Posted by: SC OM | March 12, 2010 6:29 AM

Well, that is about as plausible as the storyline of the original.

:)

Posted by: triskelethecat | March 12, 2010 6:32 AM

The infinite beers sound interesting (even though I am not a beer drinker). Have to wait till I get home from work to see the video; my employer blocks them and all I have is a large white space.

Posted by: DLC | March 12, 2010 6:49 AM

Beerdance!
most people are too well basted to dance after infinite beers.

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 12, 2010 6:58 AM

Here is Quackalicious' reference to Cochrane studies:

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Oct 8;(4):CD006535. “Touch therapies may have a modest effect in pain relief. More studies on HT and Reiki in relieving pain are needed” But we all knew that. Moms kiss and make it better. People need a hug. There are chemical pathways fed by human touch.

So here we have a Cochrane review, which says being touched may have a modest effect on pain relief. Wow! People like being touched sympathetically when they are not feeling good! Stop the presses!!1eleventy-one!!).

Distance energy work is a different matter. Let’s call it prayer because that’s the most common form. I’m citing the 2007 Cochrane because the 2009 Cochrane has other Cochrane researchers yelling at them. “The evidence presented so far is interesting enough to justify further study into the human aspects of the effects of prayer. However it is impossible to prove or disprove in trials any supposed benefit that derives from God's response to prayer.” Can you guess the prejudice of the author? The 2009 Cochrane writers think prayer studies are a waste of time, can you guess what they believe?

Quackalicious is characteristically vague about the Cochrane reviews he is referring to, giving neither link nor publication details - so this is not, contrary to what he says, a citation. Googling "Cochrane review prayer" brings up only a 2009 review. However, there appears to have been an earlier version, by three of the four 2009 authors, Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (1): CD000368, which I can't get the text of. In fact, this in turn seems to be an update of previous reviews.

So far as I can make out, both the 2007 and 2009 versions were subject to excoriating criticism, and the authors have revised the latter yet again. Here is the latest revised version Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health, Roberts L, Ahmed I, Hall S, Davison A, which is the only actual text I can find.
Here are criticisms of the original. Here is another. The most amusing point is that the authors included in an earlier version a spoof article printed in an issue of the BMJ made up largely of such articles. This was the one that gave the best results. In the latest version, it looks as though the authors (who are apparently all Christian or Muslim, so I don't know what the Quack is quacking about in his hints about their beliefs) have finally conceded that the whole thing is a crock of shit. Time for you to do the same and quack off, Quackalicious.

Posted by: alex.powermax | March 12, 2010 7:18 AM

Hah! That's my mate and neighbour in the leotard. It's a small country. Oh, and I for one welcome our new beer drinking, vegemite swilling tentacled overlord. Hope ytou enjoy your stay in Oz, PZ.

Posted by: Brian English | March 12, 2010 7:20 AM

You drank infinite Carlton Draughts? Love the add, but no way you drank many of that stuff. Reminds me of my mispent youth. There was a lot of egregious comments about Vegemite earlier. Those comments really were earned by CUB. Anyway, if you decide you need a break, my offer to come out to Mernda and see the roos, galahs, and whatever is still open. I don't think you'll take it up however. With all those uni students biding for your time.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 12, 2010 7:26 AM

Thank you, Kg, for tracking down and addressing El Pato's pseudocitations. It was bothering me that 'we' are always asking for peer-reviewed literature as evidence, and then when somebody kind of mentions some, it got blown off. I was going to try to respond this weekend, but I am most grateful that you have made that unnecessary.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 7:47 AM

And don't forget the STEP study.

BACKGROUND: Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality. RESULTS: In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 12, 2010 8:27 AM

"Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall, aleph-null bottles of beer. Take one down, pass it around, aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall . . ."

Posted by: Walton | March 12, 2010 8:44 AM

Topic shift - what do people think about this?

Anna Arrowsmith, porn director, selected as parliamentary candidate

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 12, 2010 8:55 AM

Anna Arrowsmith ?

Well if the Tories can have merchant bankers as candidates, why can't the Lib Dems have a porn film director ? Seems to me that directing porn films is a far more noble profession than merchant banking.

Posted by: hen3ry | March 12, 2010 9:09 AM

Walton: I think that anyone should be able to stand for election. Additionally, it seems that she is very different from most MPs, as she is not a lawyer. I am all for anything that reduces the proportion of lawyers in the commons is a good thing.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 9:15 AM

Topic shift - what do people think about this?

Well Italy did it.

Posted by: Michael Osborne | March 12, 2010 9:18 AM

Always enjoy Carlton Draught ads.

Especially like this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYZs7VJaAlQ

:)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 9:25 AM

Bah crap

Firefox 3.6 update and the Text formatting toolbar isn't supported at the current build,

son

of

a

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 12, 2010 9:31 AM

Rev. BDC, it appears that the developer of TFT has an upgrade for 3.6, but it isn't linked to the Firefox addon collection. The addon can be downloaded from the developers site.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 9:34 AM

BDC, Go directly to the homepage of the toolbar, which is here. The version there works with 3.6.

Nope sorry I was wrong, that was not the version I had installed.

Thanks Matt.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 9:37 AM

Oh I can only dream of the backlash this is going to cause but oh well.

Anyone interested in a gentlemanly wagerized Pharyngula NCAA bracket?

We could set up one on ESPN

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 12, 2010 9:44 AM

I am going to do a first for me, and give you all a taste of the music I am currently listening to.

The Trumpton Riots

Posted by: iambilly | March 12, 2010 9:47 AM

Reverend:

Since I started reading (and (occasionally) commenting) on Pharyngula, I have noticed the occasional comment (not that I can quote (or even misquote) one right now off the top of my pointy little head) referring to atheists and/or scientists as elitists who are out of touch with mainstream 'Merca. I get the same occasional comment on my piddly little blog. To suggest that such out of touch elitists would be interested in the NCAA tournament (yes, I am interested) blows the whole elitist and out of touch meme out of the water (which is needed for the zebra fish).

Yes. I, an out of touch elitist ivory-tower snob am interested in a Pharyngula bracket.

Pharyngula bracket. Sorry. I just had a vision of a squid hanging on a wall.

Posted by: iambilly | March 12, 2010 9:50 AM

Antiochus: And certain beers are very good for attracting and drowning garden slugs. Beer and gardening. Beer garden. Biergarten.

Sounds good.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 12, 2010 10:00 AM

It'll just be easier for PZed to put the photo up in his own time - it'll be worth any wait.

Says the man sitting next to me on the couch typing away on my laptop...:-) And PZ, feel free to post them, I dont mind, neither does the Bride...

Nite Nite

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 12, 2010 10:05 AM

Topic shift - what do people think about this? Anna Arrowsmith, porn director, selected as parliamentary candidate

I suppose what I thought of her would depend on her position on whatever political issues I cared about given I was living there.

She sounds like an interesting woman.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | March 12, 2010 10:15 AM

Walton's coming along quickly! Just recently he thought toilet paper was an unsuitable topic. Now he wants to talk about porn?

What next? Will he be ditching that bow tie?
(I don't actually know if he wears one, but that's my mental image). :)

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 12, 2010 10:17 AM

Walton's coming along quickly! Just recently he thought toilet paper was an unsuitable topic. Now he wants to talk about porn?

We will have him resigning from the Conservative Party soon.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 12, 2010 10:27 AM

Just recently he thought toilet paper was an unsuitable topic

Did he really? Walton? Any comments, sir?

Posted by: iambilly | March 12, 2010 10:33 AM

Benjamin: Just lampooning my (admittedly weird) writing style. My blog is called (((Billy))) The Atheist because of that (lack of) writing style.

Ol'Greg: Behind the times? I'm an public historian specializing in steam-era technology. If it happened after the 1950s, it is modern and up to date. I live behind the times.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 12, 2010 10:38 AM

Behind the times? I'm an public historian specializing in steam-era technology.

Really? Because that... is...awesome.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 12, 2010 10:46 AM

RBDC #35

Count me in...

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 12, 2010 10:49 AM

RBDC #35

you can email me details...

celticevolution at gmail...

Posted by: iambilly | March 12, 2010 10:54 AM

RBDC #35:

I checked your vox site and cannot contact you via the site. Could you email the details to billytheatheist[at]gmail.com ?

A-Team? A-Team? If ever a crappy TV show cried out to never be made into a movie, that would be it. I was in middle and high school when it was on TV and even back then (when I was young and stupid) I thought is was poorly written, badly acted, cheaply done, and a remarkably dim premise (of course, that may be my elitism showing through).

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 12, 2010 11:00 AM

Abortion Changes You!

WTF?

So does sex, a beer, living for five years,learning to drive,a tooth extraction,marriage, divorce,moving from your family, gaining a sibling,major illnes,unwanted pregnancy, wanted pregnancy,the birth of a child.

Maybe we should outlaw living.

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | March 12, 2010 11:04 AM

I guess because that most people finally realize that the abortion/breast cancer link was contrived and so some moved on to something even more nebulous and less likely to be disproven by studies.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 11:18 AM

Ok sent you both emails from ESPN with the log in info. You'll have to create an espn account if you don't have one.

Yeah I only signed up for Vox to be able to log in here.

bigdumbchimp [at] gmail

Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 12, 2010 11:31 AM

Maybe we should outlaw living.

Not a bad idea. I mean imagine a series of posters and ads that echo the message:

Graduation Changes You

Our son went from being a high school football star to a kid needing to find a summer job to help pay for next year's college tuition in less than a month.

Getting Married Changes You

We thought the dress and the flowers and the limos and the band would make our wedding one of the most special days of our lives. Er, it was, but now we can't afford to go to the movies.

Getting a Job Changes You

He used to love to sit on that couch all day and play GTA IV. Now I tear up whenever I look at those empty cushions Mondays through Fridays from 7:45 AM to 5:00 PM.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 12, 2010 11:42 AM

Reading Pharyngula Changes You

He used to be so arrogantly sure of his libertarian viewpoints and unwavering in his faith. It breaks my heart to see him now accepting that gays have the same rights as everyone else. I die a little inside when I see him asking for evidence and citation instead of accepting biblical truth. I hardly recognize the once blissfully ignorant, morally bankrupt, self-indulgent little god-bother I once knew. I'm afraid that person is gone forever...

Posted by: KOPD | March 12, 2010 11:42 AM

Not having an abortion changes you. Duh. Eating lunch changes you. Everything you could possibly do could possibly change you. Educate yourself on how it could change you and make an informed fucking decision (if it's your decision to make).

Brought to you by Captain Obvious.

Posted by: KOPD | March 12, 2010 11:46 AM

Alternate version of 71

He used to be so productive and yet still have free time for personal projects. It breaks my heart to see him wasting away as he follows the undying thread. I die a little inside when I see him constantly refreshing the page. I'm afraid the person I knew is gone forever...

ymmv

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | March 12, 2010 11:53 AM

Jefferson Airplane ~ Crown of Creation

You are the Crown of Creation

You are the Crown of Creation
and you've got no place to go.

Soon you'll attain the stability you strive for
in the only way that it's granted
in a place among the fossils of our time.

In loyalty to their kind
they cannot tolerate our minds.
In loyalty to our kind
we cannot tolerate their obstruction.

Life is Change
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways too often for my liking
New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
and be alive
for you.

Posted by: iambilly | March 12, 2010 12:01 PM

Going back to the thread of a couple of days ago (the one with the dancing penises (not something I write every day)): Brian Switek over at Laelaps has a post about even more bizarre Ediacaran fauna. Pop over, look at the life restoration of Herpetogaster collinsi and then think Freud.

Neat beast, but weird.

Posted by: Kevin | March 12, 2010 12:04 PM

@Celtic_Evolution (71) and KOPD (75):

Hey! Those both fit me exactly! Reading Pharyngula does change you!

Posted by: Kevin | March 12, 2010 12:09 PM

@iambilly:

The glass retorts which, when placed on the palm of your hand, cause the liquid inside to boil and travel up a coiled stem.

Posted by: iambilly | March 12, 2010 12:13 PM

No, these are demonstration units with coloured liquid -- I would guess alcohol in a semi-vacuum to lower the boiling point?

Posted by: Kevin | March 12, 2010 12:25 PM

@iambilly:

Wouldn't be an alembic, would it?

Posted by: iambilly | March 12, 2010 12:31 PM

Kevin: Thank you. A fellow worker is writing up an education proposal for a grant and was searching for a name. I think alembic is it.

[pause for Google]

Probably is the name.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 12, 2010 12:33 PM

Dang, looks like I need to fumigate my work keyboard again. Kninja Knitter

Posted by: iambilly | March 12, 2010 12:38 PM

Sorry for the Ediacaran -- I claim liberal arts education?

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 12, 2010 12:40 PM

Kiisortoqia. Without s. *grumble*

At least the retry worked. And the Kninja Knitter sounds interesting… if insane…

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 12, 2010 12:46 PM

Yo, Lynn @80:

You said "Actually, the Quackmeister did provide references to studies earlier...because that would require..integrity. Most of the Quackmeisters references to studies...had not been refuted.
Then Quack provided more references...And he defended nurses. Suffice it to say that...he will provide references to yet more...studies."

You're obviously a fan. Might as well cop to it.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 12, 2010 12:52 PM

Brigham Young University Is Nation's Most Popular National University
That's the story from U.S. News & World Report. The blockquote below is the simplified version from KSL, a mormon-owned news outlet:

Brigham Young University nudged past Harvard University for the title of most popular school.
     U.S. News & World Report bestowed the title on BYU last week, basing its decision on the number of students accepted to the school who actually choose to attend.
     Each year, 78 percent of those accepted to BYU actually end up going to school there. Harvard came in second with 76 percent.
     The University of Utah ranked No. 17 with 51 percent

Posted by: Kevin | March 12, 2010 12:58 PM

@Lynna, OM:

Wait... a news story that leaves out details? No, really?

Posted by: w1ndsurfer4944 | March 12, 2010 12:59 PM

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 12, 2010 1:04 PM

Human cells exhibit foraging behavior like amoebae and bacteria.

Doesn't sound surprising, but the link doesn't work.

Reindeer stop the clock to cope with polar days and nights.

Awesome…

Malicious Software: Hiding Honeypot Traps from Botnet Drones.

Not only interesting in itself – a click away lies this report of ice at sea level at ~ 10° N or S (probably S, but I'm guessing) 716.5 Ma ago, a(n incredibly precise) date that is connected to the opening of the Pacific Ocean.

Like this one?

Wow. Just in time for the Thread. As if arranged! Does he read it…?

children of General Authority members attend for free

:-o

I wouldn't have expected the elitism to be that blatant.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 12, 2010 1:08 PM

that second s is struck out, and I forgot the ital tags

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 12, 2010 1:10 PM

in that comment way the hell up there, I mean

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 12, 2010 1:13 PM

Glenn Beck has stirred up the wrong nest of vipers.

In the wake of Glenn Beck's admonishment to his viewers that they leave their church if it engages in "social justice," the Christian community is rising up to condemn his heresy. This could spell trouble for TV's most famous conspiracy-obsessed, cult-minded, race-baiting, rodeo-clown, crybaby. In fact, it may exacerbate his already severe persecution complex to the point that he envisions these critics as the coming of his tormentors with a giant wooden cross and a crown of thorns....
     By demanding that Christians leave any church that practices social justice, Beck is asking himself to leave his own church. And from the sound of it, I don't think the rest of the congregation would mind terribly much if he did.

It will be fun, however, to watch even more advertisers pull their ad dollars from the Glenn Beck show. Glenn, please do continue to alienate the Christians. Thank you.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 12, 2010 1:16 PM

Brigham Young University nudged past Harvard University for the title of most popular school. U.S. News & World Report bestowed the title on BYU last week, basing its decision on the number of students accepted to the school who actually choose to attend.

Why would "popular" measured by the % of students accepted to the school who choose to attend, be a good thing ?

Let's take an extreme example:

200 complete morons apply to the really crap school for quacks and their admirers, school that only teaches how to become a certified quack. 100 of them are accepted, and because they are complete morons and aren't accepted elsewhere, all choose to attend that school. So it scores 100% on the popularity contest, the school for quacks and their admirers is the most "popular" school in the country.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 12, 2010 1:24 PM

Louis, here's the link to my comment.

As for Thursday, I don't think I'm ready for that yet. I'm still in the 'flicking myself through the denim in the office supply closet' stage, and I think I'm still a ways away from the sitting in a seatless chair for a rousing session with a carpet-beater à la Casino Royale.

Posted by: cicely | March 12, 2010 1:29 PM

Sven, do you mind if I steal (I mean, borrow without obtaining prior permission, but with proper attribution) the first line of your haiku at 10, and drive a different second and third line in under it? (I hope not, but I'm going to do it anyway.) Ahem.

Bam! Teh portcullis.
Now, to the Undying Thread
Add Infinite Beers!

And, in a similar vein, I would like to respond to Benjamin Geiger @ 52:

Ook! Ook ook ook ook.
Ook ook ook ook ook-ook ook,
Ook ook ook ook ook.

Brownian, OM @69:

Getting a Job Changes You

He used to love to sit on that couch all day and play GTA IV. Now I tear up whenever I look at those empty cushions Mondays through Fridays from 7:45 AM to 5:00 PM.

ROTFLMAO!!! *sniff* So beautiful, and so true!

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 12, 2010 1:34 PM

David M., sorry the link to human cells foraging didn't work. I guess I'd better just cut and paste the link:
http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/News/Feeds/2010/03/products-cell-biology-human-cells-exhibit-foraging-behavior-like-amoebae/

Rev BDC: yes, they go so on missions. The LDS Church used to field an army of about 60,000 missionaries per year. Now They send out about 50,000 -- and the poor missionaries pay for the experience themselves. They even pay for the Book of Mormon copies they give out. They pay to be housed in substandard hovels, where some of them die or get very ill. Some of the missionaries, under pressure from supervisors, cook their stats for converts. They baptize drunks, the homeless, the deluded, and then never see them again. The church leaders take advantage of 19-year-old young men and women who have been brainwashed into making some older supervisor look good enough to move up in the ranks. At one time, LDS missionaries offered English lessons in Japan as a sneaky way of getting Japanese converts. (I think they put a stop to that.) Missionaries are encouraged to give religion first and aid second. Of course, some missionaries will provide meaningful aid despite all the obstacles, but the church can't take credit for that.

Posted by: Louis | March 12, 2010 1:35 PM

Brownian #115,

Cheers for the link.

Does Thursday look better if I supply the vicar? I can have him shaved, gagged and liberally sanded.

For those of you who think this is a sexual thing, far, far from it. I just like to torture vicars.

And now I wait for that comment to be picked up at The Intersection Two Prudes, One Kwak, claimed to be adovcacy of vicar abuse by Pharynguloids, and my path to world domination (and profit) is assured. Mwah ha ha haaaaa!

Louis

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 1:40 PM

But Lynna you just can't grasp all the good we do when we are on mission. There was this girl on the side of the road and she was very very sick with malaria and possibly other diseases and me and my mission partner came up and told her it was going to be ok. That God had a plan for her.

We sat and prayed with her.

When we left she was trying to smile there on the side of the road, laying on the ground and coughing.

See all the good we do?

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 12, 2010 1:44 PM

It will be fun, however, to watch even more advertisers pull their ad dollars from the Glenn Beck show. Glenn, please do continue to alienate the Christians. Thank you.

I don't even know whether that's going to work.
There seems to be a very large reservoir of crazies and the more crazy things Becks says, the more people talk about him, the more they say he's crazy, the more the crazies like him and his audience meter goes up.

And because there will always be companies that need to tap in the huge crazies market, whether to sell SUVs, granite counter tops, or many other things, there will be anouncers that will advertise on his show.

He'd have to say something that the crazies really don't like. Being against "social justice" is something the crazies really like.

Posted by: https://openid.org/cujo359 | March 12, 2010 1:46 PM

Better than the original. Thanks.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 1:54 PM

Gonna Make you Sweat

Posted by: Qwerty | March 12, 2010 1:55 PM

Change changes you.

Posted by: MrFire | March 12, 2010 1:58 PM

1) Is that CBT as in "Cock and Ball Torture" or CBT as in "Cognitive Behaviout Therapy"?

I'm disappointed Louis. I've seen you come up with far more imaginative - and deranged -acronyms* than that.

I would challenge you to a POOP** contest, but we'd both get banned or at least killfiled. And speaking of Brownian, you know he can write some, ah, impressively salty stuff himself.

* OK, I suppose it's the opposite: the expansion of an acronym into new words. There a word for that?

** Pervertedest One On Pharyngula. Red Dwarf of course has the best acronym ever (about 2:50 in, but the whole scene is a classic).

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 12, 2010 1:59 PM

Who owns a haiku?
They are emitted and then
they belong to all

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 2:03 PM

He may not be a rodeo clown, but he's a clown

Posted by: Bastion Of Sass | March 12, 2010 2:04 PM

Drinking in Australia changes you.

He used to be a militant new atheist, biologist, and assistant professor at the University of Minnesota Morris named P.Z. Myers, but now, after visiting an Australian pub, it's almost as if he's become a different person entirely.

He's traded in his crockoduck tie for a leotard and tights. He's dyed his hair and beard and curled his hair.

He's unexpectedly developed an awesome talent as a breakdancer. He's decided to become a beer brewer, although it's not yet clear if he's adding this new career path to his teaching, or dropping the latter for the former.

His 'Merican accent has been swapped for an Aussie one, although that happens to a lot of Americans after a night of two-handed drinking in an Aussie pub.

And, in the biggest shocker of all, P.Z. has changed his name to Kevin Cavandish.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 12, 2010 2:08 PM

But Lynna you just can't grasp all the good we do when we are on mission. There was this girl on the side of the road and she was very very sick with malaria and possibly other diseases and me and my mission partner came up and told her it was going to be ok. That God had a plan for her. We sat and prayed with her. When we left she was trying to smile there on the side of the road, laying on the ground and coughing. See all the good we do?

For those who may want to relive the glories of the past, and sample the mormon puffery of "bravestarr", here's the woman-dying-of-malaria comment.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 12, 2010 2:27 PM

Glenn "socialism-is-bad-believe-me-I-read-about-it-free-of-charge-at-the-public-library" Beck used drink a lot and was addicted to drugs. I think that severly damaged his brain. He now lives crying and BARKING LIKE A DOG on TV.

I think he's been getting worse. He'll soon be too paranoid and crazy even for Fox News viewers. And his kind doesn't go gently into the night. No, he'll starfart so spectacularly and totally people will be talking about it even years afterwards.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 2:32 PM

I think he's been getting worse.

He is and has been for 10 years.

I used to occasionally catch him on the radio back before he went big. He was still a right wing asshole but wasn't nearly outwardly as batshit fucking insane as he is now.

I think the probably of his head imploding in a pink misty pop over something as trivial as even the mention of government run [insert here] is rapidly accelerating to 1.

The only thing that will be left are his temple garments and a strange odor of brimstone and fried bologna.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 12, 2010 2:34 PM

I think he's been getting worse. He'll soon be too paranoid and crazy even for Fox News viewers. And his kind doesn't go gently into the night. No, he'll starfart so spectacularly and totally people will be talking about it even years afterwards.

I can't wait for it :-)

Posted by: Qwerty | March 12, 2010 2:35 PM

Rev. BDC @ #142 - Seasons 3 and 4 of SNL are on sale at Target for only $16.95 for the next couple of weeks.

You'd only have to give up four or five pounds of bacon to afford one of these!

Posted by: Louis | March 12, 2010 2:36 PM

Mr Fire #133,

You can be disappointed all you like, pal, it's not my acronym! ;-)

The practise of enjoying painful manipulation of a gentleman's happy sausage and clockweights is genuiney referred to as CBT....erm...allegedly. I don't know from experience myself you understand.

The Committee mentioned in the clip (ahhhh the Dwarf) is one of the highlight in an excellent show.

------------

iambilly #134,

A lay canon? I suppoe it'll do in a pinch, although I'd prefer a deacon. Had a bishop and two verger's in here last week. Bloody marvellous.

Walton #19,

Re: Anna Arrowsmith. I have just spent some time viewing Mrs Arrowsmith's work. I am going to relax for a while then view some more. Frankly, she needs to up her game to get my vote.

;-)

Louis

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 12, 2010 2:37 PM

No, he'll starfart so spectacularly and totally people will be talking about it even years afterwards.

Heh. I swear if I'm ever interviewed and asked what was the single best thing I learned by reading Pharyngula daily, I will immediately and without hesitation reply that it introduced the term "starfart" into my vernacular. And not just because it just sounds damn funny, but because never has a word been so aptly, yet so ironically redefined (from the poor commenter's chosen nym to the descriptive term that so wonderfully encompassed his/her own complete meltdown).

Pharyngula! It's Faaaaaaaantastic!

Posted by: Kevin | March 12, 2010 2:38 PM

@Rev. BDC:

I used to occasionally catch him on the radio back before he went big. He was still a right wing asshole but wasn't nearly outwardly as batshit fucking insane as he is now.

I did too, I really enjoyed him back then because I was ignorant right wing conservative Christian. Sometime between Obama running for president and now, he snapped and went completely crazy.

I have subsequently stopped listening to him, and his books are now in the pile of other books I don't read anymore - devotionals, biblical word studies, and the bible itself.

Posted by: Kevin | March 12, 2010 2:41 PM

@Celtic_Evolution:

Which thread was the starfart in?

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 12, 2010 2:42 PM

I'm particularly haunted by the fact that Quack credits himself with "keeping" a terminally ill cancer patient alive for "six more months" after an oncologist told her to "go home and die."

First of all, only a terrible doctor would say that. Having dealt with and met several oncologists I really have never seen them be anything but honest and kind to their patients about the chances of their recovery. Sadly I have seen several friends become ill from cancer and some of them have died.

One in particular was at Stage IV of a fairly rare cancer (mycosis fungoides). She did opt for aggressive treatment, but she ultimately she did die from the cancer which had spread to her lymph system by the time she was diagnosed. Never once did any of her doctors (mind you there's more than one here) tell her to "go home and die."

Similarly the same group of doctors was involved in comforting another person I know who happened to have the same type of rare cancer (what are the odds) with the fact that hers was in an early stage and had a good chance of remission. Currently she is cancer free.

Now, despite the deaths from cancer I know of, not a single one just dropped dead from cancer. Time frames vary. One person lived a month or two, another lived nearly a year longer than expected although she was in horrible pain the whole time. Doctors may give a time frame that is expected, but giving a person a realistic expectation of the development of their disease is not the same as telling them to "go home and die."

Posted by: iambilly | March 12, 2010 2:43 PM

I think he's been getting worse. He'll soon be too paranoid and crazy even for Fox News viewers. And his kind doesn't go gently into the night. No, he'll starfart so spectacularly and totally people will be talking about it even years afterwards.

Too crazy for Faux? Is that possible?

Louis @ 151:

A verger? So that would make it a 'merger with a verger'? Or have I just gone down a road I will regret?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 2:46 PM

Ok Janine, that was painful.

To make up for it, we get the Deodato version.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 12, 2010 2:46 PM

The starfart meltdown.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 12, 2010 2:49 PM

**looks over Feynmaniac's twitching corpse, pistol still in hand**

Yer too slow, tenderfoot...

Posted by: Becca | March 12, 2010 2:50 PM

changing the topic for a minute, if I may. I'm seriously thinking of dropping the Point of Inquiry podcast, and telling CFI that it's because I can't stand Chris Mooney and don't want to support him in any way. I consider him dishonest, and, as a Templeton Fellow, to run counter to what the CFI stands for.

I have nothing against (or for - not enough experience with them) his co-hosts, and what I did hear was interesting.

Has anyone else dropped PoI? did you tell CFI why?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 2:54 PM

The comments following the starfart are an important part of the experience.

crying here

Posted by: Louis | March 12, 2010 3:00 PM

Starfart may have had an epic meltdown, but does he/she write lucidly about the Congo?*

Louis

*Determined to show horn that one in there.

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | March 12, 2010 3:02 PM

Starfart may have had an epic meltdown, but does he/she write lucidly about the Congo?*

Louis

*Determined to show horn that one in there.

I regret having ever made that concession, which I did preemptively to fend off the inevitable BUT HE WRITES GOOD SOMETIMES SO HES NOT A BAD WRITER.

Actually, the way you've pimped it is pretty damn funny, Louis.

Posted by: Louis | March 12, 2010 3:03 PM

Also I wish to shoe horn it in.

Horse cocks!

Louis

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | March 12, 2010 3:04 PM

Let's be fair to starfart. Here, starfart gives a rather thorough thrashing to the creationist poster, Kevin Wirth. Yes, that meltdown was spectacular. But I wish starfart would show up more often.

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | March 12, 2010 3:05 PM

ROFL. Come on, Louis, show us a little horn [OSG giggles and twirls hair around finger].

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 12, 2010 3:07 PM

Feynmaniac later formalized the usage:

Actually, to give credit where credit is due, the first suggestion of the use of the word as a verb describing complete meltdown was by Bride of Shrek in the very same thread.

And she did it hilariously:

Example:

Creotard: ..but the bible says so!

B of S: No it doesn't.

Creotard: no really it does , Lord Jesus said so

B of S: Your might want to fuck of, I'm about to Starfart.

Posted by: Kevin | March 12, 2010 3:08 PM

@Janine:

Wow, that is a nice post.

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | March 12, 2010 3:09 PM

Sven, your #182 is FAIL! Must have content after colon; am curious!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 3:10 PM

After scrolling down, I know realize that Kevin Wirth was the tick tock asshole.

Ahhh good catch.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 12, 2010 3:13 PM

Yes, that meltdown was spectacular. But I wish starfart would show up more often.

Echoing RBDC's sentiments in #184... no doubt. "Starfart" is an homage to a glorious complete meltdown by an otherwise respectable and likable commenter.

In fact, I think I shall make my way to Urban Dictionary and suggest a new entry...

Posted by: Louis | March 12, 2010 3:14 PM

Rev BDC #174,

No that's just one attempt at my takeover of your title as King of Typos. World domination is not enough.

---------

Josh OSG and Locutus of Gay #175,

I don't know Mr (Dr?) Laden and bear the man no ill will. I've enjoyed some of his output before, so I agree, his writing is not universally terrible. As if *I'm* in a position to criticise! LOL

The recent DRAMA and arseholery from Greg has been amusing as an outsider, but IMO it's shown him up as something of a muppet. Pity really. The "writes lucidly on the Congo" stuff just amused the hell out of me. It just sounded so incongruous amongst the rest of people's comments. It seemed to be damning with faint praise, and I laughed pretty hard at it. It needs wider attention imo.

I probably shouldn't pimp it, but if I can get my own (positive) contribution to Pharyngula Lore then my incredibly low standards of Internet Contribution will be met and I can die a happy commenter. Or not. ;-)

Louis

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 3:18 PM

No that's just one attempt at my takeover of your title as King of Typos. World domination is not enough.

Which you of course realize puts me in the perfect position to be critical of everyone's typos.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 12, 2010 3:19 PM

I love it when 'Recent Coomments' is all teh Thread!

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | March 12, 2010 3:33 PM

Ugh. My glamorous life has come to a screeching halt. I have to go the city dump. Can you imagine? Serves me right for being so cheap I won't hire a garbage removal service.

In my absence, I'll be accepting comments on what I should have for supper.

Thank you. SpokesGay out.

Posted by: cicely | March 12, 2010 3:36 PM

Lynna:

Well done, cicely.

*blush*Thank you.

I'm no Cuttlefish,
But I can, at least, haiku
Like a mad woman.

Sven:

Who owns a haiku? They are emitted and then they belong to all

Very generous of you (no sarcasm).

Still, I prefer to at least give people a quick heads-up while I'm filing the serial numbers off of their intellectual property. :)

KOPD:

Do they look more like porcelain?

I suppose they do, only with a more matte finish, and without the floral motif painted on.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 3:37 PM

In my absence, I'll be accepting comments on what I should have for supper.

Thai salmon basil curry with coconut lime scented rice.

There you go, problem solved.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 3:40 PM

iPhone does not like scienceblogs. iPhone does not like many many comments. iPhone makes me sad some times and glad I bought it off a friend for 50 bucks instead of paying $$$ for one from ATT. Scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll... oops page refreshed... scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll....

Iphone would not let me get in that many characters before refreshing the blog though, thus deleting all my hard earned psychotic rage.

Yep I've 100% stopped torturing myself trying to read and especially comment from my iPhone.

It's unbearable.

That's the one feature I'd love to get from teh sciborg

A mobile version of the blogs.

*laughs hysterically at the thought of the sciborg undergnomes being able to deliver.

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | March 12, 2010 3:47 PM

off topic:

Hey, PZ, Gov. Pawlenty is up no good.
http://tinyurl.com/christiansoldiers
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/03/don_betzold_acc.php

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 3:48 PM

Oh fuck.

Prepare for the anti-predator asshole brigade to come out in full force now. Expect Sarah Palin to be there leading the protest reading the keynote off the back of her hand.

Posted by: Louis | March 12, 2010 3:51 PM

Mr Fire #204,

But my therapist was strapped to a vaulting horse and told me to come on in.

I need a new therapist. Or perhaps I don't.

Louis

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 12, 2010 3:59 PM

I do not know about iPhone but on my crackberry, I installed Bolt.

Iphone = Safari = total suckage.

No flash support, and the only 3rd party browsers you can get are pieces of crap like Edge and others which all must be based on WebKit to work on the iPhone, and aren't really "browsers" but just more like "skins" for Safari.

Posted by: iambilly | March 12, 2010 4:06 PM

Josh, Official SpokesGay In my absence, I'll be accepting comments on what I should have for supper.

Well, I'm having Tuscan grilled ham, radicchio and fresh peas in cream sauce served over spaghetti rigati. I will accompany it with some leftover homemade Italian batter bread and a field greens salad.

(((Wife))) and I have a deal: I cook, she cleans up. And it has worked for nigh onto 20 years (well, 20 years come May something-or-other (at least, I think it's 20 years (1989 to 2010 -- shit, it's 21 years (which means (((Boy))) turns 20 (I lost a year somewhere)))). Over 20 years. Or something.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 12, 2010 4:21 PM

Free dinosaur app from the AMNH! Seems to show detailed photos, the kind of thing scientists need... I don't have an iPhone, but perhaps I need one. Occasionally. :-)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

LOL! 2:41: two people ask independently for a link to the original starfart. 2:46: two other people independently provide the direct link to the comment.

:-)

And then comes...

Yer too slow, tenderfoot...

LOL! Pharyngula is a mood-altering substance ^_^

Shoo! I'm not sharing. Find your own caninely well-endowed population! The paleontologists are miiiine!

But... as far as I can tell, nobody even so much as implied taking any paleontologists away from you. :-)

Ugh. My glamorous life has come to a screeching halt. I have to go the city dump. Can you imagine? Serves me right for being so cheap I won't hire a garbage removal service.

Uh... is that privatized in the USA? Like health insurance?

o_O

In my absence, I'll be accepting comments on what I should have for supper.

Cress soup. I hadn't had any in a long time (an entire week, or almost), so I'm finishing my second plate now. :-) And this after having had a slightly different kind of cress soup for dinner!

...well... what edibles have you got at home?

Thai salmon basil curry with coconut lime scented rice.

:-o

That sounds so good I might even get over the coconut part.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 12, 2010 4:22 PM

That's the one feature I'd love to get from teh sciborg A mobile version of the blogs.

Dude, are you...

Did...

Did you just...?

I think that costs more than a camera.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 12, 2010 4:28 PM

I'm particularly haunted by the fact that Quack credits himself with "keeping" a terminally ill cancer patient alive for "six more months" after an oncologist told her to "go home and die."

First of all, only a terrible doctor would say that. Having dealt with and met several oncologists I really have never seen them be anything but honest and kind to their patients about the chances of their recovery. Sadly I have seen several friends become ill from cancer and some of them have died.

No, see, that's what doctors do, every Doc "I wish I'd specialised in plastic surgery so I could be staring at silicone implants all day instead of treating these--ugh!--people" Hollywood-esque one of 'em. In contrast naturopaths, to the qi-harnessing last one of 'em, got into medicine because they were born of a holy union of Jesus and a rainbow and dream of nothing but treating the whole person and only accept money because one can't buy empty homeopathy bottles with Kumbaya choruses.

/quack

You know these assholes can only get away with saying such shit in a vacuum. People like me who--ahem!--work in chronic disease surveillance specialising in cancer and work closely with more dedicated, caring, and compassionate oncologists than asshats like quackalicious can count without taking off their shoes aren't fooled. I've met palliative and end-of-life teams in hospitals. Suggesting they say "go home and die" is complete dishonesty. It really just suggests that either they have no idea what real medicine is (likely), or they're total fucking liars with an economic stake in painting real medicine in the harshest, most unkind light possible (slightly likelier).

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 12, 2010 4:38 PM

Contents may have settled in transit.

X-D

polenta-encrusted chicken with balsamic caper sauce and wild rice...

Impressive. But both polenta and wild rice?

Polenta is best fried in salted butter and eaten with pörkölt <drool> or fried bacon (with all its grease). Delicious (if you used enough butter), and you won't be hungry for the rest of the day. :-)

Posted by: Rorschach | March 12, 2010 4:46 PM

Those young heathens are off to the first talk at the GAC, 0830am.Spawn is 3 today, so I'm going to be handing over prezzies before I go back and join the fracas later, which is good since it gives me time to somehow recover from last night's uhm, goings-on.

It is a thing to behold, people sitting in pubs reading TGD at midnight, gazillions of godless folks laughing, enjoying, excited about this event, even real crazy xtian people in the streets handing out Comfort screeds!!

Expect much celebration today, and even more tone concern expressed from the other side !!

Posted by: A. Noyd | March 12, 2010 4:49 PM

My problem with reading Pharyngula on the iPhone is that the longer threads simply crash Safari. Lots. Waiting for a 500+ post thread to reload is annoying as fuck (though it seems like the ads cause the longest holdup). Wait times aside, I have a few tricks that make reading Pharyngula easier.

First, I use the "find in page" bookmarklet* to avoid scrolling through what I've already read. This requires remembering something unique to search for near where you left off, though, since the feature only takes you to the first instance of what you're searching. Usually the post number (with the number sign) works. There's also a bookmarklet for going to the bottom of a page, but I don't have that one, so I can't comment on how well it works.

Second, if I want to refresh the page without finding where I was, I press and hold the date and time link of the post I'm on and choose "Open in New Page."

.....................
*You have to bookmark the bookmarklets in Safari or IE on your main computer and then sync them with your phone. However, this will replace all the current bookmarks on your phone, so you might want to sync the other way first. And if you don't want to overwrite your computer's bookmarks, then make a copy of your bookmarks file and use the copy to replace the bookmarks after you get the bookmarklets onto your phone. It's a hassle, but being able to search a page is well worth it.

Posted by: A. Noyd | March 12, 2010 4:52 PM

David Marjanović (#223)

Impressive. But both polenta and wild rice?

In English, polenta sometimes refers to the raw corn meal and not the porridge. I'm guessing that's the case here.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 12, 2010 4:56 PM

on the Friday Cephalopod thread I drew your attention to an article, and I'd be interested in your opinion.

I just replied. In short, I have yet to read the paper...

why are you all talking about dinner already? I haven't had breakfast yet...

:-) I never have breakfast except for a mug of milk, because I simply don't get up early enough – I read my e-mails, take a look at the Internet, and go to the cafeteria. On weekends, I almost always skip breakfast, too (usually I don't even have bread in the house... though I'll probably buy some tomorrow!), and start cooking sometime in the afternoon... or early evening even... depends, actually, less on my hunger than on when I finally manage to peel myself off the computer. :-]

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 12, 2010 5:00 PM

well, I do usually have breakfast, and then lunch around 8pm, and dinner sometime after midnight :-p

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | March 12, 2010 5:04 PM

Since I'm trying to be more creative (and cheap) about my meals, I took David's advice to see what I had on hand. So, supper will be split pea soup (with BACON) and garlic/parmesan polenta cakes. All ingredients on hand, and I can eat it for days.

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 12, 2010 5:06 PM

You guys are killing me with these succulent menu choices. I've yet to find time to consume anything but tea (with milk, at least) today, and it's just gone 2PM. After a vigorous 3000m swim a couple of hours ago, I'm beginning to feel a bit light-headed.

The makeup of the planned evening meal at Chez Phillips is too humiliating to mention, but in my defense it's the end of the week, the cupboards are bare, and my son is playing in a basketball tournament at 6PM. I'll just have to lie back and think of Tuscan grilled ham :)

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 12, 2010 5:11 PM

It looks as if the paranoia over at the InterDungeon has reached a climax with Kwok's latest remark :

@ Everyone -

Just noticed this as a breaking news headline:

A man in Atlanta, GA was arrested for posting over on YouTube on February 28th a video of himself urging that Elton John should be killed:

http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=487661&gt1;=28102

While I won’t equate that man’s act with the comments over at Pharyngula, I think it is quite clear that SEED Media needs to do something to PZ Myers and Pharyngula. IMHO a mere slap on the wrist would be a most unsatisfactory response.

Posted by: Carlie | March 12, 2010 5:22 PM

Kwok seems to have been getting slimy insinuation lessons from Laden.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 12, 2010 5:25 PM

I've yet to find time to consume anything but tea (with milk, at least) today, and it's just gone 2PM. After a vigorous 3000m swim a couple of hours ago, I'm beginning to feel a bit light-headed.

Oh I wish I could do that. Nothing seems to keep me from eating. I have a feeling I could eat my shoes while walking if I got hungry enough :(

Some exercise would be good too. I've been so freaking weak now I almost dread working out again. It's going to be frustrating.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 12, 2010 5:28 PM

Josh, OSG:

In my absence, I'll be accepting comments on what I should have for supper.

Mmmph, I'm barely awake and still having tea. *Wanders off, has a look at the foodstuffs* Umm, Chile Verde tonight:

Gearjammers Chile Verde

2 pounds pork (loin preferred)
3/4 pound chopped mild green chiles, roasted and cleaned
1/2 pound cubed hot green New Mexico chiles, roasted and cleaned
1/4 green bell pepper, finely chopped
6 medium green onions (white part only), finely chopped
5 medium tomatillos, chopped
7 large serrano peppers, finely chopped with no seeds
2 ounces finely chopped garlic
12 ounces any green chile sauce
14 ounces chicken broth
3 teaspoons salt

Brown meat and drain any fat, 1 pound at a time. Add all other ingredients
except 1/4 pound hot chiles and 1 teaspoon salt. Simmer on medium for 1 1/2
hours.

Add the rest of the green chiles, chopped hot peppers and the rest of the
salt (if needed). Cook on low simmer 1/2 hour. Serve with white beans and
flour tortillas.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 12, 2010 5:31 PM

If you want to snort and giggle in disbelief, read this

except

if you know any schoolchildren in Texas.

The map of school board districts should be safe, however.

If I did that, I'd weigh half a ton. I have distinct meals specifically because otherwise I'd eat waaaay too much

I wonder if that's actually true. You see, after I've been eating solid massive chocolate for an hour or two, I'm simply out of hunger, and supper has to be postponed...

Here, during the week, when I arrive in the "lab" (more like "office"), I eat the dessert I brought from the cafeteria, then I eat the stuff I brought from home (depending on what phase I'm having that can be a choco "corn"flakes plagiate, pains au chocolat, a Twix plagiate, just chocolate, or potato chips), then I notice I've stopped eating because I'm no longer hungry, then I get hungry again and continue munching... At home I only drink milk and, at most, eat soup. Unless I didn't have enough to eat in the cafeteria and/or afterwards; then I cook something.

Having three square meals a day and nothing between them isn't an option for me. I can't eat a lot at once, and I get hungry again fairly quickly.

After a vigorous 3000m swim a couple of hours ago

:-S

Rip yourself off the computer and eat. Something. Anything but the furniture.

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | March 12, 2010 5:33 PM

Kw*k's latest latest:

As for Ken Miller, he’s most certainly a friend, and I don’t have time (nor does he) to write to him constantly (or to reply, etc.).

Lol. I wonder if he's holding seances with Eminent Teacher and Bestselling Memoirist Frank McCourt, whom he had the pleasure of taking instruction from at The Country's Leading High School.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 12, 2010 5:38 PM

*shakes head slowly from side to side, and not for the first time, in abject wonder at J*hn Kw*k*

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 12, 2010 5:39 PM

Kw*k scares me. Like really. He's creepy as fuck. I can just imagine him writing one of his *friends* about a lunch date that never manifests. Yet he keeps writing. Never getting it. Never even considering....

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 12, 2010 5:41 PM

Josh... I'm totally going to try making those tonight.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 12, 2010 5:43 PM

Oooh, thank you, Josh! Recipe snagged and into my file. If there's one thing I do miss about SoCal, it's all the excellent Mexican food.

Posted by: SC OM | March 12, 2010 5:46 PM

Sorry, my answer was a little unclear. K is predetermined for a single run of the program, but the method itself involves multiple runs. No study I've read has only reported results at one K. I was more answering Antiochus generally than talking about any specific study.

But I think Antiochus was responding to the video, which talks about the Rosenberg study specifically. Problems, again, discussed in the chapter I mentioned above.

I have pointed this out to several people at SEED Media, including, I think, Adam Bly, and I hope they respond accordingly in a similar fashion (And no, not by arresting PZ or those responding at Pharyngula, but instead, by inflicting the harshest penalty possible that they can do at both PZ and Pharyngula.).

This is theater of the absurd. I have to say this comment (sockpuppet? don't know) made me furious:

...I offer whatever apology is needed to Sheril and others from those of us in the Pharyngula community who do not align ourselves with this petty lunacy – there are those of us who don’t agree with you, but also don’t need to tap into hate and primitive emotion to do so....

Who the hell are you? And who do you think you are offering anything on behalf of anyone but yourself?

The recent DRAMA and arseholery from Greg has been amusing as an outsider,

*glares, calmly, at Louis*

I nearly starfarted when Mooney--MOONEY, of all people--appeared on MSNBC to discuss the vaccine-autism (non)link with Snyderman, Scarborough et al a few weeks ago, and I felt petty then, too, because he actually said everything I would have hoped a representative of science might say. I wish i could be more magnanimous about it, but my shriveled, rancorous heart just can't take the strain.

I wouldn't feel too bad. Just before that he did this

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/02/building_bridges_to_the_leaders_of_the_a.php

Orac's reaction to which prompted this

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/02/important_news_someone_says_st.php

Posted by: triskelethecat | March 12, 2010 5:48 PM

Testing the HTML toolbar:

testing
testing
one₁
two²
three3

Not sure I am doing this right

Hey...it works. Cool. Thanks!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 12, 2010 5:49 PM

I think it is quite clear that SEED Media needs to do something to PZ Myers and Pharyngula. IMHO a mere slap on the wrist would be a most unsatisfactory response.

Kw*k still wants PZ to send him a camera.

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | March 12, 2010 5:57 PM

Speaking of ERV, hasn't Kw*k long been banned from there, for stalking Abbie?

Yes.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 12, 2010 6:01 PM

You know what, people? It's only midnight, but I'll go to bed. I'm tired enough (Pharyngula kept me up too long the whole week), and this way I'll wake up hungry and can start to cook soon. :-)

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 12, 2010 6:02 PM

OK well so comment #268 on this subThread would be Comment #33333 overall for teh Thread.

Except that recently, by accident, looking for something else, and to my dismay, believe me, I discovered a mmmmm a discrepancy between the count I had for a particular subThread and the number that appeared on PZ's portcullis post. A difference of one comment. But so then of course I wondered, and checked a few, and damn it, found another.

I do not know the causes of these discrepancies; I suspect moderation and global spam-away measures as possibilities as well as me being stoned or whatever.

But the point is that I can not at present vouch for the accuracy of the Count as cross-validated with the current contents of archived subThreads.

I guess I'm going to have to change everything.

Posted by: Paul | March 12, 2010 6:07 PM

Sorry if that was waaaaay more response than you asked for.

No need to apologize for unsolicited information. I offered an unsolicited question, and fair is fair :-). If music is something you enjoy doing (it seems like it is?), I do hope you can come to a solution that works for you!

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 12, 2010 6:08 PM

Still hungry, but not enough that I could eat anything right now. Eating will have to wait for tomorrow.

Speaking of ERV, hasn't Kw*k long been banned from there, for stalking Abbie?

Not only for that – it seems he kept expecting her to ban anyone who disagreed with him.

Posted by: Carlie | March 12, 2010 6:13 PM

negentropyeater: It does look as if the paranioa has reached a climax with John Kwok’s latest remark. I wonder if someone will be able to beat him ?

Well played, sir. Well played indeed.
*applause*

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 12, 2010 6:16 PM

Done.

:-)

or 10 pushups before bed

Let's see how many I can do.

...Didn't quite finish the fifth. And there's that uncomfortable tingling in my lips from the increased blood pressure.

All my power in the legs. Plus, my arms are so long I'm at a mechanical disadvantage :-þ

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 12, 2010 6:20 PM

Let's see how many I can do. ...Didn't quite finish the fifth. And there's that uncomfortable tingling in my lips from the increased blood pressure.

I'll cry if I can only do 10. Two months ago I was doing 100 (breaks in between though)

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 12, 2010 6:23 PM

5 is a good start though David M. Before I was doing 100 I had not been able to do 1.

Maybe a couple years ago? I weighed 120 but I had nooo strength/tone. Then I got into dance and yoga... and then I started wanting to be able to do handstands....

Posted by: blf | March 12, 2010 6:30 PM

In my absence, I'll be accepting comments on what I should have for supper.

You can't have mine! (Mostly because I ate it.) A starter of pâté de canard, and then a risotto aux Saint-Jacques, with a gaspacho d'ananas dessert. All washed down with a fine wine.

Posted by: Paul | March 12, 2010 6:43 PM

With reference to my fix in 282 of negentropyeater's Intersection Post, a funny thought occurred to me. The commenters there get up in arms regularly because dirty words come out on a blog where 99.99999% of posts are never positively approved by the moderator, while posting on a cesspool with plenty of objectionable content where basically any content longer than 4 lines is actively approved for posting by the moderators. It's just...baffling.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 12, 2010 6:58 PM

...a possibly imprecise update, but still.

My present feeling is that there are only the 2 errors already identified, that they neatly cancel each other out, and so all is copacetic.

But I'll check.
uh, mañana.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 12, 2010 7:10 PM

Religious Snail Mucus

The Giant African Snail is prohibited in the U.S. without special approval. You have to have a special permit and the snails can only be used for scientific research. Experts say the snail, which can grow up to 10 inches, can devastate ecosystems; it eats more than 500 plant species, even plaster and stucco and can reproduce on its own.

Stewart says his religion, Ifa Orisha, uses the snails in healing ceremonies. Some followers said however they got violently sick, lost weight and developed strange lumps in their stomachs after ingesting the snail mucus.

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 12, 2010 7:22 PM

Holy crap, this is sad.
I guess the benefit of ousting McLeroy can only stretch so far.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 12, 2010 7:33 PM

Jen, I've been reading about that mess. It's beyond sad. From your link:

The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards.

Board member Barbara Cargill wants to insert a discussion of the right to bear arms in a standard that focuses on First Amendment rights and the expression of various points of view. [...] But the amendment passes anyway.

The Texas State Board of Education has stricken from the standards references to “capitalism” and “free market” because the board’s right-wingers think “capitalism” is a negative term.

Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the Founders didn’t intend for separation of church and state in America. And she’s off on a long lecture about why the Founders intended to promote religion. She calls this amendment “not historically accurate.” [...] The Texas State Board of Education today refused to require that students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others. They voted to lie to students by omission.

And on it goes. Geez, why don't they just declare "no school for kids! no mandatory education!" These kids brains will end up shriveled rather than enriched.

Posted by: Carlie | March 12, 2010 7:36 PM

I just found out PZ is coming to Syracuse next month! Less than a month from now, in fact. I am... I can't.... there is a very happy dance going on inside my brain right now, let me tell you.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 12, 2010 7:39 PM

John:

Better to have "the crappuccino delicacy".

Er, no, no thanks.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | March 12, 2010 7:42 PM

I just got accused of sexism over there. For reals, y'all.

Oh, and they're still calling it "rape imagery". Troll troll troll.

Posted by: Paul | March 12, 2010 7:43 PM

That fucking Calliou is a bald little French asshole. He can go fuck his little bald French ass.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 12, 2010 7:48 PM

stuv:

I just got accused of sexism over there.

Oh now, what did you expect? I mean, look at the language you use. It's obvious violence and other anti-pearlite actions! You, you, you criminal! *clutches pearls in distress*

Posted by: SC OM | March 12, 2010 7:58 PM

Caillou?!

*checks*

Oh, CPP. :)

***

Apropos of nothing, I liked this recent comment by Owlmirror:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/sins_of_omission.php#comment-2345489

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 12, 2010 8:06 PM

I'm watching John Barrowman on BBCAmerica "The making of me: John Barrowman". He just took his trousers off.

Posted by: Walton | March 12, 2010 8:07 PM

David M., re push-ups,

Let's see how many I can do.

...Didn't quite finish the fifth. And there's that uncomfortable tingling in my lips from the increased blood pressure.

I used to be able to do 60-65 push-ups in two minutes. I've lost some upper-body strength lately, but can still manage 30 in one go, and 50 in under two minutes.

Posted by: Walton | March 12, 2010 8:10 PM

I should add that when I was 17, I was very, very thin and weak and had no upper-body strength. I weight-trained regularly for a couple of years, and gained a few kilos of lean muscle. I'm never going to be Arnold Schwarzenegger, but being a little fitter and stronger did make a massive difference to my self-esteem and quality of life. (So you can only imagine what my self-esteem was like in secondary school...)

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | March 12, 2010 8:15 PM

(So you can only imagine what my self-esteem was like in secondary school...)

Please do not feel insulted by the fact that I will not imagine that.

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | March 12, 2010 8:20 PM

Gotta love when a woman tells an other person to whine like a little bitch. Shows that she buys into the idea that women, in general, are weak and ineffective.

Posted by: Carlie | March 12, 2010 8:23 PM

Just turned to it myself, Caine. I'm a bit on edge wondering how they're addressing this whole "what makes people gay" thing, but it was quite yummy watching him speak with a brogue with his family.

Posted by: Carlie | March 12, 2010 8:25 PM

So far it's really leaning towards "gay guys are effeminate and gay women are butch", which is disappointing.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 12, 2010 8:31 PM

Augustus Biscuit-Barrel IV, Prince of the Stars!

Walton, sir, you have more facets than most brilliant cut diamonds.

Posted by: Louis | March 12, 2010 8:32 PM

Lynna waaaaay back at #218,

I'm going to take that as a compliment! LOL

Sadly no, I'm just an ex-rugby playing drunkard with delusions of adequacy and a hedonistic streak a mile wide! ;-)

----------------

SC waaaaaaaaaay-ish back at #259,

You can glare all you like, Madam. I will remain unfazed mainly through a combination of alcoholic haze and sheer bloodymindedness! ;-)

I'm not saying that every element of the episode is amusing, not all of them are, but the general ability of Greg's own-foot-marksmanship is astonishing. Astonishing to the point of making me laugh. My perspective is, of course, different from yours. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Louis

Posted by: phi1ip | March 12, 2010 8:34 PM

Walton @316,

sorry, you'll have to think of another moniker, that's the name of my five month old kitten you've just quoted.

(Well, not really: his breeding name is "Josie Chocolate Chip Biscuit", and because of his considerable proportions he is already being referred to as "Tarquin... Bus-stop F'tang P'tang Olé Biscuit Barrel")

Why don't you go with something unambitious such as, Walton, Emperor of the Northern Hemisphere, and I'll take the South? Deal.

Pope Maledict DCLXVI

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 12, 2010 8:35 PM

Apropos of nothing, I liked this recent comment by Owlmirror:

"What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"

/xkcd

There was a Daniel Smith that I argued with a bit here on Pharyngula, a couple of years ago. I wonder if this is the same person? I kinda doubt it, if for no other reason than the previous Daniel Smith seemed to be more aware of science, and less interested in using medieval theology in his arguments.

I suppose I could ask...

Posted by: Carlie | March 12, 2010 8:37 PM

*It just occurred to me that I might have just used terms that are not considered good ones - sorry if I did. I thought those were ok, but now that it's there in print I'm not sure.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 12, 2010 8:42 PM

Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health, Roberts L, Ahmed I, Hall S, Davison A,

good find. just saved the full pdf of that for my collection.

Posted by: Walton | March 12, 2010 8:48 PM

Thomas Ratliff (Sensible Party): 56,207 votes.

Don Tarquin Fim-Nim-Bim-Lim-Nim-Fim-Busstop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuit-Barrel McLeroy (Silly Party): 55,368 votes.

Posted by: Louis | March 12, 2010 8:53 PM

Predicting the general election already, eh Walton?

;-)

Louis

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | March 12, 2010 9:17 PM

As yet my understanding of the paramterization of K iin STRUCTURE s imperfect...however:

Theoretically K can be parameterized like any other variable that is being estimated. However, this leads to computational problems, so that the MCMC takes a long time to converge. I am much more familiar with phylogenetics, and I think the paramterization of K is similar to the Bayesian parameterization of Γ: although you could set a prior on any number of rate classes, it is compuationally much simpler to choose a number of rate classes a priori and allow the MCMC to estimate a posterior distribution for each class. For K, I think it is standard to select a single number of populations for each run. What I am confused about is the comparison of resulting posteriors from different K assumptions. This is where I may be wrong. Normally, the likelihood function will always increase with the number of parameters that are added to an analysis...a likelihood ration (in an ML formate) can be used to determine if added parameters increase the likelihood function sufficiently to justify the model. Models are chosen that simultaneously maximize the likelihood while minimizing the number of parameters involved. So the question is this: if K is increased does it necessarily result in an increase in the likelihood function in MCMC? Or given enough data, are all things more or less equal? In the former case, is there a way to mitigate overparameterization while still maintaining fit?

More papers.

Posted by: iambilly | March 12, 2010 9:23 PM

Walton @316,

It is also the name of my son's Leopard gourami. The snail, however, is named Gary.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 12, 2010 9:27 PM

The snail, however, is named Gary.

My apple snail's name was Sam I Am.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2010 9:32 PM

Any threads with some currently posting trolls needing to be squashed?

I just spent 2 hours on the phone with my mother trying to help her with "computer problems" and I really need to blow off some steam.

Quickly.

Posted by: SC OM | March 12, 2010 9:36 PM

Texas...I don't know what to say...

It happens that I'm just finishing the book I mentioned several days ago - Scandal and Civility: Journalism and the Birth of American Democracy. Part of the section on Paine and his Age of Reason:

Most supporters of Paine's politics were disappointed by his attack on Christian revelation and felt he had 'wounded the warm and tender feelings of more than a million of his real friends' (249).

Sound familiar? 1790fucking5.

Part of the last section on Jefferson:

As the presidential election loomed in 1800, the Federalist focus on Jefferson grew more urgent. Federalists, and especially Federalist clergymen, were appalled by the idea that a self-professed deist might become president of the United States....To prevent such a calamity, the Ferderalist press launched an unprecedented campaign of personal vilification against Jefferson...

Always reluctant to make public declarations about his beliefs, Jefferson refused to respond to Federalist charges of atheism and infidelity. His Republican supporters were not so complacent, and as they rushed into print to defend him, the issue of Jefferson's infidelity quickly came to dominate the campaign of 1800.

Some Republicans, loyal to the principle of a strict separation between religion and politics, defended Jefferson's public silence on the matter of religious faith....

But such voices were rare. Few Republicans were brave enought to challenge Federalist arguments on principle and argue that Jefferson had no duty to reveal his religious beliefs, or, even more controversially, no duty to be religious. Almost without exception, they fell back on Jefferson's authorship of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom and his well-known commitment to religious pluralism....

But defending Jefferson's commitment to religious liberty failed to address the central issue raised by Federalists: the relationship between personal religious belief and political character. And it was precisely Jefferson's silence about his religious beliefs and his understanding of religion as private that disturbed his political and religious opponents (269-71).

Posted by: phi1ip | March 12, 2010 9:38 PM

I've just caught up on reading the 300 posts that were already in the thread when I got to it, and have noticed no one has yet pointed that not only was PZ being plied with beer whenever he had a hand free, but people were filling his pockets with stubbies, so his jacket had to be balanced with equal numbers of bottles on each side. (I was reminded slightly of Otto Frisch's well-known testament to John von Neumann's drinking prowess, but PZ was rather more optimistic.)

ye false Pope Maledicte

Posted by: phi1ip | March 12, 2010 9:45 PM

It's okay Caine, he's being Friendly. (Anecdotally, most Quakers I've met are very far from being the usual objectionable religionists.)

Posted by: scooterKPFT | March 12, 2010 9:55 PM

Thanks for responding to
""((Walton script))"" ./~ W#alton [{character }]

I created Walton..lton few a years bac../-...as a character... can't believe yall fe
./~ W#alton --end ll for this

so long, but now /~ W#alton '~\
\cntrls script conversations:::;: has with meat driven _{kybd over-ride} admin.. have fu^{n is} PERL, ^{??';!`~ this cracks me}

Posted by: phi1ip | March 12, 2010 10:03 PM

I hear. I was only saying that he appears to be capable of rational conversation aside from his various irrational religious beliefs, which is what I normally find to be typical of the Friends; unlike the fundie wingnuts, with whom the irrationality would extend to any subject you cared to mention.

However he's been gradually tying himself in knots with his not very well-thought-out posts, so I won't hold out for his long-time survival on the thread. :)

Posted by: phi1ip | March 12, 2010 10:09 PM

A stubby... what were you thinking of? ;-þ

Posted by: iambilly | March 12, 2010 10:26 PM

Caine: My parents are into whatever the Woo-of-the-Day is. They fit in. I do admire a church that has The Origin of the Species, The Book of Hopi, Mao's Little Red Book, Marx's Das Kapital, and assorted other philosophy and natural history books -- yeah, plus the Bible.

phi1ip: I was thinking of a cigar. Yeah, that's it. A cigar.

Rev. BDC: Great news. Of course, now the anti-vaxxers will claim that was a political ruling and not based on 'science.'

My (((Son))) has Asbergers (no longer called that), a form of autism. The autism-vaccine linkers have pissed me off for years.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 12, 2010 10:32 PM

Meh, maybe my cynicism has seriously increased, but I find them all (religious types) overly soaked in woo of some sort; they all make me feel weary.

ditto, if anything, my tolerance for woo of all types has noticeably decreased over the last 5 years.

hope it's not just a case of "get off my lawn" syndrome.

Posted by: kantalope | March 12, 2010 10:36 PM

I just came across this weirdness
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020404535.html
Maybe there should be a Pharyngula flyer sent out too.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 12, 2010 10:38 PM

Sadly no, I'm just an ex-rugby playing drunkard with delusions of adequacy and a hedonistic streak a mile wide! ;-)

and chemistry... don't forget the chemistry!

Posted by: Paul | March 12, 2010 10:42 PM

*directed at me, btw (when she thought I was male): "In that case, you have one of three options. You can 1) leave the conversation, 2) whine like a little bitch..."

And here I thought you were going to mention the time she told you to shut your pie hole, with the "floor is covered with semen" demotivational poster.

Posted by: SC OM | March 12, 2010 10:51 PM

And here I thought you were going to mention the time she told you to shut your pie hole, with the "floor is covered with semen" demotivational poster.

That line was from that post (which still makes me laugh). (I'm also still giggling about the Caillou thing.)

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 12, 2010 11:00 PM

Josh, OSG: you so need a cast-iron tortilla press

Hmmm. I'd probably file that under 'unnecessary kitchen stuff'. *Don't whack me with it! Half the time, when making something that generally calls for tortillas, I make frybread instead. I haven't had a taco in a tortilla for ages. Much better to pile all the fixin's on frybread.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 12, 2010 11:14 PM

Caillou is actually very very sweet and I think PhysioProf is a big fat poopyhead for saying what he did.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 12, 2010 11:26 PM

Santana in a Blackhawks jersey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgH_oVplF5Q&feature;=related

Posted by: SC OM | March 12, 2010 11:32 PM

And it's a threat of sexual violence against a child! And it's hideously hateful toward the French! That he's animated does not make it OK. CPP owes everyone who's ever read blog comments an apology. He screwed up. He should just admit it.

***

I remember when she was informed you weren't a male and she didn't so much as blink, let alone think. Just kept on attacking.

Everything about her response was so odd and funny.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 12, 2010 11:43 PM

real Cubans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ8K-9ztWLc

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 13, 2010 12:06 AM

Flesh Eaters Victorious!

Unmentionable supper consumed!

The siren song of Teh Thread beckons....

Walton: I echo Brownian's comment at #328--I've lurked (or been unable to comment due to the registration glitchorama) for much of the past year, but I've read enough to agree that your personal growth has been apparent--and impressive. Keep up the good work, and remember that 20 is still really, really damn young. It's easy to feel like you've reached your full intellectual potential--moreso than ever after the period of self-reflection and expansion you've just completed--but you're not even close to being done yet. At least, it would be a shame if you were.

SC: Yeah, Jefferson--that fucking secular progressive. No self respecting Texan (and, by extension, any of the millions of schoolchildren issued textbooks printed in Texas) needs to muddy the History of Our Pristine Nation by bringing him into the story. And if you find that offputting, I think you just need to reflect on your offensive white male privilege...uh...missy. :P

Caine, iambilly, Ichthyic, re: the Woo. I live in Eugene, Oregon. The woo flows strong and thick here. The vaccine compliance rates are low enough to have attracted the attention of the CDC, people freak the fuck out if anyone even suggests fluoridating the water supply, and one must go to unbelievable lengths to find a family doctor or a veterinarian (!!) who doesn't practice 'holistic' medicine. Last fall the principal of my kids' school sent home some absurd flyer about avoiding/treating H1N1 via megadoses of vitamins and the use of Neti pots. My tolerance is worn down to a nub with these people.

Posted by: scooterKPFT | March 13, 2010 12:17 AM

Sven,

http://acksisofevil.org/audio/KingCrimson/Improv__Asbury_Park.mp3

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 13, 2010 12:22 AM

Quakerboy, in http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/uh-ohwe_arent_being_nice_and_r.php#c2346526 now says:

Nerd, you mean to say "a falsehood", not a lie. It would be a lie if I didn't believe it.

*facepalm*

Posted by: scooterKPFT | March 13, 2010 12:30 AM

fuck the year, here's some more..

http://acksisofevil.org/audio/KingCrimson/Easy_Money.mp3

then

http://acksisofevil.org/audio/KingCrimson/Lament.mp3

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 13, 2010 12:33 AM

I'll take the more and add the fucking year:
7/28/1974
Bruford, then; I thought so. Incredible sound.

Posted by: scooterKPFT | March 13, 2010 12:42 AM

http://acksisofevil.org/audio/KingCrimson/Exiles.mp3

http://acksisofevil.org/audio/KingCrimson/Fracture.mp3

http://acksisofevil.org/audio/KingCrimson/21st_Century_Schizoid_Man.mp3

http://acksisofevil.org/audio/KingCrimson/Larks'_Tongues_In_Aspic_Pt_II.mp3

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 13, 2010 1:06 AM

ZZzziiipp Beeepp Booiink! Oh, and Pop. (As if appearing suddenly.)

I finally got Movable Type to work (it only took paying attention for five minutes) and it's like a warp of some kind. Instead of passively reading I can suddenly comment again.
But then I am a very lazy man.

I'm a very lazy man
That's what I am
All this blog astounds me
And I think I understand
That what's spoken
Is a token
Of how to see

When all the stars are falling down
Into the sea and on the ground
And angry voices carry on the wind
Contrary points I've come to see
Indicative of you and me
A path that leads to where
We've come to be

I'm a very lazy man
That's what I am
All the web surrounds me
And I think I've come to see
That we're going
To keep growing
Wait and see

*apologies to the Moody Blues. The real song is Melancholy Man from the album To Our Children's Children's Children*

Apropos to nothing except the main thrust of this blog's inestimable worth and inertia, I've just been watching Turner Classic Movies. The Monster That Challenged The World just concluded with the demise of the radioactive mollusk that looked just like a caterpillar. Now playing is Them in which the radioactive ants meet a similar fate. Reminds me of all the monsters that we create or accept. B grade with bad acting and embarrassing dialog with a dose of misinterpreted science and a couple good shots of sexy legs, just to keep one interested don'tcha know.

Hello again. Nice to be here. Please, carry on.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 13, 2010 1:20 AM

Scooter, you rock. Frippertronics was once a main spar in my wings.

Prince Rupert Laments and Moon Child still cast fragments of melody and dissonance at my brain.

What was the name of that effort that Fripp led for budding pickers? The League of Clever Guitarists or something. Wall of sound, man.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 13, 2010 1:23 AM

Crafty.
Crafty guitarists. hoo.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 13, 2010 1:32 AM

Yup! That's it.

I have a brother who is pretty crafty with a guitar. Mandolin too.

Geeze. All the great music that we know and don't get to hear anymore unless we play it for ourselves. That is, those who don't know of it (them younguns) might never get to know it exists.

Fortunately for me, maybe for you for all I know, your parents played their music on the home Hi Fi when I was coming up. To this day I'm gone when I here Henri Mancini, 101 Strings, Nat King Cole, Burl Ives, Paul Robeson, Kingston Trio . . .

. . . shit. I'm old.

Except in the company of the young at heart. Sinatra sang something about that, didn't he?

Posted by: ronsullivan | March 13, 2010 1:49 AM

Caine: I make frybread

Will you marry us?

There are damned few culinary deficiencies about Berkeley, but we can get frybread only once a year, at that powwow in October.

jenbphillips: I live in Eugene, Oregon. The woo flows strong and thick here.

Oneupspersonship from me: See above.

CW: . . . shit. I'm old.

See above above.

You kids get off my LAN!

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 13, 2010 2:14 AM

Ron:

Will you marry us?

Sure. :D There are so many recipes for frybread, and everyone is convinced theirs is the best. I tried soooo many; what mattered in the end was practice. It's not whether you use water or milk, it's the cooking process. My first results were beyond culinary horror. I have several recipes I work from, but this one is my favourite:

Mary's Good Eating Frybread

3 Cups Unbleached White Flour
2 Teaspoons Baking Powder
3 Tablespoons Favorite Oil
1 Tablespoon Salt
4 Tablespoons Honey
2 Cups Hot (Not Warm) Water
1 Tablespoon Yeast (+ or -)
Extra Needed Flour little at a time... 2 to 4 cups
Cooking Lard or Oil... Lard is best...

Mix honey, oil, and salt. Stir in the HOT water. Mix very well. Sprinkle yeast on the mixture. Cover with a cloth and let stand around 10 minutes or until yeast bubbles up. Add flour and baking powder. Stir together well. Add more flour until the mixture is firm and sticks to your hands. Use 2 to 4 cups flour for this process.

Put this dough into greased bowl. Cover and allow to rise until it doubles. This should take around 1 hour. Divide in half. Then break each half into around 8 pieces. Make each piece into a ball and permit to rise until ready to fry. Heat lard or oil to frying temperature.

Flatten ball of dough with hands, stretching and pulling until it is flat and thin. Flatten the dough to around 6 to 8 inches in diameter. Place in hot lard, cook until golden brown, around 1 1/2 minutes (+ or -). Allow grease to drain on paper towel and serve hot with honey, powdered sugar, or as base for meat and fixings.

Important... Start the mixture 2 to 2 1/2 hours before serving. Remember... When cooking fry bread, be sure to put a hole in the middle, to allow the grease to come up and fry the center. This helps prevent a doughy center. Also, cast iron is best for cooking.

Then, wojapi to pour on the top of fresh frybread:

Wojapi

4 cups water
2 cups sugar
4 lbs blueberries (can use strawberries, any berries or peaches too)
Half a package of cornstarch or arrowroot to thicken

Mash the fruit (with peaches it is good to cook them a little first). Reserve some of the water to mix up the cornstarch or arrowroot in.
Put mashed fruit, sugar and water into pan and bring slowly to boil. Remove from heat and stir in cornstarch mixture. Watch for lumps!
Place back on low heat and stir well until thickened to the consistency of pudding.
Note: Can eat this over frybread, ice cream, or over biscuits... any way ya want! Its good!

And, because Frybread is just so very...

Our Frybread
who art in the skillet
Hallowed be thy name
Thy mealtime come
Thee will be done
in the middle as thou art on the edges.

Give us this day
our daily frybread
and indulge us our gluttony
as we indulge those who are hungry before us

For thine is the butter
and the honey
and the cinnamon forever and ever!

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 13, 2010 2:23 AM

Most supporters of Paine's politics were disappointed by his attack on Christian revelation and felt he had 'wounded the warm and tender feelings of more than a million of his real friends' (249).

Sound familiar? 1790fucking5.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 13, 2010 2:29 AM

Josh, almost all of my cookware is cast; much of it I inherited from my great-grandmothers and grandparents. I also have some (not nearly enough) Le Creuset. I love my Doufeu.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 13, 2010 2:38 AM

Ronsullivan, I can remember two of my teachers using the 'hand boiler' as classroom examples of heat conduction and Boyle's Law. Once in jr.high and once in my sophomore science class taught by Mrs. Miliken at a small New Hampshire school.

Mrs. Miliken actually arranged for one of the Apollo command modules to be donated to my old alma mater. My brother took me by the school in the mid eighties on some lame pretext. (I graduated in 1969 with 96 classmates.) As we pulled into the school grounds I saw it gracing a corner of the parking lot; I gaped, stuttered and pointed. My brother just said, "Mrs. Miliken pulled some strings we didn't know she had." I said, "Thanks, Mrs. M."

It may not be there anymore, I don't know. But I do remember a rush of pride in and admiration for someone who taught me earnestly and evoked an sense of earnest inquiry with me that is still present, front and center.

Did I mention she sanctioned a class experiment involving teeth immersed in Coca Cola? No. You should have been there.

Shit, I'm still old. Not that I'm worried or complaining. The fact just is. Thanks for leading my memory there, a breath of youthful (and useful) air.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 13, 2010 2:43 AM

Is it old cast iron? If it is, you'd have to go through a cleaning process first. A great place to find beautiful, seriously seasoned cast iron is in thrift stores.

There's good seasoning advice at: http://www.jfolse.com/fr_seasoniron.htm but keep in mind that seasoning is a process, that beautiful black patina takes time to achieve. The more you cook with it, the better it will get.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 13, 2010 3:03 AM

Anybody still keep a sourdough starter batch going?

My father had one that lasted almost thirty years. When I was a sprout he made pancakes for breakfast. The old man would lay the batter on a griddle with eggs and bacon (!) and produce a plateful of caloric delight that would, according to his deep culinary wisdom, "stick to your ribs."

Flour, water, yeast. Crock pot. Glass jug. Some of the old timers carried starter in greased leather pouches. I've heard of batches that have been extant for decades. I only managed six years on my last poor attempt. But the saddle pads stuck to my ribs just like old Pap said they would. At least until lunch time.

Plus they were a great vehicle for maple syrup, butter, eggs and bacon(!). Whenever I get settled I believe I'll start a new batch. Seeing as my children have children there is the chance that my batch might be around for a long time. Imagine that. Poor ol' Pap would grin and so would I.

Posted by: ronsullivan | March 13, 2010 3:19 AM

Crudely Wrott, I am most impressed with Mrs. Miliken and not just about the Apollo thing. I had a few teachers like that in high school, in particular my bio teacher Sister Helen Louise. Yeah, a nun. Sometimes the good stuff just shines through, ya know?

I'm two years older than you, nyah. And had ca. 435 more classmates.

We have a mishmosh of kitchen stuff, from the All-Clad set I got new at a serious discount to the favorite big cast-aluminum skillet that Joe got at a garage sale in his grad-school days nearly 40 years ago. It has neither lid nor handle and it's not quite flat on the bottom anymore but it's got that old-pot magic. It doesn't look seasoned on the inside but it acts that way.

Caine, I am grabbing that frybread recipe and am also infernally grateful. In return: I got into a chat awhile back with a kid who was running a Navajo taco joint outside Fresno, after tacos and dessert frybread. (Everyone: Navajo tacos are made with plate-size frybread, and not folded; more like Mexican tostadas.) I mentioned a Hungarian thing, arrgh I can't find the name, basically little frybreads on which you rub a garlic clove. (David, help??)

She said she was PO'd at her Hungarian grandfather who had failed to tell her about this, and was going home at closing time to have a serious talk. Now I wish I'd been at that wedding; imagine a Navajo-Hungarian potluck!

We own a set of really old cast-iron cookware too. It's somewhere in the storage unit where we stuffed all of Joe's mother's stuff after she died—in fact, that we had hauled from Little Rock where it had been in a similar unit since we'd moved her out here.

Also there is our rockingchair collection. We can barely fit ourselves and our books into this flat but somehow I can't bear to part with a rockingchair collection.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 13, 2010 3:57 AM

I am most impressed with Mrs. Miliken and not just about the Apollo thing. I had a few teachers like that in high school, in particular my bio teacher Sister Helen Louise. Yeah, a nun. Sometimes the good stuff just shines through, ya know?

I'm two years older than you, nyah. And had ca. 435 more classmates.

[kill snark]
That is really something. Something that lasts. Something given to a youngster and lasts a long, long time. Aren't you glad? I know I am. The best part is the example that we are free to follow.

As for saddle pads, near as I can recall you take

One large serving spoon of starter for about every two saddle pads you intend to cook.
For each spoonful you add an egg, two pinches of baking soda and one of salt and just enough sugar to ensure even and tempting browning.
Mix well in a bowl. Let it rest a moment while you heat and grease the griddle.
Cook as all saddle pads are cooked, you must have done it before.
Return to the starter however much flour you think you took out and just enough water to mix the old and the new together.
Cover and repeat the next morning.

Thanks for the kind acknowlegment of Mrs. Miliken. I return gratitude to Sister Helen Louise. We have been well served by them, eh? It is good that we remember.

[reanimate snark]
For the diet zombies and those who count calories in anticipation of a low number, don't try this. Stick to sourdough bread. With Vegemite. I hear it has a healthy tang. A bite of which the old boy sang. He often was a sorry oaf but man, that dude could cook a loaf.

I found my class bewildering enough in its small size. That has, apparently, not made me respectful of larger classes. So I'm a small town guy. I'll still bet that my bread is the fastest rising around.

Posted by: monado | March 13, 2010 4:51 AM

Arrgh, I've stayed up all night reading comments. For the cast iron if it's new you have to clean it, that is scrub it but not with soap. When it's just clean, non-greasy iron, wipe it all over with vegetable oil and bake it gently in a warm oven, maybe 275 or 300 F. for half an hour to an hour. I'm relying on memory here, so check the details by looking for "how to season cast iron."

With old pieces you want to remove baked-on pieces of grease and maybe scrub them down to the metal and re-season.

After a pan has been seasoned, you should be able to wash it briefly with detergent without removing the seasoning. If you get bare iron patches, do it again.

Posted by: Walton | March 13, 2010 5:17 AM

Arguments for constitutional monarchy.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 13, 2010 5:41 AM

Walton, two questions:

Back when you described yourself as a "libtertarian monarchist" (or whatever it was) how did you internally justify that clear contradiction?

Why is the issue of the British monarchy so important to you? IIRC (apologies if I'm mistaken) you're not a big fan of 'nationalism'.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 13, 2010 6:02 AM

Remove from heat and stir in cornstarch mixture. Watch for lumps!

If you mix the cornstarch with water first then there's no lumps. That doesn't mean dump the cornstarch into a little water and give a couple of half-hearted strokes with a fork. Pour the cornstarch slowly into as much cold liquid by volume as cornstarch and mix it with a wire whisk. If you make the mixture early and it sits for more than a couple of minutes the cornstarch will settle out. Mix it again before use.

If you use flour as a thickener then you have to be stirring as you slowly add the flour to the liquid. Lumpy gravy means the cook didn't take the time to mix the thickener slowly.

However if using flour it's best to make a roux. For the beginner use equal amounts (by volume) of flour and fat. Butter is the most commonly used form of fat. Other fats can be used but have a different flavor. Melt the butter over medium heat; slowly add the flour slowly to the butter, whisking constantly. Within 2 to 3 minutes the roux will have a consistency of a cake frosting. A white roux is done when the flour loses its "raw" smell and begins to develop a toasty aroma. Darker roux are cooked, stirring constantly, until the desired color. Burned roux has an extremely unpleasant flavor so keep stirring to avoid burning. If you're not adding liquid immediately remove the pan from the heat and transfer the roux to another container to cool.

Posted by: Walton | March 13, 2010 6:12 AM

Why is the issue of the British monarchy so important to you? IIRC (apologies if I'm mistaken) you're not a big fan of 'nationalism'.

I dislike nationalism, in the sense that I hate the attitude that a person's rights, duties and life chances should be defined exclusively by the accident of his or her nationality of birth. In an ideal world, people would be free to move freely around the world and to change their nationality at will. People should not be viewed simply as the passive subjects of nation-states; ideally, they should be viewed more as customers, with the nation-state existing solely to serve the people who live for the time being within its boundaries. This is why I support open immigration, and why I oppose the discriminatory and barbaric treatment of refugees and asylum-seekers here in the UK. I also dislike economic nationalism; I don't see why I should care more about the livelihood of a British business or a British worker than that of a Chinese business or worker, and as such, I unequivocally support unrestricted global free trade and oppose protectionism. Anyone who wants to trade with anyone else, wherever they were born and wherever they are in the world, should be free to do so.

But the monarchy is simply nothing to do with these issues. Abolishing the monarchy would make absolutely zero difference to the amount of nationalist and xenophobic sentiment in Britain, to the strength of our immigration restrictions, to protectionism, or anything else. So I don't see your point. (Please don't trot out the old canard about "citizens versus subjects". We have been "British citizens" in law since 1981. In law, you are a Canadian citizen, not a Canadian "subject". There is no reason why a constitutional monarchy cannot be compatible with ideals of citizenship.)

Posted by: MrFire | March 13, 2010 6:36 AM

If I pointed out at the Intersection that I use the phrase:

"Well fuck me with a barge pole"

...regularly, but have no intention of actually doing that, would it be a useful point to make?

Posted by: iambilly | March 13, 2010 7:07 AM

Re: Frybread discussion.

I was at a forest fire in Warm Springs, Oregon. One day, a little kitchen trailer shows up outside the fire camp. Great smells eminate from said trailer. I wander out (I was stationed at the front gate anyway, so . . . . Frybread with either wild berries or Navajo Taco style. I chose the taco. The cook asked, "Hot, mild or anglo?"

I lived for five years in northern Arizona. I have exerienced 'hot.' Not a good mix when all we had were portapotties. I wimped out and ordered 'anglo.' On a scale of one (Taco Bell hot) to ten (red hot curry), the anglo was about a three which was exactly what I wanted.

There used to be a restaurant called the Red Feather in Tusayan just outside of Grand Canyon. They had fantastic Navajo Tacos. Gone now. Sad. Well, on that note, off to work.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 13, 2010 7:40 AM

Watching The Intersection is like watching those TV programs that feature spectacular crashes caught on film. You know it is not really very edifying, and you feel a bit grubby watching it, but it irresistible.

Posted by: thrawn369 | March 13, 2010 7:50 AM

I can't believe that nobody's posted The Chaser's parody of the ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl3ViQln-J0

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 13, 2010 8:07 AM

Walton,

Libertarianism, like socialism, is an opinion about the desirable size of the state, not about the desirable type or organisation of the state.

It just seems to be me that the Queen is the very symbol of the state. You literally have take an oath of allegiance to her to be a citizen. Sure it's just symbolic, but you'd think a person who uses the term 'statist' as an insult wouldn't be thrilled about the idea of an (even symbolic) head of state.

Not that it really matters since you don't consider yourself a libertarian anymore. I was just curious.

People should not be viewed simply as the passive subjects of nation-states; ideally, they should be viewed more as customers

I agree people shouldn't be passive, but I don't think viewing them as customers is the right way to go about it. Customers don't really have much direct say on how a businesses works. Sure businesses care about whether their customers are satisfied, but even dictators can't completely ignore the mood the population.

But the monarchy is simply nothing to do with these issues. Abolishing the monarchy would make absolutely zero difference to the amount of nationalist and xenophobic sentiment in Britain

Well, let me try to use an example. In the US a lot of Fox News shows have the US flag featured to ridiculous levels. While they do this they spout on about anti-immigration policies (aka, fuck the Mexicans) and American exceptionalism. Now not everyone in the US views the flag like that and the people at Fox would be doing the same without it. However, don't you think even symbols could help foster nationalism?

In law, you are a Canadian citizen, not a Canadian "subject"

Well, I'm also an American citizen so maybe that's what driving my anti-monarchism, :P.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 13, 2010 8:15 AM

Oh, what a surprise!

Don Kwokixote de la Stuyvesant joined on the Pharyngula-bashing at The Intersection.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | March 13, 2010 8:42 AM

Walton

Abolishing the monarchy would make absolutely zero difference to the amount of nationalist and xenophobic sentiment in Britain, to the strength of our immigration restrictions, to protectionism, or anything else.

Really? For a start, it would also mean getting rid of the whole "nobility". All those worthless, parasitic Dukes, Earls, Lords etc.
And it would mean no state payments (the Civil List) for all the members of the head of state's family members, and various relatives. How do you justify those payments?

PS - side topic, on what you probably think is an "unacceptable" subject :) -
Do you know that if the Queen visits, and is likely to need to evacuate her bowels, the hosts have to build a special, sand-filled, toilet? (So that no one can hear the "plop"!) Maybe things have changed, but this was certainly the case in the 70's, when I was told this by the manager of the Royal Shakespeare Company. He was quite annoyed, because after all the effort and inconvenience (lol) to the RSC, she didn't even use it.
I also have a good story, told to me by someone who claimed to have witnessed it, and who I trusted, about an orgy on the Isle of Wight, in which "Prince" Philip was MC, wearing only an animal skin. But I'll save that for another time :) I'm sure if that had been done by a President, the forelock-tugging British press would have mentioned it. Instead all we ever get are vague hints about his philandering.

Sorry to hit and run, but I must go, got to go and see my football team lose.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | March 13, 2010 9:09 AM

In preparation to celebrate Sr. Patrick's Day*, I watched The Wind that Shakes the Barley last night. Sad film.

*IMO, St. Patrick was the worst thing that ever happened to Ireland.

Posted by: phi1ip | March 13, 2010 9:34 AM

Paul,

Despite the qu*ckings of the Kw*k, I would say things actually appear to be quieting down over at the Intersucktion train wreck thread, so above all we don't need any new and ambiguous cutlery-laden phrases that could be manipulated by the warped minds over there. They've already shown how they can twist that particular piece of cutlery to go far beyond the sickest interpretation of the initial phrase, so they really don't need to apply themselves to the blunter culinary instruments.

(Unless, of course, we want to see 250+ posts on spoon metaphors, and what violence is inherent in misuse of the ladle. Call the waaambulance!)

ye Pope Maledicte DCLXVI

Posted by: thrawn369 | March 13, 2010 9:46 AM

Maybe you guys will find this interesting. It's Dawkins on an Australian panel show with Australian Senator Stephen Fielding, a creationist who doesn't want to say if he's young earth or old earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtVZ23GfmDo

Posted by: phi1ip | March 13, 2010 10:02 AM

D'oh, insert "young earth" in the parentheses...

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 13, 2010 10:07 AM

ideally, they should be viewed more as customers

Posted by: phi1ip | March 13, 2010 10:13 AM

You know, I really didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...

...

*crickets*

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 13, 2010 10:20 AM

Here's a delightful story: Mormon politician, a Republican and Family Values guy, is battling negative publicity over time spent in a hot tub with a 15-year-old girl.

Cheryl Maher, the New Hampshire woman who says she had an affair with Layton Rep. Kevin Garn in 1985 and was paid $150,000 to keep her secret, says Garn is lying about a naked hot tub encounter between them when she was 15 and he was 30.
     Garn told reporters last night, "I can unequivocally tell you there was no physical contact, there was no touching, there was no intercourse, there was none of those things. It simply did not occur. ...I'm not trying to downplay what did occur but I want to make it very plain."
     Maher says he's lying, but is hesitant to give her version of events. "Let's just say this. He really loves to massage," Maher told City Weekly when asked for details of the contact in the hot tub. Maher, though, talks less about how that particular encounter traumatized her and more about the emotional relationship she had with Garn. "I was in love with him," she said. ...
     She's also angry at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who she accuses of being notified of the abuse on multiple occasions and not offering her adequate services or support, even as Garn's position in the church--from her perspective--was unaffected.
     Garn, Maher says, was her fourth grade sunday school teacher, though their affair wouldn't begin for several years after that.
     "In the church, people feel they can trust everybody," said Maher, who was excommunicated a few years ago for an extra-marital affair. "You're supposed to be safe with the priesthood holder, or whoever you're with. And I think my Mom and Dad felt that way. 'He's taking her out to lunch. Oh, he's taken her shopping....

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 13, 2010 10:27 AM

Still hungry, but not hungry enough to make the effort of preparing the next slice. :-) I'll save the hunger for dinner/supper.

fuck no! the absolutely last thing I'd want to see is this sort of adversarial relationship between state and citizenry. :-/

Or university and students. The right-right coalition government of Austria tried to sell that as an improvement in 2002. They have been suspected of wanting to limit the number of thinking people in the country, and while that's a somewhat extraordinary claim, I can't really find any evidence against it. Anyway, Austria has got rid of half of that government now, and one or two extremes of the university reform have been stopped... :-|

ideally, the whole thing would be run like a giant co-op ;-)

:-)

Actually... SC, could you explain anarchism in a screen or two, or link to such an explanation? To me, anarchism seems somewhat absurd, but I don't actually know much about it.

...

*crickets*

In case that's not clear, I was referring to the end of the video, which shows the beginning of the next sketch, which iiiiis...

...unexpected. :-)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 13, 2010 10:29 AM

IMO, St. Patrick was the worst thing that ever happened to Ireland.

He was, after all, English.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 13, 2010 10:32 AM

That "any more" was meant to be followed with a "very often" actually. I thought it but didn't type it.

Forgive me. I just did 45 minutes of dance practice which sounds pathetic but I'm proud of myself right now because I actually feel ok.

Off to a shower.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 13, 2010 10:56 AM

The wife of Kevin Garn, Tanya, played a big role in convincing Cheryl (the girl Garn finagled into the hot tub) to keep the affair secret. Here are some excerpts from one of Tanya's emails, written in 2003:

Kevin and I have been praying for guidance and direction from our Heavenly Father. We have had a very sweet experience in which it was manifested to us that the pain we feel right now in Cheryl's acquiring an attorney is a means to help us know her continued pain and the part that we play in that pain. We felt impressed to seek forgiveness from our Father and Cheryl for any deflection she felt in our responsibiliy in her pain. (D & C 101:8 "In the day of their peace, they esteemed lightly counsel; but, in the day of their trouble, of necessity they feel after me.")...
     We would both like to resolve all of this in the Lord's way as we know that is the path to true healing on both sides. We have discovered that any worldly path to try and take away pain is ultimately damaging....We hope that you believe our sincerity in wanting Cheryl to heal and extend an invitation to unitedly pray and work for a healthy resolution and restitution. We are certain that we can resolve this to her satisfaction without legal counsel... Love, Tanya
     P.S. Will you please extend to Cheryl my personal gratitude for her and her influence in our lives. As difficult as this is for her and for us, I know that she is an instrument in God's hands to remind us of our troubles and to force us to our knees and be united as a couple as we seek our Heavenly Father's help. (D & C 101:8)

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 13, 2010 11:00 AM

We would both like to resolve all of this in the Lord's way as we know that is the path to true healing on both sides. We have discovered that any worldly path to try and take away pain is ultimately damaging....We hope that you believe our sincerity in wanting Cheryl to heal and extend an invitation to unitedly pray and work for a healthy resolution and restitution. We are certain that we can resolve this to her satisfaction without legal counsel...

*barf*

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 13, 2010 11:12 AM

It's all about the pointy bits of flatware and their potential for mutilating my nether regions.

Have you considered the additional damage that might be wrought with some sort of a sideways motion?
Consult Ramsey for details.

IMO, St. Patrick was the worst thing that ever happened to Ireland.

No shit, AE. If only they had a few snakes around, they might not be so obsessed with famines and Protestants and shit.

And as the loving father of a soon-to-turn-14 daughter, I can state confidently that no 30-yo Sunday-school teacher is getting close enough to even make eye contact, if I can help it.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 13, 2010 11:20 AM

I don't think that's quite the same thing, is it?

Assuming we know the relevant facts in either case (a false assumption, for me at least), no, they're not quite the same thing, to me.
To the Law, they are the same, by statute.
To the Mormon God it probably makes no never mind. But that's neither here nor there.

Posted by: SC OM | March 13, 2010 11:24 AM

Do you know that if the Queen visits, and is likely to need to evacuate her bowels, the hosts have to build a special, sand-filled, toilet? (So that no one can hear the "plop"!)

I'm not even going to respond to this vile calumny. Ladies don't do such things, and especially not the Queen. :-)

OK, I'm not going to say much about the whole monarchy thing, because it's simply ridiculous. But since this isn't the first time I've heard Walton say something of the sort, and because it relates to the royalty business, I feel a need to respond. This sort of remark (even with the smily) - and manner of thinking in general - bothers me immensely. Listen, women are human beings. We are, like men, animals, with all that goes along with this. To deny us this is to deny us our animality, which is fundamental to our humanity. It isn't respectful. It's disrespectful and confining.

There's something very similar with royalty. Even as an anarchist (perhaps more so as an anarchist?), I can sympathize with hereditary royals. People tend to focus on the privileges and wealth that go with the condition, but the other side is that people who are held to be living embodiments of something simply due to the circumstances of their birth are confined to certain roles, unable to develop and express their full humanity. Even in situations in which they can opt out (though never really fully), there is very strong pressure not to. Just as it is unjust to tell poor people that they should know their place, it is wrong to insist to these people that this is who they are, and to put them in public positions toward which many are hostile, merely because of the family they were born into. It's wrong to do to them.

More about monarchy later. I think Walton resembles Noah Webster - also featured in the book I just finished - in this conservative belief that societies need, or do best with, some sort of formal "moral center." Can lead to some very bad things.

Also, I'll get back to David shortly with some references.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 13, 2010 11:28 AM

oh, I know legally it's the same thing, and I agree that he should suffer the same consequence as others for breaking the law; I'm just expressing ambivalent feelings towards statutory rape laws and their execution in general (especially when you consider that boyfriends have been thrown in jail for having sex with their marginally younger girlfriends, while this creep will go free).

I find the authority issue more troubling than the age issue: he was her boss, her former Sunday School teacher, and a "respected" member of her religion... and he abused that authority towards her. Would have been still just as wrong if she had been 18.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 13, 2010 11:32 AM

Also, I'll get back to David shortly with some references.

Posted by: Walton | March 13, 2010 11:35 AM

But since this isn't the first time I've heard Walton say something of the sort, and because it relates to the royalty business, I feel a need to respond. This sort of remark (even with the smily) - and manner of thinking in general - bothers me immensely. Listen, women are human beings. We are, like men, animals, with all that goes along with this. To deny us this is to deny us our animality, which is fundamental to our humanity. It isn't respectful. It's disrespectful and confining.

SC, I apologise. I was joking; it was in no way meant to be a serious comment, nor does it reflect my actual opinion. And I do see your point. I will refrain from making such remarks in future.

Even as an anarchist (perhaps more so as an anarchist?), I can sympathize with hereditary royals. People tend to focus on the privileges and wealth that go with the condition, but the other side is that people who are held to be living embodiments of something simply due to the circumstances of their birth are confined to certain roles, unable to develop and express their full humanity. Even in situations in which they can opt out (though never really fully), there is very strong pressure not to. Just as it is unjust to tell poor people that they should know their place, it is wrong to insist to these people that this is who they are, and to put them in public positions toward which many are hostile, merely because of the family they were born into. It's wrong to do to them.

I see your point. But I don't think this is solely a feature of monarchy or formal hereditary rule. The same kind of social expectations, and unjustified hostility, often attach to those who are scions of celebrity families, for example, or children of world leaders, or otherwise in the public eye because of the circumstances of their birth. Their personal lives are scrutinised constantly by the gutter media simply because of who they are, and they are victimised and attacked if they don't live up to (often arbitrary and hypocritical) "standards" of behaviour. So I agree with you that this is unfair - and I certainly wouldn't exchange my background for that kind of life in the public eye, even one which carried great material privilege - but I don't think it's a feature of hereditary monarchy in itself.

I think Walton resembles Noah Webster - also featured in the book I just finished - in this conservative belief that societies need, or do best with, some sort of formal "moral center." Can lead to some very bad things.

No, I don't hold that view at all; I don't know where you're getting this idea. I don't see the British monarchy as anything to do with "morality" or a "moral centre". It's just a traditional institution that does no harm and (in some ways) quite a lot of good, and that there's no obvious reason to abolish.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 13, 2010 11:37 AM

In the Kevin-Garn-manipulates-Cheryl story, there's another twist. Mormon-owned news sources knew about the incident and didn't report it at the time:

Utah House Majority Leader Kevin Garn is not the only one taking lumps for hot-tubbing in the nude with a 15-year-old and later paying her hush money. The Deseret News is, too — for knowing about the incident eight years ago and not reporting it.
     "It was a bad decision not to report it," said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a journalism training organization.
     "You essentially have someone who has presented one face to the public and it has been revealed that may not be true and accurate. And most likely you guys (the Deseret News) helped him present his narrative to the public. For that reason alone, you have an obligation to correct the record," she said in a telephone interview.
     That was typical of many comments on web sites and from some readers. But top Deseret News editors say they believe they made the right choice back in 2002, and they still defend it.
     Former Deseret News reporter Jerry Spangler said the episode began in 2002 when he wrote a profile of Garn and his congressional race just before the Republican primary election. He said Cheryl Maher called him to say "there is a side of him you don't know about," and told him about the nude hot-tubbing.

The news blackout sounds very familiar to me. Last fall I attended a conference for writers and one of the invited speakers was from the journalism department at BYU. He noted that they use "case studies" to teach ethics in their journalism classes. The example he gave was revealing. He wanted students to discuss the value of not reporting a police raid on a house of ill repute when several good men were rounded up and arrested right before the Christmas holiday. Should one ruin these men's reputations over a single incident? Or should some restraint be exercised?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 13, 2010 11:41 AM

The same kind of social expectations, and unjustified hostility, often attach to those who are scions of celebrity families, for example, or children of world leaders, or otherwise in the public eye because of the circumstances of their birth.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmjWLFpCTTvui1bJ0OF0BdSYDTlR8kdkRY | March 13, 2010 11:45 AM

Ok, so here's the Queen in all her animality and humanity.

-kuckucksblume

Posted by: SC OM | March 13, 2010 11:50 AM

I see your point. But I don't think this is solely a feature of monarchy or formal hereditary rule. The same kind of social expectations, and unjustified hostility, often attach to those who are scions of celebrity families, for example, or children of world leaders, or otherwise in the public eye because of the circumstances of their birth.

There is a difference, it should be noted. First, a quantitative difference. Second, actions can be taken to minimize this in those circumstances. In the case of royalty, the confining expectations (and roots of hostility) are intrinsic to the institution.

Their personal lives are scrutinised constantly by the gutter media simply because of who they are, and they are victimised and attacked if they don't live up to (often arbitrary and hypocritical) "standards" of behaviour.

In the case of monarchs, the roles are built into the (note: hereditary) institution itself.

So I agree with you that this is unfair - and I certainly wouldn't exchange my background for that kind of life in the public eye, even one which carried great material privilege - but I don't think it's a feature of hereditary monarchy in itself.

It is a fundamental feature of hereditary monarchy in itself, though. That we can find elements of it in other contexts doesn't diminish this fact. So if you agree that it's unfair even in these lesser examples and wouldn't yourself want to be in that position, by what right do you support putting others in it?

No, I don't hold that view at all; I don't know where you're getting this idea. I don't see the British monarchy as anything to do with "morality" or a "moral centre".

We'll see...

It's just a traditional institution that does no harm and (in some ways) quite a lot of good, and that there's no obvious reason to abolish.

I've just presented one, and you agreed with it.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 13, 2010 11:53 AM

The mormons plan to make Salt Lake City more mormon. But I think they might be tempting the earthquake god with some of their recent plans.

I've been tracking the LDS Church's acquisition of land in the Salt Lake Area, and their massive building projects. They're certainly spending a lot of money in the area, I'll give them that.
LDS Church & SLC Development

Here, eight miles from the urban capital, lie 19,000 acres of brush, streams and nearly forgotten landfills.
     “Nearly” is the operative word. Plans are afoot to get a long-awaited master plan in gear for a proposed settlement that would permanently change the face of this urban capital.
     Most assuredly, it would change the politics, too.
     What is now home mostly to birds, mosquitoes and deer flies would eventually house up to 70,000 people in “a variety of neighborhoods with a range of housing types for a diverse population … minutes from downtown and the airport,” according to a recent update of the 2009 draft of the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan....
     e Northwest Quadrant sits on a floodplain dotted by aging landfills susceptible to earthquake liquefaction.

“I like to think it’s better than Daybreak,” says Salt Lake City Councilman Carlton Christensen. “This is an opportunity to develop a community that really espouses some of the core values we espouse in this city, and if it can’t, shame on us.”
     The values Christensen talks about are things like sustainability, air quality and walkability. There are also values—albeit unspoken—of Utah’s conservative LDS majority that come into play.
     Political Hay: “People don’t like to talk about it much,” says former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, never one to shy away from controversy. “This could alter the political makeup of this community, and we could end up being another Sandy.”... Sandy, Utah, for those that may not recognize it, is often featured in HBO's "Big Love" program, and it's featured not just as a conservative mormon town, but as the home of barely hidden polygamist families. And, yes, there are still polygamist families living in little clumps all over Utah. Mainstream mormons give lip service to violently anti-polygamist dogma, but in practice they mostly ignore the polygamists. They do want to build suburbs that will be almost 100% mormon. Stepford Wives, anyone.

The master plan doesn’t exactly mention social engineering as a goal, and the area’s largest landowner—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—is deferring to the city as to what those goals are. Questions about liquor licensing, free-speech areas and even dog ownership were answered simply: “We are a longtime property owner in the area—our ownership originally goes back years as a welfare farm. However, what our role in any possible development in the area might be is undetermined until Salt Lake City has determined its master plan for the area.”
     As the LDS Church is the largest landowner, it seems only natural to inquire about the development through its property arms—Suburban Land Reserve and Property Reserve Inc. But questions sent to Carl Duke, property manager for SLR, were eventually fielded by the LDS Church’s communications department.
     Stephen Goldsmith, former planning director for the city, was surprised at the easy interface between the entities. “I’m looking at the ethical construct of this,” he puzzles. “As the church began to reorganize their for-profit side, they moved [real-estate development] into different hands, and they have worked very hard to differentiate their ecclesiastical side from their commercial side.”...

Posted by: SC OM | March 13, 2010 11:58 AM

Ok, so here's the Queen in all her animality and humanity.

I believe that would be illegal in Spain. (Not positive about the current state of the law or adherence to it, though.)

Addendum: SC, did you receive my email the other day?

Yes - will write back soon.

By the way, Josh, OSG, what's your email again?

Posted by: Walton | March 13, 2010 12:02 PM

Yes, SC, I guess you have a point about that.

I suppose we could have a monarchy elected for life, as they did in the Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania, for instance. They have a similar arrangement today in Samoa with the O le Ao o le Malo.

Posted by: Walton | March 13, 2010 12:04 PM

By way of explanation of #489: this would enable us to keep the trappings of monarchy, and the role of a non-political head of state, without imposing the burden of inherited roles on people who don't choose them.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 13, 2010 12:11 PM

Unqualified people making medical judgments- hmmm…are you all quacks?

Ah, key point of difference here: we are not hanging out a shingle with the term "Dr." preceding our names and taking money from people for our unqualified medical judgments.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 13, 2010 12:17 PM

Carlie to Kw*k over at Hammond:

You’re going to be very busy trying to get all of that done. You’ll probably need a camera or something.

oh, man, I really laughed hard at that

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 13, 2010 12:20 PM

I suppose we could have a monarchy elected for life

Why for life, and not for, say, 6 years (up to twice) like the president of Austria…?

Posted by: SC OM | March 13, 2010 12:22 PM

They have a similar arrangement today in Samoa with the O le Ao o le Malo.

Five-year terms, according to Wikipedia.

By way of explanation of #489: this would enable us to keep the trappings of monarchy,

For the love of reason, why? Trappings, indeed. Societies can have emblems, songs, birds, flowers, what you you to represent them symbolically. They can have documents - by no means sacred or unchanging - that spell out their principles, organization, and basic rights. What on earth does any society need with the trappings of monarchy?

Posted by: Walton | March 13, 2010 12:26 PM

Why for life, and not for, say, 6 years (up to twice) like the president of Austria…?

Because life tenure contributes to complete independence from politics.

For the same reason, I wouldn't support direct popular election of the head of state. If we were going to go down this road, I would suggest that, on the death of a monarch, a new monarch should be elected by the House of Lords from among its members. Only crossbenchers (those peers who are not members of political parties) would be eligible to stand. This would ensure that the election was uninfluenced, as far as possible, by partisan politics, and would more-or-less completely replicate the existing status quo while eliminating the hereditary principle.

Posted by: SC OM | March 13, 2010 12:36 PM

so please stop implicitly lumping it in with massage or stroking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGVnH39UzI8

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 13, 2010 12:40 PM

Jeez, just caught up @ Hammond. There are some un-be-lievable personality displays going on over there as per usual.
But I will limit my review to one example: The Commenter Whose Name I Usually Spell With Asterisks for Os quoth:

PZ Myers and Pharyngula have to be punished, and it’s now time for Science Blogs to pull the plug on Pharyngula. As I have noted earlier, freedom of speech doesn’t give you the absolute right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater when there is no proof of fire occurring.

I will not comment on this quote, though I regard it as classic enough, in its manifold features of interest, to archive.

so: Quoted as Essence

[One of the reasons I will not comment is that the last few times I have made the mistake of engaging said c*mmenter directly, (s)he has made clear in her or his otherwise obtuse replies that (s)he has googled me up in real life, which...why would you make it a point to do that? It creeps me the fuck out sometimes.]

Posted by: SC OM | March 13, 2010 12:50 PM

Kausik Dauta just posted (a link to a link to*) this on another thread:

http://ataraxiatheatre.com/2010/03/12/what-erv-really-stands-for/

*(but I don't feel like linking to NN or Coturnix at the moment, so I'll go direct to the source)

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 13, 2010 1:01 PM

Nerd's link @#492 also contains what I propose should become the symbolic flag of the Order of the Molly:

Not only does it include a translated reference to the honorary OM designation, but its rainbow typeface denotes inclusiveness and diversity. The radiance of the Molly is straightforwardly depicted, and all is cradled gently in the welcoming hands of Pharyngula, or teh Thread, maybe, or PZ when he forgets to trim his fingernails. We can work out the details later.

OK, the symbolism is apparently actually supposed to be about Reiki or some shit, but I personally have no ethical problems with nonprofit co-optation.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 13, 2010 1:12 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNJ7d52llic

Posted by: SC OM | March 13, 2010 1:17 PM

I mention all this not because I think it's a good thing. I don't. I'm adamantly opposed to nationalism in all its varieties, and I find the tribal instinct bizarre and destructive. But we need to recognise that it is a very deeply-ingrained aspect of human behaviour. And with this in mind, people of a nationalist bent tend - especially in time of crisis - to identify on a deep emotional level with "their country", and, implicitly, with the leaders of their country. Hence why one heard conservatives, in the aftermath of 9/11, accusing liberal critics of the Bush administration of being "unpatriotic" at a time when "the country should be united behind the President." I assume you will agree with me that this kind of thinking is toxic and dangerous. At no time, however dire the circumstances, should a country's political leaders be beyond criticism. The idea that we should "unite behind our leaders" in time of "national crisis" is a very fast road to authoritarianism, tyranny, institutionalised discrimination and a range of other ills.

Does monarchy do anything to help this? Perhaps not, in practice - but it does provide an overtly non-political, "uniting" figure on whom this kind of tribal loyalty can be focused. It's very unhealthy for that kind of loyalty ever to be directed towards a party politician or an elected government.

This is silly, quite frankly. I don't find any aspects of "tribalism" bizarre and not all destructive. It's natural, but the destructive aspects (in which I don't include, say, debating or athletic competition) should be focused more toward play, and this should be emphasized, and cooperation should be encouraged. I don't think people should "unite around" anything other than what and whom they believe in, for good reasons. Not a government, not a state, not a nation, not a symbol of a nation, not a party,... And those organizations and actions we support should only be those in which we participate actively in democratic decision-making. (I think this can only really happen on the basis of confederations of smaller units.) You're simply encouraging the "unite behind our leaders" as "unite behind our 'nation', as symbolized by this person," rather than really challenging and trying to counteract that which you claim to find distasteful - the submissive and irrational uniting. And you still haven't responded to the question. Reasonable people can unite around a set or principles or rights or a political/economic program. You've presented no need for the "trappings of monarchy."

Posted by: SC OM | March 13, 2010 1:22 PM

Hmmm... reading it, I realise that #506 is not a terribly good argument for monarchy.

Oh, FFS. Now you tell me. :)

Posted by: SC OM | March 13, 2010 1:28 PM

Yes, I should go, too. But first, JeffreyD:

Got the (non) answer I expected. Kw-k, I AM sorry you were hurt so deeply by being banned, the only reason I can see for this crusade. PZ and company MUST be punished? Frank would be disappointed in you.

:)

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 13, 2010 1:44 PM

Jen @484

Lynna, what a disgusting story. I've just caught up on all the sources you linked to and bleeeeahhhhchhchcchchch. Being victimized that way to begin with is appalling enough, but to have the entire community fail to provide support or protection (except, apparently for the perpetrator) in the aftermath is scarcely comprehensible.

This is the kind of society you get when 60 percent of the state's residents belong to a patriarchal cult, and more than 85 percent of the legislators also belong to the cult. And the cult does not recognize that it is a cult, despite email evidence from Tanya. Go, Tanya -- you revealed the cult-like qualities of mormonism quite by accident.

Posted by: A. Noyd | March 13, 2010 1:45 PM

Quackalicious (#486)

Knockgoats actually looked at the Cochrane analysis of Therapeutic Touch and said it works.

Knockgoats said no such thing: "So here we have a Cochrane review, which says being touched may have a modest effect on pain relief. [Bold and underline added.]"

It should be obvious that any touch therapy would be somewhat effective at pain relief, contrary to what a number of readers have been implying.

No, it should not. Science exists because we can't rely on what's "obvious." You try to warp science into giving you confirmation for your pre-determined beliefs about the world. The difference between you and the rest of us? What makes us non-"quacks"? We take the world as it is.

We use science to discover how things work. If our hunches are right, that's exciting! If our hunches are wrong, that's exciting, too! We're not arrogant in the way you are because science can always show us we're wrong. Reality humbles us, whereas you will ignore whatever makes you wrong. Oh, sure, you'll give a little here and there and pat yourself on the back for being open-minded, but you're so stuck within this fantasy that you're some sort of healer that you won't risk letting reality in to shatter the alternative "medicine" framework it's built upon.

You're a parasite, is what you are. You borrow esteem from the work of real doctors and play pretend with your placebos. We don't need to "prove" it because science already says your alternative modalities are bogus. It's on you to show us otherwise. And you can't. You wow your "patients" with your handwaving, but you wowed yourself first; you don't understand that you're doing something wrong, so it fascinates you that we're not fooled by your cargo cult approach to science.

Reality, being the Grand Arbiter of All, that is what you must bow before in order to be accepted here. You must abandon what you wish to be true and become humble before what is. No clever redefinitions, no clinging to cherrypicked data, no hinting at conspiracies, no denial when you're shown that you're wrong, no twisting the words of others to support you. And no telling us your sure-to-confirm-your-beliefs approach to science and medicine are "how it's done" when there are professional scientists, students of science, and actual doctors among us. We know we can be wrong. But we also know that truth is not determined by whomever can bludgeon the rest into silence with his favored paradigm, bristling with assertions and dripping with the slime of special pleading.

So. Do you have what it takes to belong here or are you going to continue on as a spoiled brat with your playacting, finger-pointing, whinging and tantrums?

Posted by: Walton | March 13, 2010 1:48 PM

I don't think people should "unite around" anything other than what and whom they believe in, for good reasons. Not a government, not a state, not a nation, not a symbol of a nation, not a party

I totally agree. Nonetheless, I think we must accept that they will do so - and hence design political systems that limit the damage and reduce the potential for demagoguery, populism and authoritarianism. I'm not saying constitutional monarchy always does this - anyone can think of counterexamples, starting with the fascist takeover in interwar Italy - but I think this is an argument, sometimes, for maintaining political institutions that have a proven track-record in this regard, of which the British constitutional order is certainly one.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/7bP64dsCsNde3x.4t5pshK_WF4p8#86291 | March 13, 2010 1:57 PM

Yesterdays Feudal Times and Reactionary Herald in one of its usual thoughtful editorials, ¹ observed “that it was unusual to see a young person showing such perspicacious loyalty to the finer things in life as the person known as Walton. His valiant battle to demonstrate the wondrous nature of the Crown to the disloyal American rebels is a sight to behold. His defence of Our Sovereign Lady Elizabeth is to be commended. Of course we still believe that the disloyal American rebels may come to their senses and return to the British family and swear allegiance to the Crown again. We would observe that such an act would mean that the extinction of those mountebanks who call themselves “Republicans” and their scurrilous opponents the so called “Democrats” and result in more voters for the loyal socialist party or our conservatives both of whom have a deeper understanding of political theory and loyalty”
¹For those non English readers of this blog see the links below for edification, Britons of a certain age may remember Peter Simple and Way of the World.

Peter Simple

Heinz Kiosk et al

Joking aside, there is a solid case to abolish the monarchy in Britain, and replace it with a written constitution which firmly defines the state as a secular one and also to
Define the electorate as the fundamental basis of sovereign power and to prevent politicians ceding power to unelected bodies. An even better case can be made to dissolve the UK and similar bodies and devolve power to the lowest possible level where decisions be made by consensus. Indeed the abolition of “political power” should be our target and society run by social consensus

East_midlander

Posted by: SC OM | March 13, 2010 2:04 PM

I totally agree. Nonetheless, I think we must accept that they will do so - and hence design political systems that limit the damage and reduce the potential for demagoguery, populism and authoritarianism.

We should have political systems and cultures that encourage us not to do so. You're accepting nationalism, you just prefer a certain flavor. A monarch is supposed to embody a country, and I don't accept that a country (nation-state) is something people should unite around in the first place.

I'm not saying constitutional monarchy always does this - anyone can think of counterexamples, starting with the fascist takeover in interwar Italy - but I think this is an argument, sometimes, for maintaining political institutions that have a proven track-record in this regard, of which the British constitutional order is certainly one.

Tell that to the rest of the fucking world, Walton.

In any case, didn't you just acknowledge that hereditary monarchies were unjust? So even if it were the case that it had "reduce[d] the potential for demagoguery, populism and authoritarianism," it would have done so at a human cost and in a way contrary to your stated principles. In keeping with your principles, you can only advocate elected ceremonial monarchs. So any track record has to be of those, and it's quite clear that people can (and should) get along without them.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 13, 2010 2:12 PM

A. Noyd:

are you going to continue on as a spoiled brat with your playacting, finger-pointing, whinging and tantrums?

I'm going with this ^ option.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 13, 2010 2:12 PM

Well, Kevin Garn (he of hot-tubbing with 15-year-old-girl fame) has just resigned. Apparently, the public condemnation of his treatment and his wife's treatment of the girl finally had an effect. His fellow legislators may support him, but comments from the public are trending the other way. The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting the resignation, but the scrappy Salt Lake City Weekly should take credit for digging into the details with a four-page story.

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 13, 2010 2:25 PM

Knockgoats actually looked at the Cochrane analysis of Therapeutic Touch and said it works. - Quackalicious@486

Quack, I quoted the conclusion of the review: "may have a modest effect on pain relief". That you can turn this into "it works" indicates both how dishonest and how stupid you are: it's unwise to lie when your lies are easily checked by anyone who cares to look. It makes it clear to everyone that nothing whatever you say is to be trusted.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 13, 2010 2:28 PM

Woman dies during religious fast...a 55-year-old woman died alone in a bedroom of her central Florida home after locking herself in the room for several weeks for a lengthy religious fast.
     Evelyn Boyd told her husband, a preacher at a Pentecostal church in the city of Bartow, not to disturb her when she locked herself in the room Feb. 7 to fast and pray with only water to drink. Family members forced open the door March 5 and found her dead.
...The woman's husband, John Boyd, told the paper he didn't check on his wife because she felt she was doing what God called her to do and he wanted to respect her privacy.

Posted by: SC OM | March 13, 2010 2:29 PM

Kg, you're right. The parenthetical remark should have deleted as I almost did. It was intended to counter the acceptance of the nation-state model, but didn't address the contemporary possibilities, which I ordinarily would. Stupid.

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 13, 2010 2:31 PM

I put my full support behind the Hammond reference for that place.

Apparently, the public condemnation of his treatment and his wife's treatment of the girl finally had an effect.

*Yeah, I said it.
**That's Kw*k in Hammond comment #258, for the record.

Posted by: Walton | March 13, 2010 2:34 PM

SC, in light of what I said at #518 et seq., I find it hard to understand why you place so much emphasis on democracy.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 13, 2010 2:37 PM

Quackalicious #486,

Wait a second! If everyone at BYU is a quack, does that mean that everyone that doesn’t agree with this website is a quack?

Reading helps for comprehension.

My comment #113 was not related to the level of quackitude at BYU (which I ignore), but to the value of a measure of "popularity" as defined by the U.S. News & World Report survey. I gave a hypothetical example where a school for quacks entirely populated by complete morons could have 100% "popularity".

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | March 13, 2010 2:39 PM

@SC, OM -

My email is spokesgay at gmail.

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | March 13, 2010 2:45 PM

The OM sign is beautiful!

Posted by: Louis | March 13, 2010 2:51 PM

Lynna #535,

Very sad. Very stupid, but also very sad. I used to debate with a "John Boyd" many (~10) years ago on the MSN boards (or maybe it was T.O., I forget). He wasn't a bad bloke, so I hope it's not his wife. Well to be honest I'd hope, whilst I'm hoping for things, that it's no one's wife and this sort of thing never happened, but I'll start small and work up to that.

Louis

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 13, 2010 2:56 PM

Walton #518,

or the fact that voters around Europe keep voting far-right and crypto-fascist parties into the legislature

Oh because you think the SCOTUS stops far right crypto-fascist parties from taking government control ?

Remind me what happened with the first BushII election ?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | March 13, 2010 3:07 PM

Walton,

I dislike nationalismhereditary monarchies, in the sense that I hate the attitude that a person's rights, duties and life chances should be defined exclusively by the accident of his or her nationalityfamily of birth.

Fixed that for ya ;)

The role of the unelected court remains central, however you look at it - and I think it's beyond doubt that if the judges of the SCOTUS were directly elected by the people, as many state judges are, half a century of social progress would likely be reversed in just a few years.

The era of a socially progressive court was an anomaly in SCOTUS history. We're already seeing the consequences of the end of that era. The recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Ledbetter v. Goodyear are excellent examples of reversing social progress. Congress will have to act to rectify these two horrible decisions.

The lifetime appointment of SCOTUS justices means that we will have a major extremely right-wing voting block for many years to come. Obama has shown that he doesn't have the balls to nominate liberals to counter the Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts block, so I have very little hope that social progress will come from the SCOTUS any time soon.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 13, 2010 3:10 PM

Walton #518,

Again, this isn't necessarily an argument for the monarchy, since the monarchy has precisely no effect on any of the issues I've raised above; I'm going off on a tangent here, but I think it's interesting.

I think it's been about two days since you've started spouting nonsense about the benefits of monarchy, of life-long apolitical ceremonial head of state, and God knows what, and you still haven't managed to find one single argument to justify your "firm belief" that monarchy was better ?

You know what I call people who can't seem to justify their "firm beliefs" but keep going on and on about their merits ? Faith-heads.

Posted by: Walton | March 13, 2010 3:23 PM

I think it's been about two days since you've started spouting nonsense about the benefits of monarchy, of life-long apolitical ceremonial head of state, and God knows what, and you still haven't managed to find one single argument to justify your "firm belief" that monarchy was better ?

I tried. I even posted a link to a whole page of such arguments.

I knew I'd be fighting a losing battle on this one. And I do recognise the strength of SC's point about the unfairness of the system, as regards royal heirs born into a role in the public eye that they may not like or want.

But I like monarchy, and I respect the Queen deeply on a personal level. At the very least, I don't think there's any need to consider any change during the remainder of her lifetime.

Posted by: SC OM | March 13, 2010 3:26 PM

Sorry, poor wording on my part. What I was trying to say is that I wanted you to answer the criticisms of democracy I made at #518.

First, I have no desire to do so. Second, again, your understanding of "democracy" is not mine.

I don't know quite what you want. When I talk in general terms rather than using specific examples, you tell me that you're not interested in abstractions.

I'm not interested in having abstract discussions of politics on this blog.

But when I cite actual specific real-world examples of where democracy has produced awful results, and non-democratic (principally judicial) forms of decision-making have produced concrete social progress and liberalisation,

You've made claims using hand-picked examples concerning a specific type of democracy.

you tell me that these examples are "specific forms of representative democracy in state systems within a global capitalist system".

Because they are. That's a form of democracy, and of course better than less democratic alternatives, but not what I'm advocating. Not that you're not wrong about it, or democracy in general, anyway.

Are you going to explain how your desired form of participatory democracy would make things better? How would it overcome the ignorance, bigotry and prejudice that afflict large numbers of voters in actual real-world democracies? I don't think this is an "abstract" discussion at all.

Of course it is. I've discussed specific movements and organizations - historical and contemporary - in the past, and when I'm in the mood to debate them I do. My choice.

I'm arguing that in the real world, too much rule by "the people" leads to the tyranny of the majority, authoritarian and illiberal measures, and the institutionalisation of bigotry.

And you're wrong. And it's due to your lack of knowledge about the real world.

By contrast, the enshrinement of constitutional rights, and their enforcement by a (non-elected) independent judiciary, has tended to produce better outcomes in the real world.

This is a bizarre non-comparison. The constitutional enshrinement of rights and democratic practice are of course not antithetical.

Again, are you going to acknowledge that hereditary monarchy goes against your principles with regard to individual freedom?

Posted by: Walton | March 13, 2010 3:31 PM

Again, are you going to acknowledge that hereditary monarchy goes against your principles with regard to individual freedom?

I don't know. All I can say is that I like and deeply respect the Queen, and for as long as she is willing to continue serving our country in her present capacity, there is no reason to change. There might be an argument for changes to the current hereditary system after that.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 13, 2010 3:37 PM

Just for Walton and/or SC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9UxevnYcec

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 13, 2010 3:56 PM

As Vatican cardinal in charge of the policy on sex abuse, the future pope "showed wisdom and firmness in handling these cases," Scicluna said.

In other words, "Nasty Ratzi shuffled the molesters around in approved fashion, and his actions are above discussion!"

*spits*

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | March 13, 2010 4:11 PM

Walton

It's just a traditional institution that does no harm

Personally, I'm ashamed to be represented on the world stage by a politically and religiously divisive, disfunctional, unrepresentative, unelected family of spongeing parasites who have virtually no comprehension of ordinary life, and who think the world smells of fresh paint.
Give me someone like David Attenborough, or Stephen Hawking, as Head of State anyday.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 13, 2010 4:27 PM

Janine:

Better to have the appearance of moral superiority, force the victims to be quiet and allow their predators to roam free than to actually punish those who abuse their position of power.

When it comes to the catholic church, if all those who abused their position of power were brought to justice, the vatican would be empty. Not that I'd have a problem with that.

Until catholics at large shed their cognitive dissonance and denounce the criminals for what they are, that viperous nest is going to stay in business.

Posted by: Walton | March 13, 2010 4:29 PM

Ring Tailed Lemurian:

You think no harm is done by having Britain being represented by the richest woman on Earth

A common factual error. She is nowhere near the "richest woman on Earth". The Queen does not personally own the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, Buckingham Palace or the Royal Collections (which include the Crown Jewels). These are vested in the Crown, which is a corporation sole with a legal identity separate from the Queen as an individual, and is the legal personification of the state. The properties are held on trust for her successors and the nation, not owned by Elizabeth II in a private capacity, and she does not receive the revenues from them. There are certain other properties which she does own privately - Sandringham and Balmoral being among them - but these are nowhere near sufficient to make her the "richest woman on Earth".

...and by the head of the family of the biggest landowners in Britain?

As I explained, the lands that are vested in the Crown - the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, and so on - do not belong to the Queen personally, but to the Crown, which is a separate entity in law. The Queen does not "own" these properties; she would not be entitled to sell them, does not receive revenues from them, and would not keep them if she were to abdicate or if the monarchy were to be abolished. They belong to "the Crown" as the legal personification of the state.

(For clarity, I should mention that there is another, very technical, legal sense in which all land is "owned" ultimately by the Crown. The Crown holds the "allodial title" to all land in England and Wales (Scotland has a different system of property law); technically, all other landowners hold freehold or leasehold estates in land, rather than owning the land itself. But this is a technical legal point, and certainly does not mean that the land all "belongs to the Queen" in common parlance.)

A family that, despite its fabulous wealth, still thinks it is entitled to state handouts and special treatment, and whose junior members treat public assets as their own (military helicopters etc).

As I clearly outlined earlier in the thread, the Royal Family pays for itself. The revenues from the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Lancaster are paid into the public treasury. This profit (around £226 million, as of the 2008-9 financial year) far exceeds the cost of the Civil List payments made to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, which have been fixed at £7.9 million since 1990. And this isn't even factoring in indirect revenues, from tourism and the like.

You think no harm is done by the monarchy being so strongly linked to the British Armed Forces, and that link then being used to attempt to prop up support for unpopular and divisive foreign wars?

Show me one jot of evidence that the links between the monarchy and the Armed Forces have been used to "prop up support for unpopular and divisive foreign wars". I have never heard a single person use the links between the Armed Forces and the Queen to try and defend a particular war. And incase you hadn't noticed, those "unpopular and divisive foreign wars" to which you refer have, in all cases, also been embarked on very enthusiastically by the United States - which has not had a monarchy for rather a long time.

Posted by: windy | March 13, 2010 4:37 PM

I do recognise the strength of SC's point about the unfairness of the system, as regards royal heirs born into a role in the public eye that they may not like or want.

Ahem. I made this same point in the last subthread... not that anyone was obligated to respond, but I'm beginning to suspect I'm in Walton's killfile :D

Posted by: Walton | March 13, 2010 4:39 PM

Elizabeth may be a fine person, I do not know, I really do not care enough to find out. But the position she holds is a prime example of unearned privilege.

I really wouldn't call it a "privilege". I think SC was closer to the mark when she talked about the unfair burden that hereditary offices place on their bearers. Since 1952 (and, to a lesser extent, since her birth), the Queen has been required, by reason of the accident of birth, to perform a particular public role; to refrain from expressing political opinion; to be conscious of the fact that every single one of her words and action is in the public eye and taken as representative of an entire nation; and, in every other context, to subordinate her personal wishes and interests to her official duties. She was deprived of the basic privilege that all the rest of us, as ordinary citizens, enjoy; to choose who and what we want to be in life, and how we want to live. It's certainly not a life I would wish for myself.

Yes, the Royal Family is materially privileged. But I certainly wouldn't exchange my background for theirs, given the choice.

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 13, 2010 4:40 PM

in general, those affected by illiberal laws, and their allies, weren't in the numerical majority.

One reason why your identification of democracy with "the numerical majority gets (or should get) whatever it wants" is so naive. No-one here is advocating that, so attacking it is attacking a straw man.

so, organise the meetings so that they are not "tedious". - East_midlander

1) How is it decided how the meetings are organised? If this is decided by consensus, then it will be decided by those prepared to continue the preliminary meeting to decide how meetings are orgnaised, longest.
2) In the opinion of many, me included, decision-making meetings are necessary, but inherently tedious. Tastes differ: consensus gives those who like such meetings (I guess you're one of them and don't really understand how anyone can feel differently) overwhelming influence.

If PR results in a permanent minority this can be just as oppressive.

Unclear what you mean here. In any case, I'm not claiming there is any system without drawbacks, for the very good reason that there isn't. There may be cases where consensus works well, but it is not a panacea.

Consensus might be slow and tedious but it maximises agreement and reduces oppression.

Assertion is not argument. Try harder. Some examples of consensus actually working, particularly in cases where a rapid decision and/or one affecting a very large number of people is needed, would help. We can't, for example, afford to wait for a consensus between 6.8 billion people before reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 13, 2010 4:43 PM

Ring Tailed Lemurian

You think no harm is done by having Britain being represented by the richest woman on Earth

Sorry to knitpick, but she's not the richest woman on earth.

Christy Walton, Alice Walton and Liliane Bettencourt are the richest.
She's not even the richest woman in Britain.
Joanne Rowling is.

Poor Queen !

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 13, 2010 4:44 PM

All I can say is that I like and deeply respect the Queen - Walton

Well I dislike and deeply despise her. I owe her no allegiance whatever and resent her claims to the contrary. What right have you to impose your views on me?

Posted by: Carlie | March 13, 2010 4:46 PM

JeffreyD - I'm glad to see you posting. It's good to have you here. :)

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 13, 2010 4:47 PM

Republicans turned off by size of Obama's package

Turns out Jadehawk only told us half of the story. The other half starts here: the Reptilians have been in and out of this issue for quite some time now.

voters around Europe keep voting far-right and crypto-fascist parties into the legislature

They also vote them out pretty quickly. Austria's xenophobes got into government following the election of 1999, collapsed in the election of 2002, and had to leave altogether following the election of 2006. In the meantime they split in two, and the very funny divorce war still isn't over.

Whilst we wait for SC to come up with some references to Anarchism may I suggest 3 books

No. :-] That might change after my thesis is finished, but so far, I don't have time to read books at all. There are some I got, like, for Christmas 3 years ago and still haven't read.

Damn P-J Proudon=P-J Proudhon

You also got Kropotkin wrong both times :o)

...The woman's husband, John Boyd, told the paper he didn't check on his wife because she felt she was doing what God called her to do and he wanted to respect her privacy.

And nobody in that family knew that it's not possible to live without food for longer than 2 weeks, perhaps 3? Yet they waited over a month?

TSIB.

Thunderfoot has a new video out: The Internet: Where religions come to die

Nice, nice.

Incidentally, do you know how Patrick drove the snakes from Ireland? He gathered all the snakes together and said: "Any of you who want to stay, raise your hand."

LOL!

The Everlasting Thread™, where the discussion can go from genitalia to abolition of the British monarchy. Gotta love it. :-)

No, we didn't discuss genitalia, only what to do with them. This is a discussion of genitalia.

(...It's only 2 clicks away from the Thunderf00t video. Honest.)

Just for Walton and/or SC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9UxevnYcec

The Titoists had funnier songs.

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 13, 2010 4:52 PM

She is nowhere near the "richest woman on Earth". - Walton

Name a richer woman, Walton. No reliable accounting of Liz Windsor's personal wealth is available, because she makes bloody sure there shouldn't be. Forbes Magazine estimated it at $650 million in 2008, but this could be badly wrong in either direction.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 13, 2010 4:59 PM

Poor Queen !

"...think of lovely Queenie..."
– Elizabeth I in Blackadder.

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 13, 2010 5:03 PM

I see negentropyeater has named some supposedly richer women than Liz Windsor. I maintain my scepticism of Forbes' list. (Note that they claimed - maybe still do - that Fidel Castro personally owns all Cuban state property. Now I've never forgiven Castro for trying to kill me in 1962, but that's just absurd, and shows that the "rich list" is distorted for political reasons - as well as being unreliable because many of the extremely rich conceal their wealth, while others make inflated claims.)

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 13, 2010 5:06 PM

Carlie@590,
Yes, my thought was "Well, at least they're not size queens!".

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 13, 2010 5:14 PM

JeffreyD,

Hi, no email from you as yet. I will be coming to London in a week or so - let me know if you'll be around and would like to meet up. I still have to book my train down and could come down as early as Saturday 20th - going back on the sleeper on 23rd.

Posted by: Louis | March 13, 2010 5:22 PM

There is one good reason to keep the British Monarchy:

Comedy gold.

Everything Prince Phillip says is unintentionally hilarious. He's nearly as much fun in diplomatic circles as Dennis Thatcher was.

Oh and I'm laughing AT him, not WITH him.

;-)

Louis

Posted by: Walton | March 13, 2010 5:28 PM

You've never seen any of the fawning, uncritical, media coverage of various "princes" and their military service in the Falklands, or Afghanistan? You don't think that has been used as propaganda to legitimise those wars?

I think Prince Harry sincerely wanted to serve in Afghanistan. Indeed, he was able to do so for a brief time (until the Drudge Report, bizarrely enough, chose to leak the information of his whereabouts). Rather than choosing to rely on his privileged status, he wanted to face the same dangers that other officers in the British Army face. That, I think, is worthy of respect, whatever you think of the war itself. And it is not his fault that he was not permitted to do so.

As to it being used as "propaganda to legitimise the war", I don't see any evidence of that.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 13, 2010 5:35 PM

Arguments for constitutional monarchy.

I think the official wording is: "Let's have a look at this[,] shall we!"

Quotes from there:

There are some sections of the media whose prime objective sometimes seems to be increasing circulation and making money regardless of any other factors. They regularly embark on sensationalised features based little on facts and more on fantasy which though inaccurate or even completely false have the effect of damaging [...]

WHAT YOU SAY !!

Third paragraph, first argument:

How much coverage is there in the press about visits to other countries made by the Queen and other members of royal family and about the benefits that there are to this country and to the country visited as a result? Nowadays they hardly get a mention.

Benefits??? Oh, is this an argument for having a head of state that can make diplomatic visits in general?

Just have a look at the royal appointments schedules on the royal website. Those of the main members of the royal family show the huge number of appointments that they have. And of course these are not initiated by them, they do not get up in the morning and say “I think I'll visit a hospital today or open an exhibition”; of course not, there is a constant never-ending massive number of requests from people who would like members of the royal family to support their events knowing the value of a royal visit to all involved.

I don't actually need to comment that, do I.

Constant attempts are made to suggest that it is an outdated anachronistic institution in spite of the fact that it like all other British institutions it has evolved steadily over all the years.

So has religion. :-°

The argument often put forward is that a monarchy it is not democratic. In fact it is that blissful combination of an institution which is entirely under democratic control yet above politics, faction, division, election, appointment, and short-term tenure providing a continuous thread from the past to a certain future.

Has been dealt with in this subthread. Also, anyone that afraid of the future needs to get their head examined.

another absolutely mammoth nationwide election

O horror. O pain. <faint>

If a country opts for a head of state with little power, a limited period of tenure and who attempts to be above politics, the result is usually somebody who cannot adequately symbolise for any period of time the unity, the history, and the continuity of the nation

Who needs that?

And, as mentioned above, is it a good idea to use people as symbols?

and this person sometimes is a nonentity whom very few people know outside the country and indeed sometimes inside the country!

So what.

Elected presidents are concerned more with their own political futures and power.

President tends to be the last step in a career.

Constitutional monarchs are not subject to the influences which can corrupt short-term presidents.

See (way) above.

A monarch can represent centuries of history

1) So what?
2) Should they even?

whereas elected Presidents in their nature devote much energy to undoing the achievements of their predecessors and setting traps for their successors.

In countries with very powerful presidents, yes... elsewhere, a president can't achieve much and can't set traps.

A long-reigning monarch can put enormous experience at the disposal of transient political leaders. This has been the case with our present Queen. An experienced monarch can act as a sounding-board for politicians.

Details, please.

Having a monarchy and a royal family means that a whole family of people are undertaking valuable ceremonial and charitable duties across the country to a degree to which an executive president or symbolic president just cannot fulfil.

Er... "valuable ceremonial and charitable duties"???

O_o

Queen Elizabeth II is the Monarch of 16 independent countries and the Head of the Commonwealth of 54 nations across the globe- an absolutely astonishing fact in this age of separatism and a massive worldwide symbol of unity and association which can only be achieved by a monarch – can you imagine all these nations agreeing on an appointed let alone elected symbol?

Speak for yourself, anonymous author. I can even imagine countries that were enemies for centuries agreeing on such things. http://europa.eu

Many nations who have lost their monarchies wish they could restore them, such as Afghanistan, because they can see the value of a non-political unifying symbol above faction and politics and racial and ethnic division.

Show me the poll numbers.

Posted by: Carlie | March 13, 2010 5:40 PM

You know, Walton, studies have shown that the brain remembers more when it gets periodic breaks... :)

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 13, 2010 5:43 PM

the brain remembers more when it gets periodic breaks

Indeed. But of course, some specific types of breaks are better for this than others.

(a lesson I've yet to learn, alas)