or no.

Posted by: Dust.....spy | May 12, 2010 12:21 AM

I've watched Shindler's List more than once, would like to see it again and have read the book too. Love that story.

Oh, and thumbs up on the Robert Downey, Jr. comments! :)

Posted by: blf | May 12, 2010 1:20 AM

So pesky daughter spawn wants to know if there are Flying Spaghetti Monster nuns.

There is a suggestion that:

[Hot topless nuns serving cold beer and salted cashews is] what happens in the Church of FSM.
Spaghetti is the main dish / communion.

Makes sense. Any extra strippers need employment, and you simply cannot let any beer go to waste.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 12, 2010 4:15 AM

I'm going to admit something bad here.

I never watched Shindler's List.

Posted by: John Morales | May 12, 2010 4:23 AM

Ol'Greg, I've never watched it either.

Why should I go to see a movie and be depressed?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 12, 2010 4:31 AM

I believe 'stayer' is used in horse racing to refer to a horse that is good at running long distances, as opposed to a 'sprinter'.

ooh... that makes sense then.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 12, 2010 4:59 AM

So.... Walton.

Anything like this in your past?

Of course not! I'm definitely ineligible to join the Bullingdon, since I went to a state school.* Indeed, I don't even know any Bullingdon members, as far as I'm aware (though by all accounts most of them don't talk about it); they don't even take people from minor public schools,* so most of my friends would also be ineligible. And I wouldn't want to anyway. It's ridiculous juvenile behaviour.

(*Translation for Americans: A "state school" is what Americans would call a public school - that is, a government-funded school which does not charge fees. By contrast, a "public school" in England is a traditional private school. Not all private schools are public schools - the usual definition restricts the term to those which are members of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference. Among English public schools, there is also a substantial divide between the "major" public schools - Eton, Harrow, Westminster, and the like - and the far more numerous "minor" public schools. By all accounts, the Bullingdon only generally invites members who went to "major" public schools.)

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 12, 2010 6:19 AM

I have a feeling the government run schools in England are... uh... a few notches above those in my state.

Some are, some aren't. The state school system (much like its counterpart in most US states) is based largely on geography, so there is a real class divide: schools in affluent middle-class areas tend to be considered better.

Britain is still a sadly class-ridden society - something from which I've largely been insulated because of growing up in middle-class privilege, but I'm gradually learning how big a problem it really is. While we don't have the kind of formal class system we used to have, there is still a big de facto gap in privilege between middle-class areas and poor and marginalised communities. And social mobility in the UK today is lower than it has been in decades (something that will hopefully improve under the new government).

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 12, 2010 6:43 AM

And social mobility in the UK today is lower than it has been in decades (something that will hopefully improve under the new government). - Walton

It won't. This is the coalition of the upper-class twits. It will make no attempt whatever to reverse the trend to greater economic inequality, and research shows that degree of inequality correlates closely with social mobility.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 12, 2010 6:59 AM

The coalition seems to have knocked out the inheritance tax break for the wealthiest, and we should see progress on raising the income tax threshold. It's not exactly communism, but it is a measurable improvement on the previous Tory position. I think the next few years have the potential to be extraordinarily educational for the UK.

Who would have thought that we'd be looking at an elected, proportional upper house? That is a huge deal constitutionally. It certainly makes Labour look kind of stupid for having held power for thirteen years and somehow forgotten to actually introduce democracy :)

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 12, 2010 7:31 AM

One of the "explanations" being suggested is that it might have been stolen by metal scavengers.

*snort*

A few years ago, when the Chinese started buying all the world's scrap metal and the prices shot through the roof, that kind of thing happened extremely commonly in Germany. No idea if it ever stopped.

Retractability was limited until I was pubescent.

I've never understood what retractability is supposed to be good for.

...Erm. I know what you're thinking of now. No, there are other methods.

I also know the circumcisional state of most of the male regulars here and the cup size and shaving status of the females and whether they wear undies and if, which ones. I blame it all on the endless thread.

:P

What does it say about me that I've forgotten most of that? :-þ

Our circumcisional states haven't come up on this Thread, though. There are separate threads for that, plus the usual threadjacking of FGM threads.

I would never have thought of keeping an erection from "stayer" at all.

I suspect German Steherqualitäten are at play here, from stehen, which means "stand" rather than the similar-sounding "stay".

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 12, 2010 7:40 AM

Who would have thought that we'd be looking at an elected, proportional upper house? - Stephen Wells

Where did you see that, Stephen? I can't see anything about it on the Beeb website.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 12, 2010 7:56 AM

I note that the Tories have all four major offices of state: PM, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary. The post of Deputy PM, given to Nick Clegg, is similar to that of American VP, except there's no right of succession to the top job - IOW, it's not even worth half a bucket of warm piss. The Home Secretary is Theresa May, an anti-abortion zealot, opposed to any relaxation of the drug laws, anti-LGBT-equality. She has opposed ID cards and detention without trial.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | May 12, 2010 8:12 AM

@John Morales:

How about if we change the name to the Optimus Prime Minister?

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 12, 2010 9:03 AM

Left Foot Forward's opposition seems to be based on ideology rather than sense. - Walton

Do you actually detect any flaw in Left Foot Forward's analysis? I don't, at a quick look. Perhaps your statement above is the one bvased on ideology?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 12, 2010 9:22 AM

Do you actually detect any flaw in Left Foot Forward's analysis? I don't, at a quick look. Perhaps your statement above is the one bvased on ideology?

As I understand it, their arguments are:

(1) The increase in the tax-free allowance will not help the very poorest, i.e. those earning under the existing tax threshold.

That's obviously true, but I don't see why it's really relevant. The policy doesn't claim to help all low-income households, but it will help a substantial proportion of them; it is possible to be earning well over the existing tax threshold (£6,745 pa) and still be very poor, and people in that bracket will be helped by this policy. And raising the tax threshold doesn't exclude the possibility of taking other measures that will also help those on very low incomes. Obviously, we should continue to provide welfare payments for those who need them.

And (2) The increase in the tax-free allowance will help the middle classes more than the poor. Since it will mean that all taxpayers pay less income tax overall, a higher proportion of the total tax cut (they estimate 94 percent) will go to benefit middle-income rather than low-income earners. They argue that this will increase rather than reduce inequality.

Again, this is true, but is not necessarily a problem. The proposal will help low income-earners; the fact that it will also help the middle classes is not, in itself, a bad thing. It's only a problem if you think that the primary goal of tax policy should be to reduce inequality, which I do not. (Which isn't to say that tax policies shouldn't reduce inequality - to an extent, they must and should - but this should not be the sole objective.) If this policy will help the working poor, I don't see why the fact that it will also help the middle classes should be seen as a point against it.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 12, 2010 9:38 AM

Getting rid of single person constituencies is the only way to improve. Why the fuck should only the people of one tiny bit of England decide whether, say, Clegg or Harris get to sit in Parliament? It. Does. Not. Work.

Because, in our system, they represent local communities rather than political parties. The idea is that your local MP represents your area and its interests, rather than his or her party.

Of course, this often doesn't tend to work well in practice because of the strength of the party whip system. So there are arguments for more far-reaching electoral reform, and I personally don't feel very strongly about it either way; but I'm glad the coalition has managed to come to an agreement.

My personal preference is for the Additional Member system as used in Scotland, Wales and New Zealand. But it just doesn't matter that much to me personally. I'm far more concerned about civil liberties.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 12, 2010 9:42 AM

Hey look!

More right wing Christian dominionist insanity

Check out this video

Posted by: Ewan R | May 12, 2010 10:00 AM

Besides a couple of holidays spent with family? No, we're not. I'm not cool with the circumcision at all and my question was more aimed at how can I handle talking to Mr. ODS about this from a rational point-of-view. The point wasn't to convince me that it's okay; the point is to help him see how silly he's being.

Kudos for tring to approach it from a rational point of view - hard to do when only 50% of the conversation is willing to remain rational.

I had a similar, although not religiously motivated, discussion with my wife on the whole topic - didn't really push too hard on the issue until we actually started getting serious about having a kid - once that occured I must admit I found it hard to remain calm and rational the whole time (I'd like to think I remained rational, as I believe my opposition is rational, rather than simply wanting my boy to be like me - which was brought up as a possibility in more heated discussions) when hearing arguements like "it's cleaner" (bizarrely I planned to bathe the kid at least biannually...) "everyone else has it done" (statistics didn't hold this out even in the US if I remember my sources right) "you'll have to explain to him why" ( a) Do I also have to explain why we didnt cut out his tongue, insert a metal plate in his lip, or stick bones through his nose.... b) I'm totally down with telling my kid I decided against mutilating him)

Good luck with the whole thing - maybe try keep a list of things your husband doesn't do that follow the Jewish tradition (there must be some... thats a longass list of rules right there) which in no way approach the severity of permanent removal of a body part to at least get him out of the realm of mumbo-jumbo and into the realm of sensible discussion on the subject.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 12, 2010 10:02 AM

Humm. FYI on that bottom link. I tried to leave a comment and it tried to install the windows anti-virus malware.

Don't go to the bottom link.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 12, 2010 10:06 AM

Firefox flagged your second link as a security threat. Haven't tried the first link.

Yep, didn't happen on my first visit but as soon as I tried to leave a comment, bam.

First link appears to be clean. But the video is the money shot. Trying to find it elsewhere.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 12, 2010 10:10 AM

Good luck with the whole thing - maybe try keep a list of things your husband doesn't do that follow the Jewish tradition (there must be some... thats a longass list of rules right there) which in no way approach the severity of permanent removal of a body part to at least get him out of the realm of mumbo-jumbo and into the realm of sensible discussion on the subject. - Ewan R.

Could try telling him you'll agree if he will henceforth follow Biblical law in all particulars.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 12, 2010 10:17 AM

Moreover, the policy has been sold as targeted at helping the working poor, but since only £1bn of the £17bn or so will do so, this presentation is dishonest, and the same amount of money could be used much more efficiently for that purpose.

It's still better than the rather silly Tory proposal to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million (which has now been dropped), which would have been of benefit exclusively to the middle and upper classes and would have done nothing to help the poor. So I still think this government's tax policy is an improvement over what we could have had.

But yes, there are other ways that the working poor could be helped. One possibility would be a VAT reduction on some consumer goods. This could stimulate consumer demand, and would also help the poor more than the wealthy, since, like all sales and consumption taxes, the burden of VAT tends to fall more heavily on the poor than on the rich.

The trouble is, of course, that major tax cuts are not easily compatible with the overriding need to reduce the deficit (lest we end up like Greece). Which is why I think that cuts to front-line services are regrettably going to be necessary.

Posted by: Ewan R | May 12, 2010 10:24 AM

Knockgoats and Walton - I was pretty awful at understanding the British tax system while I was over there (to the extent that 6 months before I left I realized I'd overpaid to the sum of thousands over my time working, which was a nice bonus) is my assessment correct in thinking that at present the first ~7000 of earnings isn't subject to income tax, whereas under the new policy the first ~15000 isn't subject to income tax (across the board, so if you make $15000 p/a you don't pay a thing, and if you make $1M p/a your first $15000 is still free (which I'm guessing is where the animosity comes from in terms of helping everyone rather than just the poor?)

One question/observation/ramble... (assuming I am not just spouting nonsense about how taxes work in the UK, which may be the case) - using a tax rate pulled essentially out of the air (20%) this break would give those earning exactly 15,000 (and indeed everyone earning over 15,000) an extra 1600 pounds a year (ish) right? Which obviously will help out somewhat people in the 7000-15000 range, and also those in the 15000-30000 range (which I'm going to guess starts to get more middle class, but in my experience still isn't exactly that comfortable to live on) and will essentially be like a nice bonus to anyone making 30,000+ - which I'm guessing is where the main criticism is coming in - wouldn't it be better to balance the system whereby the benefit from the non-taxation of the first 15,000 started to be reduced as you approach 30,000 (or some other arbitrary number that marks some sort of decent living wage) such that anyone who is already completely comfortable isn't going to be getting a benefit which is at least being sold as a tax change to benefit the workign poor?

Posted by: iambilly | May 12, 2010 10:29 AM

Mattir: So pesky daughter spawn wants to know if there are Flying Spaghetti Monster nuns. (She's looking for something with which to threaten her father.)

I once threatened (((Girl))) with a convent. She smiled and said, "Wow. A Unitarian convent. That would be better than any party at school! Do it!"

I backed down.

Reminds me, do any of you have movies that left a strong impression on you, but that you would never, ever, ever watch again?

Ishtar and Robocop (well, (((Wife))) and I walked out of Robocop. Twice.). Both are so bad that they left a lasting impression. Similar to the lasting impression left by a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster. Not good.

Oh. Wait. As in a good movie that was too powervul/depressing to watch again. Schindler's List and Platoon.

Happy My Monday.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 12, 2010 10:35 AM

There's already a new 'I've never voted Tory but....' poster. 'I've never voted Tory but it turns out I didn't need to, thanks to Nick'. - Jessie

An alternative I could use: "I've never voted Tory or Lib Dem - so don't blame me!".

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | May 12, 2010 10:43 AM

@Rev BDC:

Holy crap, me too!

Is your Clegg a dude with a tri-cornered hat, pegleg, and a long red coat?

Posted by: Rorschach | May 12, 2010 10:49 AM

So, to contribute to the most boring topic ever on the thread just because I can, I heard parts of Cameron's and Clegg's conference just then on the way home from work, and they seem to be best chums, and getting along so well ! And all the commentators were positively drooling over that fact(this was BBC radio), and how it is a new quality in british politics, and all that jazz.So, is a new age dawning there or what?

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | May 12, 2010 10:50 AM

Ewan - the threshold is to be raised to £10k, not £15k. £15k is my preference, because at £10k people still have to apply for rebates because we realise it isn't enough to live on (certainly if you have dependents), which seems a little dumb to me.
However, without compensatory tax rises for the better off, we will now be cutting frontline services even deeper now to make up for the lost tax income (£16 billion?) from everyone.
Basically this is a rightwing tax cut masqueraiding as "fairnes" and help for the poor.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 12, 2010 11:00 AM

Walton,
I agree with reducing VAT - at least selectively on essentials. Increasing tax rates for the rich, and more important, closing loopholes and tax havens, could remove any need to cut services. The upper-class twits are certainly not going to do this of course - though I did see something about a tax on financial transactions, which if it's more than a token (I doubt that it is) would certainly be good.

Ewan R. - median household income in the UK (I think this is post-tax) is £24,700. The LibDem proposal does include some compensating measures for high incomes, but still benefits richer households more - mainly because more of them have two incomes over £6490 (the current threshold).

BTW, I see there is to be a committee to consider an upper house fully elected by PR. So that won't happen. I do applaud the commitment to fixed-term Parliaments.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | May 12, 2010 11:04 AM

Reading the full text of the agreement I see they confirm we are to get a referendum here in Wales on further law making powers for the Assembly.

It is not much of a surprise, since there was a unanimous vote in favour of the referendum in the Assembly.

So, another vote for me come the Autumn.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 12, 2010 11:14 AM

Increasing tax rates for the rich, and more important, closing loopholes and tax havens, could remove any need to cut services.

The parties have agreed to increase capital gains tax, which will mean that some wealthy people pay more - but the problem is that it will also make investors less keen to invest in startup companies, since they will now pay a higher rate of tax on their dividends.

Increasing tax rates substantially for the very rich would simply mean that they all move overseas. And increasing tax rates on businesses will self-evidently lead to job losses.

Obviously, closing loopholes in the tax system is a good idea - but bear in mind that there are a lot of very clever tax lawyers out there, and it isn't so easy as you think to stem the flow of tax-avoidance. As to "closing tax-havens", are you advocating the invasion of Belize? :-/

Ultimately, cuts to front-line services are bad but necessary.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 12, 2010 11:20 AM

I have never understood why money earned from setting up a company and later selling it should not be treated the same as earned income and taxed at the same rate.

Well, the new government evidently agrees with you. :-)

But the actual reason for the lower rate of CGT is to give investors an incentive to invest in startup companies, knowing that, if it pays off, their profits will be taxed at a low rate. I don't know how much difference it really makes, though.

Posted by: Ewan R | May 12, 2010 11:22 AM

Reading the full text of the agreement I see they confirm we are to get a referendum here in Wales on further law making powers for the Assembly.

It is not much of a surprise, since there was a unanimous vote in favour of the referendum in the Assembly.

So, another vote for me come the Autumn.

On a semi related note - never was sure why the Conservatives of all parties were opposed to Scottish/Welsh independance - they'd benefit hugely from this (losing what, a single seat in Scotland cf a whole bunch for Lab/Lib)

On taxes - I'd agree that 15,000 would be better than 10,000, with the provisions that there was a compensatory measure in place such that people earning a lot more than is actually necessary don't reap the benefits - having lived under 15,000 p/a my whole time in the UK (although over 10) it was frankly a laughable wage (but at least it got me out of the house!) cutting frontline services (which generally (in my experience) help the poor first) to push through a tax cut to all seems totally counter productive - particularly if the shift is only from 6500 to 10000 (which by my back of the envelope calculation amounts to what, ~60 pounds a month? (700p/a))

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | May 12, 2010 11:31 AM

Oh, and one name I have noticed missing from the list of those given jobs in the new Government is that of Chris Grayling.

It seems that comment he made about how B&B owners should be allowed to discriminate against gays has cost him.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 12, 2010 11:38 AM

Oh, and one name I have noticed missing from the list of those given jobs in the new Government is that of Chris Grayling.

It seems that comment he made about how B&B owners should be allowed to discriminate against gays has cost him.

Yes - though Theresa May is hardly much of an improvement. :-(

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | May 12, 2010 11:39 AM

Matt - but is Theresa May an improvement?

While we're on "things I've never understood", I've never understood why people with mortgages get tax relief on their payments, but (the generally poorer) renters don't. Apart from being unfair it just contributes to the house price bubble, which hasn't done the country any good.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | May 12, 2010 11:43 AM

No, Theresa May is no improvement.

On the World at One on Radio 4 there was a suggestion Cameron has some kind of moral debt to her, hence why she got the job.

IDS as Work and Pensions is not much better either.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 12, 2010 11:48 AM

IDS as Work and Pensions is not much better either.

True. But let's look on the bright side - Ken Clarke as Justice Secretary was a good choice. And balancing Osborne as Chancellor with Vince Cable as Chief Secretary will provide some degree of ideological equilibrium at the Treasury.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | May 12, 2010 11:50 AM

Cable is Sec of State for Business and Investment, or some such.

Laws is Chief Sec. Still Lib-Dem of course.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | May 12, 2010 12:06 PM

Sorry, my mistake. But the general point stands. It was certainly right to balance Osborne with a Lib Dem Chief Secretary, as economic policy is the most likely area of controversy within the coalition.

That is OK, Cable was being tipped for the Chief Sec job this morning.

And I take on board your general point. I will reserve judgement on whether it is correct or not.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 12, 2010 12:20 PM

Cornell Birds Web Site Wins a Webby

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology's "All About Birds" Web site will be celebrated alongside film critic Roger Ebert, rock band OK Go, comedian Jim Carrey and Twitter in the 14th annual Webby Awards.
     The Webbys, which honor Internet achievement, were announced by the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences, a 550-member group of Web experts. The awards ceremony will take place June 14, 2010, in New York City.
     "All About Birds" won the Best Lifestyle Site award. The site helps people identify and learn about nearly 600 species of North American birds and features photos, sounds and videos. It also has bird-feeding tips, gear reviews and an online magazine.
     This year's competition received nearly 10,000 entries from more than 60 countries and all 50 states.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 12, 2010 12:27 PM

Matt,
And I mean no disrespect in this at all whatsoever. In fact I don't picture you as this type in reality.

But every time I read your name, this guy comes to mind.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | May 12, 2010 12:46 PM

Apropos of nothing in particular, now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!

Obama: "Limbaugh can play with himself."

What? Oh... play golf, you say? Even so.... ;^)

Also to Walton (@507):

Some of my Tory friends in real life now think I've turned into a bleeding-heart liberal.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!

And I mean that without the slightest hint of snark.

Posted by: iambilly | May 12, 2010 1:48 PM

I have to admit that, in a sick sort of way, I admire the way the right wing whackos work. I don't approve, and I think it to be slimey and sleezy, but, in a sick way, I can admire the method:

Step 1: Out a supreme court nominee as a lesbian (makes no difference if she is or not). All radical right wing Christians will immediately decide she will never be a valid justice and, even if confirmed, will be an implacable enemy for all time and must be treated as such. Even after everyone in the world knows that the initial column was wrong, and despite repeated attempts to set the record straight, the rrwCs will not believe it.

Step 2: Wait for the President (or one of his staff) to explain that no, she is not a lesbian.

Step 3: Accuse all liberals of anti-gay bias for assuming that calling someone a lesbian is some sort of insult. This, they hope, will turn off the GLBT community and make Obama look bad to liberals.

Step 4: Do everything possible to draw out the confirmation process to maximize the circulation of rumours.

Step 5: Rather, rinse, repeat.

Posted by: MrFire | May 12, 2010 2:33 PM

apropos of nothing:

To those who know and love heddle: when I tried to formulate a response to his presuppositional arguments, all I could think of was this.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | May 12, 2010 2:37 PM

iambilly (@550):

I have to admit that, in a sick sort of way, I admire the way the right wing whackos work.

Yeah. Imagine what the world would be like if even a fraction of the talent and energy the right devotes to demonizing liberals were put to some humane, life-affirming purpose instead.

Posted by: iambilly | May 12, 2010 2:47 PM

Bill:

Yeah, that would be nice. It's also about as likely as giant winged porcupines flying out of my ass backwards.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 12, 2010 2:53 PM

all I could think of was this

Yep. Man created the God that created Man.

Posted by: MrFire | May 12, 2010 3:12 PM

Wait, is heddle around somewhere?

Not that I know of. Hence, apropos of nothing. :)

Posted by: iambilly | May 12, 2010 3:43 PM

Mr. Fire:

So you contend that Heddle is to Circular Reasoning as Circular Reasoning is to Heddle?

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | May 12, 2010 3:56 PM

Heddle
Definition: See: Heddle

No wait... that's recursion.

Posted by: MrFire | May 12, 2010 4:05 PM

So you contend that Heddle is to Circular Reasoning as Circular Reasoning is to Heddle?

:) And in the picture, the divine grace that has it all make sense lies in the plane of the paper - orthogonal to your line of vision.

Posted by: MrFire | May 12, 2010 4:29 PM

so went for a run this afternoon.

Which route do you like to take? Christchurch Meadows and down by the Cherwell?

Please don't say you use a treadmill in your college gym.

This may have been an error, as I'm now exhausted again

Trying to outrun your increasingly liberal destiny must be tiring ;)

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 12, 2010 4:34 PM

Re Elena Kagan - I share concerns about her fondness for a strong executive, but she seems also to be exactly what we need on the Supreme Court right now - someone who can argue with conservatives and use their own language to bring them around to a different opinion. What we truly don't need is a liberal martyr who will write stirring dissents when the court does something reactionary but couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag (or at least couldn't convince anyone else to follow them out of the paper bag). From what I've heard, she is actually quite good at arguing with conservatives and actually changing minds.

Like I've said before - there are actually places where being a pragmatic consensus seeker is useful, and on the Supreme Court might well be one of them.

I would have preferred Diane Wood as well, if only because I babysat her kids while in school, years and years ago. (Was that Kw*king?)

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 12, 2010 4:37 PM

Which route do you like to take? Christchurch Meadows and down by the Cherwell?

Please don't say you use a treadmill in your college gym.

I do indeed use a treadmill in my college gym. (Last year I used to go to the University gym at the Iffley Road sports complex, but haven't had the time this year - something I really miss.) I've always preferred running on treadmills to running outside; it makes it easier to pace myself, and treadmills have shock absorption which reduces the risk of leg or knee injury.

Sadly, my fitness has declined markedly this year, due to too much work and lack of time to exercise. :-(

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 12, 2010 4:48 PM

YOur fitness may also have declined because of lack of sleep. Seriously, lack of sleep messes with various hormones that affect weight gain, fitness, etc. Now GO TO SLEEP.

Well, I haven't gained weight - quite the opposite. I seem to keep getting thinner, to the point where I can now count several of my ribs. I suppose the excessive caffeine intake speeds up my metabolism.

And as much as I'd love to go to sleep now, I have a legal philosophy revision class tomorrow and need to do some reading. :-(

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | May 12, 2010 5:15 PM

Walton (@567):

I've read/heard very persuasive rebuttals of the Obama is just another Bush meme and, in the last couple days, also of the notion that Kagan is insufficiently progressive... but I don't have the references or facts necessary to argue the point cogent at my fingertips right now. Plus which, I'm going to have to sign off and go to a meeting in a few minutes anyway.

"See" y'all later....

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 12, 2010 5:31 PM

Argh. I'm actually about to fall asleep at my computer. Despite having accomplished nothing, I may have to go to bed soon.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 12, 2010 5:59 PM

Oh it's back to work in just a few days. Sitting here listening to T. Rex of all things...

ooooh you're strange
don't lame me baby strange oh ...

drinking some wine I bought at the shop across the street and thinking.

7 years.

7 years in business max and I then I will kill myself or do something better with my life.

It's all for the money.

Posted by: MrFire | May 12, 2010 6:14 PM

7 years in business max and I then I will kill myself or do something better with my life.

Er, please don't to the first option.

Invest in the dream bakery that my wife and I will hopefully have up and running by then!

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 12, 2010 6:54 PM

Mattir @ #495:

Just saying "I'm Jewish" is really not enough.

Thank you! This is exactly my point. He was raised to be Jewish (with all of the religious teaching and Hebrew school and whatnot), but he hasn't been to temple* since his bar mitzvah. I would be a little more understanding (but a hell of a lot less likely to have married him) if he practiced his faith. But then he brings culture into it** and it strikes me as a wee bit hypocritical.

Ewan @ #498:

Good luck with the whole thing - maybe try keep a list of things your husband doesn't do that follow the Jewish tradition (there must be some... thats a longass list of rules right there) which in no way approach the severity of permanent removal of a body part to at least get him out of the realm of mumbo-jumbo and into the realm of sensible discussion on the subject.

If I can figure out how do this without coming off like I'm attacking him, then that's not a bad idea. I just don't want to make an already bad situation worse by acting like a total jackass.

* And he eats bacon. And he's tattooed. And he ignores the non-fun holidays. You get the idea.

** I'm seriously thinking of bringing hippy culture into the argument. No no no no, I'm not a hippy, but my parents sure as shit are and they raised me to be respectful of other people and, above all else, to be nonviolent.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | May 12, 2010 6:57 PM

Ohh a bakery. Like this?

Posted by: MrFire | May 12, 2010 7:04 PM

sorry for the delayed reply, Ol' Greg.

Mrs. Fire does cupcakes, muffins, cookies etc. par excellence. Give her baking powder, and she'll MacGyver up about ten different things.

I try to do anything yeasted: bread (various), bagels, croissants, Vienna breads (a.k.a. Danishes?), pizza.

We intersect at warm, gooey, yeasted cinnamon rolls, drizzled in butter, nuts, and sugar icing.

So that's the pitch. Neither of us has much of a head for business, and we may need to rope in a partner if we want to get it off the ground.

[Funny thing about our baking methods: she's the biologist and I'm the chemist, yet she uses chemical leavening while I rely on biological leavening.]

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | May 12, 2010 7:27 PM

Jadehawk:

Eeeep! Is there a deadline coming up quick, or is there a way to get a replacement in time?

Either way.... yipes. That's sucky. :-/

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | May 12, 2010 7:33 PM

ODS - I wasn't as well-versed in the whole circ debates when my boys were born, and my husband preferred to have it done, so we did. It still hurts to think I let that be done to them. (we're not Jewish, either, just midwestern fundagelicals)

Jadehawk - aaaaaa!!!! Is it retrievable?

Posted by: MrFire | May 12, 2010 7:52 PM

SteveV @586: that looks awesome.

Crap! Ol' Greg, are you still in Paris? Go here!

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 12, 2010 8:16 PM

I do applaud the commitment to fixed-term Parliaments.

What does that mean?

Anyway it gives me another, if somewhat irrational, reason to dislike him (The MP that it is.) (Actually Mooney as well).

:-D :-D :-D

Are there any movies you have never seen and never will?

I nominate:
"The Sound of Music"

Seconded. I've had the displeasure of watching a few seconds.

and "Gone with the Wind"

I've watched that one in full. It was not worth it.

:) And in the picture, the divine grace that has it all make sense lies in the plane of the paper - orthogonal to your line of vision.

Heh.

aaah! my boyfriend accidentally threw out the paper I was supposed to mail out to get a $1200 state grant for college!!

Oh shit! I suppose you have already rummaged through all available trash cans?

What next – can you get a new one, is there a deadline...? Should we start setting up a Get Jadehawk to College fund?

Sorry to link to *shudder* Ain't It Cool News

Immediately after Jurassic Park 3 came out, they started spreading rumors about 4. They kept doing so for years. Nothing has come of this, and almost certainly nothing ever will.

wanted to circ. a premature, fragile and sickly baby without pain control.

Such callousness is hard to imagine.

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | May 12, 2010 8:46 PM

Sitting in the back yard, staring at the garden, twitching to plant...

Movies I've not seen and don't plan to:
Forrest Gump
The Passion of the Christ

MrFire re yeast bread
Have you tried "Jim Lahey's no-knead bread"?
(I don't know how to post a link, and there are a bazillion sites...google)
I've tried a sour-dough version a few times and produced something very tasty but strangely un-bread-like.

Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized | May 12, 2010 9:08 PM

@597 - this was an inner-city Louisville hospital, who were being very punitive over the fact that 1) this was an adoption, and 2) that his birthmother and I knew each other and 3) that I was on the phone constantly to a *good* doctor and hospital for advice. They also wanted to do open heart surgery on him, which they knew would kill him, but they figured he'd be a vegetable anyway and it would give the surgeons some much-needed practice operating on such a small infant.

One doctor actually said to me "You know, if God had wanted you to have children, he would have given them to you."

the one time in my life I had the proper come-back: I said "he did - *this* one."

but they were still terribly punitive over the whole thing. Oh, the stories I could tell you about those 3 weeks!

ps: David is not a vegetable. He has some neurological deficits, but otherwise he's just fine, thank you.

Posted by: Cobolt | May 12, 2010 9:22 PM

I agree with reducing VAT - at least selectively on essentials.

It won't work.

The cost of Produce, like everything else, is market driven, supply and demand, which is why off season produce is always more expensive than new season produce which is always more expensive than mid season produce. The growers, traders and store owners/supermarket chains are all rubbing their hands together thinking there will be more room for profit for them, unfortunately for the growers and store owners only the traders or middlemen will boost their pockets. The poor consumer won't notice one iota of difference in the medium term.

If you want to reduce the cost of the likes of produce you need to flood the market to the point where the middle class can have more than their fill leaving plenty left over for the lower classes etc. Of course this means the growers will get virtually nothing for their toil.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 12, 2010 9:26 PM

I think the pain relief / anesthesia issue with circumcision is by far the biggest issue. Physiological stress from severe pain has long-lasting effects and there is really no reason to impose it on them, even if one does circumcise. That was where I drew the line, but then I married someone with more Jewish observance than Mr. ODS. Not sure where I'd draw the line now, but I'd be closer to ODS now than I was then.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 12, 2010 9:35 PM

I have finally read every single comment in an Endless Thread™. That and $4.39 will buy me a latte.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 12, 2010 9:48 PM

@RevBigDumbChimp

Thanks for defending me over on the first Alabama thread. Nothing like getting accused of making fun of the entire state because I confessed a funny story about my crazy relatives. I'm sure I could find plenty of similar stories within 20 miles of the officially north place I live now.

I forgot to mention on that thread that the minister of this weird little church had the most severe facial tic I have ever seen, wore a brown polyester leisure suit, and played the electric guitar badly. Plus he leaned over Mr. Mattir and asked, in a weird leering tone of voice, "Son, are you a Born Jew?" The whole experience was totally surreal.