In the meantime....

While we wait for the others to finish Book 6, I pose this question:

Which is scarier:
A giant octopus
A giant squid
Or a giant shark?

Discuss.

Book 6

So who is left to read it? Bert and Eric? I doubt JB will read it and Mike probably can't read, so when can we start discussing? I've been done since last Saturday afternoon. Come on people. For the record, my death liklihood-ometer(?) before reading was:
Lupin (v. high)
Ron (high)
Ginny (med)
Mr. Weasley (med)
Hermoine (low)
Dumbledore (low)
Hagrid (impossible) - magic resistant skin is pretty handy it would seem.

Also, it can't turn out like Narnia now because ALL of the books have been good whereas, with exception to about 2 total books (I am allowing fractions as well as full books), the Narnia series was pooptastically boring.

Book 6

Just finished it this morning. Very, very good. I enjoyed it better than 5, and I think it promises a stellar finish in 7. It's tough to talk about it without spoiling, so hurry up and finish it.

stem cells

Good editorial on stem cell research here. Just trying to fuel the JB/Johnny fire.

Many exciting things

1. Toledo has a newpaper called the Blade. All the reporters there are probably top secret ninja assassins so stop badmouthing them. They will find you.

2. Harry Potter is NOT anti-christian. In fact I believe by the end of the seventh book we may have a more subtle version of Narnia.

3. Who in the hell is this John Roberts character? I want my Janice Brown on the Court!

4. Erototoxins. Porn zombies. Science. Here.

5. The monkeysphere theory is interesting. I need to re-read it and consider it some more. But I think some people are assholes, independent of local population.

6. Harry Potter Book 6: good, great grand. Finished it monday by candlelight (no power). Better than 5. Not as good as 4 (my favorite). Still very good. Surprise ending. My death predictometer for this book had the following order: Hagrid, Dumbledore, Ron, Hermoine. I say nothing more. Finish the book and we can discuss. I am dying to talk about it with someone.

Harry Potter Betting Odds

As any of you who follow the series probably know, somebody important is supposed to be killed off in this book. I don't know who it is (though I've read two chapters) and haven't consulted any Potter-related rumor mills. Based on what I know at this point, my casino (if I had one) would place the odds for who will get killed as follows:

Snape- 3:1

Ron- 4:1

Dumbledore- 6:1

Hagrid- 10:1

Hermione- 40:1

McGonagall- OFF


If any of you already know the answer somehow, eat poop.

Monkeysphere

A student sent this to me. It explains everything.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

The Blade

The Toledo Blade has been spearheading much of the BWC/rare coin scandal reporting since the story broke several months ago. Bert is correct in his analysis that certain elements of the Blade's reporting haven't been stellar. However, newspapers often reflect the sentiments and thinking of their age or time. The truth is, the public does have a negative view of lobbying because most people think that much of the lobbying that is done plays to much to pocketbooks, special interests and narrow conclusions. In the public eye, lobbying, for the most part seriously undermines participatory democracy. We send Representatives to the Statehouse or to D.C. to represent our interests, not the interest of lobbying firms. Hence, the Blade is only really reflecting popular sentiment, and that is often what newspapers should, in fact, do.

Additionally, when lobbyists earn large amounts of money, that can cast aspersion (due or undue) on the entire political process. People don't like to think that indiviuals profit from their influence over legislators. My basic point is, lobbying can be a lucrative and rewarding position. But it does carry certain negative connotations in American society which aren't entirely a bad thing, which can help keep things in check. Whether or not your former employer profited largely or legally isn't the point, I don't think, at least to the Blade, but the fact that he lobbies for the highest bidder is the Blade's real beef.

Harry Potter and the Anti-Christian Sect

Good God, I expect this sort of foolishness from average christians, but not from the damn Pope.

Poking at Live8 again

Sharing your sentiments here.

The Blade

The Toledo Blade attempted a hit-job on Ohio Republicans here.

My former boss get's a mention and an interview. The Blade is shocked, just shocked, that after people work in government they make money lobbying.

Most of this is a non-story. The Blade wants to mention everyone that has anything to do with Republican politics and throw them into the coin scandal and Householder shenanigans mix.

Live8 and other things

I guess the only problem I have with the whole situation of Live8 is that it seems like I am expected to do something about this problem...to contribute in some way. I am not entirely sure where the likes of Bono (I'm so fighting him if the chance presents itself) get off telling me that I should help out...I'm not the one sitting on millions of dollars. I am not sitting on any dollars....so Bono, etal need to quit acting like there's something I can do to help. I drive a leaky car that doesn't always start (if anyone in Africa wants my car, they are welcome to it), not sure what Bono thinks I am gonna do, but I'll bet it's not help some third world country pay its dictatorial debts.
On a lighter note, I have been praying to several gods of varying religions to use their divine influence to induce the steps necessary to insight a Pink Floyd reunion tour. While I will not hold my breath for such an event, I encourage everyone to pray to their god(s), as well as choose two or three others, that this might occur. That's about the most reasonable use of theology I can think of. Pray for Floyd Fest '05 (or '06 - just so long as there is a Floyd tour). Religion should be good for something...might as well be gettin the Floyd back together.
Taste the Bone!

One more Live8 comment

Post concert:
I was extremely pleased with Floyd's performance and The Who were actually (surprisingly) impressive. I had my doubts after John E. passed 3 years ago, but they can still handle it pretty well. Floyd's set (Breath, Money, Wish You Were Here, Comfortably Numb) was fairly standard and held no suprises other than the fact they can still rock together pretty well as a cohesive unit. Gilmour did not look as happy as Waters to be there, but he never struck as an outwardly emotional guy (unlike Roger). Will there be a tour? I highly doubt it. But I will shell out $$$ to see it if there is.
As for the rest, eh, it was ok. It was something different to listen to in lab I guess. I think that Bono and Bob Geldof honestly think they can do something about Africa. I can't really begrudge them, the conditions there are awful and no person should be forced to live like that. However, I was reading yesterday about the new generation of educated Africans who don't want money from other nations; they want to end the corruption in their gov'ts and institute free markets to shed Africa of its poverty.
The article is here; very interesting and worth the read.
How was Howl's Moving Castle? It looked very cool and weird; I had no idea that Diana Wynne Jones wrote that. I really enjoyed several of her other books.

Also I hate that Coldplay guy for two reasons: the BS that spews from his mouth and the fact that he married Gwyneth Paltrow. She deserves a much manlier man.

Theology and Reason

All that was meant was the basis for Western morality is strongly linked to theological tradition and the advance of reason during the Enlightenment. It really wasn't controversial. To deny the influence of theology on western morality is folly. Not sure how gay marriage relates.

Re: Live 8

I've had similar thoughts. Basically, I wonder if it might even make the situation in Africa worse if the G8 leaders erase the debt (a resolution they seem to be leaning towards) because it rewards the corrupt dictators and encourages even more corruption. And I get kind of boiled when Bono and the Coldplay guy and Michael Stipe mount their high horses about how we have to do more (i.e. provide more money... ) and pretend that they are modern-day crusaders that can rally the ignorant masses to do some good. These people are musicians. They make their dimes playing music. And it seems to me more than a little futile to look at the trouble that Africa is in and say, "Hey, let's put on a concert!" as if that can do anything to solve the dark continent's many problems. In fairness to Bono, he's been out walking the walk in Africa for a while (as well as feeding his massive ego), but the Bob Geldorf method of staging a concert to raise money and/or awareness is, at best, wasteful and ill-conceived.

The Philly lineup was the least attractive of all the worldwide shows, in my opinion, so I didn't go. I went and saw Howl's Moving Castle instead.

Live 8

As I sit here in lab listening to (and occasionally watching) Live 8 (mainly in anticipation of Pink Floyd and maybe a little for Gordon Lightfoot) I wonder, does this really matter?
I mean, not to be a jerk, but Africa is pretty much a shithole. Is government aid really going to make a difference with all the corruption? All these musicians and actors really piss me off talking about giving more aid (ie, my tax dollars). I realize this event was set up in order to advance the idea of debt relief for African countries (which may be a good thing; they could perhaps get their damn acts together and develop!) but all I've heard these yahoos talk about is throwing more money at the problem.
I mean, couldn't it have been a worldwide charity concert with the money going to knock out 1 select country's debt and see if that works? Other than a Pink Floyd reunion, I don't see anything productive coming from this.

Also, French-Canadian rock music is pretty funny.

Edited to add this, which sort of echoes my sentiments....excepting that I am watching it.

Science, again, again

Theology AND reason....together???? I'm not buying it...that just doesn't add up. On a different note, what if we used stem cell science to allow the aborted fetus to develop and be "born?" That way, we could allow gay marriage and gay couples could adopt stem cell babies. Everyone wins that way. I think that's pretty reasonable...I'm sure Theology would agree.

Science and Morality

The government hasn't interceded in privately funded research. There is no legal ban on stem-cell research, just a ban on federally funded ventures to create new lines-by destroying new embryos. Nor did I advocate such a law. I did say that government is often involved in science deeply at times, which is true. I sure didn't advocate any "Nazi" science, in fact, I don't even really know what you mean by that. My argument was that Western governments are often more restrained and deliberate, which allows them to administer benevolent oversight overy many scientific endeavors. Germany in the 1940s was not a Western nation in the traditional sense, and was not founded on a deep sense of propriety or morality. I did not suggest that the continuation of government regulations continue based upon mere platitudes. My basic point was that unrestrained science contains numerous dangers as well as prospects, and I am skeptical about the ability of the scienctific community to either restrain or regulate itself. This is not based upon inherent immorality of the scientific community, but rather the fact that centuries of scienctific development have not developed a lasting morality that transcends the particular time frame of the scientist. (Excepting Newton, of course.) Theology and reason have done that. Modernity has produced a clash between these two camps, which is why I support a more restrained approach to matters like these.