Latest Greatest Conspiracy Theory
The most recent conspiracy theory that has caught my attention is the idea that Osama Bin Laden has already been captured. He is being kept prisoner somewhere. And he will "officially" be captured next October.
Of course...this ridiculous. Bush might be illiterate, but he isn't stupid. He will bend, mutilate, and stretch...but he isn't going to do anything that would be immediate grounds for impeachment if caught.
But it's still a fun conspiracy theory. And it is based on an actual truth that is extremely hard to refute. Today's politics is based completely on media manipulation. We elect the individual best able to manipulate the press.
Prevention Research for the Transition to Adulthood
It may be time for the National Institute of Health to rethink the title it has given this grant program... Or else they should recruit Michael Jackson as an example of a success story.
Size Matters
Since Television the shorter US Presidential candidate has received more popular votes in the election than the taller candidate only once: Jimmy Carter is shorter than Gerald Ford. (Gore is taller than Dubya, but Gore did receive more popular votes. The odds of a popular vote/electoral vote mismatch happening again are quite low.)
So...how do the Democratic candidates 'stand up' against Bush?
Dubya is 5'11 or 6' even depending upon your source.
One article I read lists the Democratic contenders with the following stats:
John Kerry - 6'4
Dick Gephardt - 6´1
John Edwards - 6´ even.
Al Sharpton - 5'11
Wesley Clark - 5'10
Howard Dean - 5´9
Joe Lieberman - 5´8
Dennis Kucinich - 5´7
Carol Moseley Braun - 5´4
Using this yardstick, Kerry stands the best chance of beating Bush, with a sizable lead. Gephardt would also beat Bush, but by mere inches. Edwards and Sharpton are close shaves. And everyone else would have to pull off a Jimmy Carter.
So the reason Democrats should not nominate Dean has nothing to do with his positions on the War. It's because size matters.
Republicans want Reagan on the Dime
Some Republicans want Reagan on the Dime
Currently, Lincoln is on the Penny, Jefferson on the nickel, FDR on the dime, Washington on the quarter, Kennedy on the half-dollar, and Sacajawea on the dollar.
Currently we have 1 Republican (Lincoln), 2 Democrats (FDR and Kennedy), 1 person who was a Republican-Democrat (Jefferson), Washington who was neither, and a Native American.
I will agree that the 2-1 favoring of Democrats could be considered unfair, but to replace it with a 2-1 favoring of Republicans is not the answer. We should create a new coin.
How about reinstituting the half-penny (aka haypenny)?
addendum:
The explanation of the one California Republican in the article above really makes a lot of sense. To paraphrase: "Reagan means more to me than FDR because he's more recent and he's from California."
Well...how about Clinton? He's even more recent, and he's from the Midwest. And I'm from the midwest too...so I can identify with that.
That aside, I can understand why the guy, when looking for a recent Californian Republican, chose Reagan. I understand why he doesn't want to push that other recent Californian Republican - but at least the other recent Californian Republican has something else going for him - he's dead. We in the US like to wait for that before immortalizing someone on coinage. (By the way - for those who don't know, Nixon's the other Californian Republican.)
If we are going to start immortalizing live people, and they want to use the dime, I have a novel approach. How about our first two-headed coin? Reagan on one side and Clinton on the other? I bet you could get huge bi-partisan support on that bill. Both were very popular presidents, even though both had their individual controversies. Whether for good or ill (and the debate could last for decades on that one), both had a huge effect on this nation.
From nobody's email to your screen...
author unknown...
(Disassociated Express) At New York's Kennedy airport today, an individual, later discovered to be a public school teacher, was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a setsquare, a slide rule, and a calculator.
At a morning press conference, Attorney general John Ashcroft said he believes the man is a member of the notorious al-gebra movement. He is being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.
"Al-gebra is a fearsome cult,", Ashcroft said. "They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value. They use secret code names like "x" and "y" and refer to themselves as "unknowns", but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, there are 3 sides to every triangle," Ashcroft declared.
When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes. I am gratified that our government has given us a sine that it is intent on protracting us from these math-dogs who are willing to disintegrate us with calculus disregard. Murky statisticians love to inflict plane on every sphere of influence," the President said, adding: "Under the circumferences, we must differentiate their root, make our point, and draw the line."
President Bush warned, "These weapons of math instruction have the potential to decimal everything in their math on a scalene never before seen unless we become exponents of a Higher Power and begin to factor-in random facts of vertex."
Attorney General Ashcroft said, "As our Great Leader would say, read my ellipse. Here is one principle he is uncertainty of: though they continue to multiply, their days are numbered as the hypotenuse tightens around their necks."
Reminiscing about the good ol' days
Archive.org provides a wonderful service of archiving past versions of websites. For example:
Here's a page for the St. Louis United Way's website back in 2001
To quote:
Certainly. The vital services provided by agencies are available to everyone - without regard to economic status, race or religion.
Of course, this being from 2001, it post-dates the Supreme Court case. So they don't add 'sexual preference'. However, the BSA also discriminates against atheists. I guess the local United Way could try to claim they were unaware of this fact back in 2001. But they've obviously been made aware of it since then, as this sentence can no longer be found on their site.
Well, that's not entirely true...now that archive.org provides us the old url, we discover the page is still there. It just can't be found from following any links on the site. Here is the current index page for the campaign folder where the page still is stored.
It certainly would be nice if the United Way could still say that. There are at least two paths that could be taken by two separate entities to reach that juncture. Nobody's not making any suggestions as to which path would be preferable. Nobody's just relating fond memories of the past.
NYU censors film student
In October, a film student at New York University pitched an idea for her video-making class: a four-minute portrayal of the contrast between unbridled human lust and banal everyday behavior. Her professor approved.
The student, Paula Carmicino, found two actor friends willing to have sex on camera in front of the class. The other students expressed their support. But then the professor thought he should check with the administration, which immediately pulled the plug on the project.
-----
NYU has now instituted an R-rated limitation on all student films.
I think there are two really hilarious sentences in that second paragraph:
"The other students expressed their support" and
"But then the Professor thought he should check with administration."
Of course they expressed their support! Duh!
And I'm amazed the professor waited that long.
Maybe I'm an old fogey. But not that much of one. I would have written the new policy slightly different -- an R rated limitation on student films filmed in class. It's made clear in the article that past student films had included footage from x-rated films. Seemingly, those will no longer be allowed. And since this is film school, theoretically some of the students may go on to become directors of x rated films. As long as the sex scenes aren't filmed in front of a live audience...and of course as long as all students are over the age of 18...
But still, it's definitely NYU's decision to make.
By the way, the article concluded with asking the University of Southern California for their reaction: "We as a matter of creative course do not censor," said Joe Wallenstein, the director of physical production at the University of Southern California's School of Cinema/Television. While nudity is plentiful in student projects, he said, the school has never been confronted with an extremely graphic sexual scene, adding that it was unlikely that such a scene would be allowed.
The Supreme Court / Scholarships and Vouchers
As The First Ammendment Center reports, the Supreme Court is discussing a case where a scholarship was refused to a student by the State of Washington because the student wanted to pursue a major of theology.
The Ninth Circuit court, which riled up many over their attack on the Pledge of Allegiance's use of 'under God' decided in favor of the student, illustrating that the court isn't a bunch of atheists opposed to all religious expression, as some have claimed. There are actually some complex issues at hand.
The Supreme Court appears to be worrying that siding with the Ninth Circuit in this case, and saying the State is *required* to fund religious education with scholarships, would require all government agencies to fund religion. (From elementary and secondary school vouchers, to welfare, on down the line)
The Supreme Court has already declared that states *can* fund religious institutions with school vouchers, but some fear this case could open a floodgate in the wall of separation.
Most analysts seem to suggest the court is looking for a way to make a narrow decision in favor of the student. The main difference that jumps out at me when looking at this case - between the scholarship and vouchers, and between the scholarship and most government programs - is that this student earned the scholarship on merit. It was not need-based.
Most government programs that provide money directly to individuals are either for everyone or based on economic need. But here we have a case of an individual who earned an award for academic achievement. And was then rejected for his religious pursuits. That seems to me unfair. A scholarship is an award for past achievements, and should be awarded regardless of where the awardee plans to utilize it.
Our New Archbishop-Elect and HIV
However, as reported in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily
Burke told members of his diocese to stop participating in activities such as the Crop Walk and the AIDS Walk Wisconsin, saying that the proceeds from these fund-raisers finance activities forbidden by the Catholic Church.
The referenced activity both support is raising awareness about HIV/AIDS. (The Crop Walk has other goals, but none seem likely candidates for the Bishop's displeasure.) To suggest raising awareness of the disease finances homosexuality feels slightly backwards to me. (understatement intended)
[I admit I may be making an incorrect assumption about what the forbidden activitiy referenced is]
update It appears I did assume incorrectly. Bishop Burke mentioned specifically condom distribution/family planning activities. For birth control is still forbidden by the church. [Visions of Monty Python pop into my head singing 'every sperm is sacred' -- but as I said, Nobody isn't a member of the church.]
Our New Archbishop Elect - and Harry Potter
The Post Dispatch, in an article today states Archbishop-Elect Raymond Burke
drew attention last year when he criticized the popular novels featuring the English schoolboy-magician Harry Potter. He sent all the schools and the seminaries in his diocese a letter saying that Potter "may not be suitable for young Catholic readers."
However, the Lacrosse Tribune back in Dec of 2002 said
Asked about reports that a letter was sent to all diocesan parish schools concerning the books, Burke said he did not write or have any letter sent out. He said the director of diocesan schools, who was visiting family and not available, might have sent out a letter advising schools that the matter was being studied.
and
He said the only question that has come up is this: "Does Harry Potter do evil things to accomplish good?" Committing acts of evil, even for good purposes, is against Catholic teachings, Burke said.
So while Burke has come out as saying that Rowling's books might be against Catholic teachings if they imply the ends justify the means - he *apparently* was not the one to send out a letter to that effect.
Reading other news stories - at no time did he order or suggest the books be removed from church libraries. The most he did was suggest the books might not be appropriate, and that the inidividual parish schools should make their own decisions. Not exactly horrific.
(Note: Nobody is not a member of a Catholic church, FWIW)
Welcome
Welcome to nobody's weblog.
I will offer a view on St. Louis, and the world, that nobody else can offer.
Stay tuned...
GoogleWhacks
The Challenge: Find GoogleWhacks leading to your own website
Results So Far
Christy's GoogleWhacks:
Gavroche's GoogleWhacks:
Nobody's GoogleWhacks:
