Dave and Blarney Discuss Elections

Blarney:This time the Democrats will win both houses of Congress, thanks to Mark Foley.

Dave: Why is that, Blarney?

Blarney: Voters are outraged, and rightly so, about the Republican handling of this mess.

Dave: What is it, exactly, that the Democrats dislike about the incidents?

Blarney: Well, isn't it obvious?

Dave: Here are the facts as I understand them: Foley is a homosexual. He sent "overly friendly" email messages to a young page. He sent sexually explicit Instant Messages to an adult page, even engaging in "internet sex". There was no documented physical sexual contact. He resigned as soon as the situation became public. So, are you offended by his sexual orientation?

Blarney: Absolutely not. Everyone has a right to their own orientation.

Dave: Ok, then. Are you offended by sexually explicit instant messages?

Blarney: Well, the emails went to a minor.

Dave: Yes, but they were not sexually explicit. Foley engaged in internet sex with an adult male page, not the one he sent emails to. But can I assume that you oppose the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)? Do you condemn their agenda?

Blarney: Well, no. We don't have uptight mores about sex.

Dave: Well, then what is it?

Blarney: Hastert should have done something about Foley much sooner.

Dave: But what is it that you find reprehensible about Foley? Was it that he sexually approached someone over which he had some authority? Did you find Bill and Monica to be reprehensible by the same standard?

Blarney: Well, no. That was a private matter between two adults. You conservatives had no right to attack Mr. Clinton for receiving "favors" from Monica.

Dave: And the fact that Mr. Clinton was married has no bearing on it?

Blarney: Of course not. We are enlightened.

Dave: You will of course recall that Mr. Clinton initially denied everything. Foley, on the other hand, admitted his actions. Is that what you find offensive?

Blarney: The leader of the House Republicans should have known what was going on and done something about it.

Dave: About what? What is the action that you find so horrible? NAMBLA openly advocates homosexual sex between adults and children. You don't seem upset with them. Bill Clinton used his office - the Oval Office - to engage in oral sex with an intern. You people rushed to defend him.

Blarney: Well...

Dave: And I find it strange that the same people who protest about tracking terrorist conversations think it is appropriate to expose emails between individuals in Congress.

Blarney: But...

Dave: Now, I do find Foley's behavior as a Congressman reprehensible. I am outraged that he would approach a subordinate. I am opposed to NAMBLA. I just can't figure out what you think was so horrible, based on previous discussions.

Blarney: It's an election year.

Dave: Right. Thanks for being open about the motivation for outrage on the Left.

The Watchmaker

Here is a beautiful poem, suitable for sharing with your children or grandchildren. You can even download the poem with music for a mere $5.

My friends Hawkeye and Camojack will like it and will probably have an extended post at their sites.

Space Tourist

In case you haven't heard, Anousheh Ansari, an Iranian born woman, has just completed her paid vacation on the International Space Station. She has her own blog with videos from space that you might find interesting.
Enjoy the videos and celebrate the fact that an Iranian woman was the first entrepreneur in space. Robert A Heinlein had it wrong.

You Have to Read This

You may have seen some of the following in an eMail that has made a few laps around the net. Click here for the original author's update and comments.
Here is a sample:

You are America’s axis of idiots. Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war – this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

UPDATE: Now you have to read this.

Dave and Blarney Discuss Academia

Blarney: I've been thinking about our last conversation.
Dave: That's good. What new thoughts do you have?
Blarney: You tricked me.
Dave: Excuse me?
Blarney: You got me to accept your labels of "insane" and "fraud". That was a mistake on my part. I dislike labels.
Dave: Really? What would you call someone whose grip on reality is gone, or who intentionally deceives people?
Blarney: Either "Bush", "Cheney", or "Rumsfeld". But I digress. One person's insanity could be another person's reality.
Dave: You mean like whether or not aircraft hit the Twin Towers on 9/11?
Blarney: No, I mean like whether Iraq is a quagmire. Or the people working in the towers were little Eichman's. Each of those opinions is a possible truth.
Dave: Possible truth? What are you talking about? Something is either true or false.
Blarney: You only say that because you are unaware of the new trends in education.
Dave: You mean allowing someone to spell "cat" K-A-T?
Blarney: Right. All opinions are equally valid?
Dave: Including my opinion that this idea is just stupid?
Blarney: There you go again being judgmental.
Dave: Ok, then. How about Harvard University President Lawrence Summers' opinion that, just possibly, women and men are each better at different things? Is that a valid opinion?
Blarney: Of course not. That's right out there with "Intelligent Design".
Dave: But I thought the rule was "all opinions are equally valid"?
Blarney: Well, in general yes, but some opinions are more equal than others.
Dave: So, your opinion is as valid as mine?
Blarney: Exactly.
Dave: But mine might not be as valid as yours?
Blarney: Now you're getting it.
Dave: {sigh}

Dave and Blarney Discuss Jesus

Blarney: I know why the Christians hate the Jews.

Dave: What are you talking about?

Blarney: Well, you know how Mel Gibson let out that anti-Jewish tirade? He's the one who made that movie about Jesus. The Jews killed Jesus and so Christians hate them.

Dave: Blarney, you are so confused. Jesus was a Jew and it was the Romans who killed him. If Christians should hate anybody, it would be the Italians, not the Jews. But Christians cannot hate either of them.

Blarney: Why not?

Dave: Because it was all part of a plan to redeem mankind from Satan. You see, my sins and your sins are what put Jesus on the cross.

Blarney: Sin is such an outmoded term. And who are you to call me a sinner? That's pretty intolerant, if you ask me.

Dave: I included myself in the sinner group and, in fact, listed myself first. We have all sinned and fallen short of God's standard. That's the whole point of redemption.

Blarney: What's so special about Jesus, anyway?

Dave: Well, Blarney, that is one of the central issues for Christianity. Is or was Jesus God?

Blarney: I'm not sure how to answer that. I wouldn't want to offend you.

Dave: It's really a simple question with only two possible answers. Is Jesus God?

Blarney: Well, I know that a lot of Christians think he was. I'm sure his followers at the time were really impressed.

Dave: Yes, Blarney, but the question is really about what you think. Is Jesus God?

Blarney: Well, aren't we all gods in some sense?

Dave: Answer the question. Is Jesus in the same class as the one true God? Is He the same as God?

Blarney: Well, the Jews and the Muslims don't think so. He was a great moral teacher, though.

Dave: Again, it isn't about what others think. It is about what you think. And Jesus could not have been a great moral Teacher if He were not God. Is Jesus God?

Blarney: Well, in the sense that you mean, I would have to say no. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Dave: I'm not offended, OK, so now let me ask you, did this Jesus, who is not God, think that He was God? Did He believe that?

Blarney: Well, how can you ever know what someone believes unless they tell you.

Dave: Work with me, Blarney. Do you think He believed He was God?

Blarney: Well, I can't really be sure, but I guess He did. I mean, yes.

Dave: OK, so this Jesus, who was not God, believed He was God. That makes Him insane, doesn't it?

Blarney: Well, maybe I was wrong. Maybe He really knew better, but just wanted to reinforce His teachings by letting people think so.

Dave: Sort of like Ward Churchill pretending to be an Indian so he could be an authority on Indian affairs?

Blarney: Yes, that's it.

Dave: Doesn't that make Him a fraud?

Blarney: You're being awfully judgmental.

Dave: See, Blarney, that's the point. Either Jesus was God, or He was insane, or He was a fraud. There is no other choice. "Great Moral Teacher" only applies if He were not insane and not a fraud.

Blarney: Ah, there's the flaw in your argument.

Dave: Excuse me?

Blarney: You assume that someone can't be a teacher if they are insane or a fraud. That's not true. Those are not things that disqualify an individual from teaching, or even being a college professor.

Dave: You can't be serious. And besides, the issue is not "teacher" but "moral teacher", even "great moral teacher."

Blarney: That's the trouble with you right wing types. You are so judgmental. We liberals would never stop someone from teaching just because they are insane or frauds.

Dave: {sigh}

Things to Ponder

I was going to do a Dave and Blarney, but right now I am just in a random musing kind of mood. This post was triggered by something I heard on the radio. The weather forecaster said something about the "normal" rainfall for this time of year. Followed by a remark about the temperature being "higher than average" for this time of year. For some reason, I actually thought about what he said, instead of just filing it away in the recesses of my mind.

What exactly, is "normal" and "average"? Well, if you followed the links you see that one definition of "normal" is "average". And of course, you know that to determine an average, you add all the values and divide by the number of values (that, strictly speaking is the mean as opposed to the median). Anyway, the whole concept of mean and median is that some values are above and some values are below. That is, on any given day, the high temperature is either higher than, equal to, or less than the "average" high for that day. And this is somehow "news"?

That set me off on another silly phrase: "trade deficit". Or "balance of trade". The whole concept of "trade" as opposed to "theft" is that I give you something I value less than the item you have if (and only if) you value my item more than the one you already have. In any other instance, one or the other of us would have to resort to force, the threat of force, or deception. The whole concept of trade is that both parties are satisfied with the outcome. So then, how can you have a "trade deficit"?

Of course, what is usually meant is that we are buying more things than we are selling. In that regard, I have a deficit of trade with Wal-Mart. They have yet to buy anything from me (with the possible exceptions of items I returned because I already had one or wanted something else). And yet, I am not deprived. My stuff has increased. Stuff has value. I traded my money for it.

OK, that's all for now.