Thursday, October 27, 2005
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Anyone know where I can buy Carlton Draught?
UPDATE: When I started this post I linked to the ad itself and credited AA for it. Then I thought, 'why don't I just link to AA's post? She'll get a little more traffic.'
Much later I thought, 'yeah, I'm gonna add to AA's traffic. Sure I am.'
It is, by the way, a very funny ad.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Sometimes blogging is like acne...
You have to wait until they're ready to pop. I've been trying to write this post for a week. Now I'm tired of waiting and I'm giving up the quick-and-dirty version.
About a week ago Steve offered this over at Grandpa John's. It's an essay by Edward Feser about the role of metaphysics in ethics (broadly speaking) and dwells at length on the (potential) effect of the existence of god on said ethics. I found it black-and-white and a trifle arrogant, but I'm not here today to quibble about it.
In the comments to the essay, Steve said that he wanted to use the link to try and stir up some more debate at GJ's. He described, accurately, the political/religious makeup of the contributors and speculated, inaccurately, that the points Feser made might be the reason I and my atheist cohort stopped.
Aaaand no. Fair assumption, but no. The reason I stopped was because I was bored with it (here's my last offering). It took Feser's post to make me realize why I was bored.
[I'd like to take this moment to apologize to Steve for referring to him as casually as I'm about to. No offense meant.]
For people like Steve, and the many others I've debated religion with, like Feser, like Frances Schaeffer (yeah, I read that), the existence of god isn't something they've concluded or deduced. It's not the end of a line of thought. It's the beginning.
This is why they never quite (seem to) understand what I'm saying. This is why every attempt to promote a religious point of view (intelligent design) winds up being an attack on the secular (evolution). To be fair, perhaps I'm also misunderstanding, but the point is The Existence Of God is so fundamental to them they can't conceive an argument without that as an underlying principle, a first principle.
If you think I'm wrong, fair enough, but that's my perception and that's why I stopped discussing religion. There is no seeing eye-to-eye, and I have no interest in convincing you that I'm right (about god, I mean), so there's no reason to continue a debate that's bound to circle, endlessly. I will, however, offer a suggestion.
Science is actually neutral to the concept of a creator. Science does not say 'there is no god;' it says 'we have observed no phenomena that would require us to include such a concept in our hypothesis.' So, since the debate over design is so topical these days, and since evolutionary theory, like science in general, is neutral to the concept of a 'designer,' I will also be neutral. I will entertain the possibility that the universe was created by an intelligent being, acting on purpose with full knowledge of what it was doing and why.
Can you, knowing that I do not include The Existence Of God among my core beliefs, explain why I should conclude that this designer is the god you worship?
[Note: recall that I called this the quick and dirty version. I do not intend to sound arrogant or confrontational; if it seems that way, sorry, this one was an itch I needed to scratch and anyway Steve deserved a response.]
Sunday, October 09, 2005
End of first quarter. 14-3. Packers fans take note: this is what it's felt like to play us for the last four weeks.
Second. Ferguson just caught a TD pass. 28-3. Blowouts are less fun to watch, but not to worry. We'll go into ball-control/prevent mode in the third quarter. That'll make it interesting.
And what the heck was that celebration move Favre was laying on Ferguson? Looked like some kind of backbreaker WWF thing.
End of half. 35-3. Watch for TMQ to reference the Vince Lombardi Force Field across the visitors' goalposts.
42-3. Refer to 2nd quarter comment: I could be wrong on that. By the way, Donald Lee? Who's that?
Still 42-3. Aaand disaster strikes. Fox has gone away on my TV. The other channels are fine. I'm stuck depending on Yahoo sports.
Now the sound's back, but no picture. It occurs to me that this post isn't going to make a lot of sense to someone who didn't watch the game. Which begs the question: what the hell was so important you couldn't watch the game?
Perhaps you're unfortunate enough to be watching on the BBC.
Start of fourth. 45-3. Earlier, the booth showed [first-round draft pick] Aaron Rodgers tossing a ball around on the sideline. He said Rodgers was 'warming up,' and remarked that he must be wondering if he were ever going to get in a game.
Duh. Every one of Favre's backups has wondered that.
And he's in the game! I can't believe they got Favre out of there.
Three handoffs, punt. Boring.
Ah, there's the prevent defense. Where ya been?
Look for TMQ to also mention the Saints going for it on 4th and long.
Nick Barnett runs an interception back 95 yards (2nd-longest in team history) and Mister Pterodactyl writes 'game over' in his notebook.
Final thoughts: I think some frustrations got worked out today. Which is healthy, y'know, I wouldn't want my guys bottling that stuff up. Kinda too bad it had to come against the Saints who, let's face it, are looking at a tough year no matter what. But if it's our mental health or theirs, I vote ours.
Player of the game - Grady Jackson.
Nice to see Mike Mckenzie again, too. Hey, no hard feelings, eh?
And I note that Steve managed to comment before the post was even finished.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Kim Jong-Il: not dead yet
But he has apparently chosen a successor:
"North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il has decided to pass the mantle of leadership to his second son, Kim Jong-Chol, according to AERA magazine, a publication of Japan's Asahi Shimbun newspaper. AERA quoted an informed official as saying Kim Jong-Il has made up his mind to transfer his power to his 24-year-old son. North Korea has already begun political indoctrination campaigns during the past several months exalting 'the Commander' Kim Jong-Chol as the legitimate successor to his father's personality cult, the weekly said."
Not terribly surprising. Son number one was out of favor after getting caught sneaking into Japan on his way to Disneyland, and choosing a son-in-law or other family member would make it harder to maintain the divine-inspiration flavor of the Kims' public self-narrative. At any rate, lets hope the succession is soon.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Just because I haven't posted in awhile...
Via Iowahawk, an open letter from Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.