Stones Cry Out

I’ve wondered about this before, but couldn’t figure out how.  It could remove some of the thrust of the wind and have … some sort of effect.  Perhaps seeds don’t get blown as far or something like that.

Well, this Q&A column from the NY Times notes that one study suggests that the turbines / windmills could force the agitation of moister ground air with drier air higher up to produce a drying effect at ground level.  That’s probably not a big deal if your windfarm is in the desert southwest, and maybe not even if it’s out at sea.  But it makes it less likely you’ll want to toss up windmills in the middle of fields in the country’s breadbasket.

• Have a good idea? It might be worth $10 million dollars. What that will be worth of course …
• Nothing of interest here, move along.
• It is my understanding that you cannot give up the right to sue … even if you wanted to do so … alas. I personally would often like to have the choice to give up the right to sue my doctor(s) for malpractice in return for cutting the 50% of their fees which has to go to pay their insurance against the same.
• And people complain about Mr McCain’s choice of Mrs Palin, how about that knucklehead?
• Weinberg re-enters the science/religion “debate.”
• Liturgy summarized for comparison.
• Congressional Democrats against it in rhetoric … not so much in action.

Apparently both Mr Obama and Mr Biden voted for the bill and down a revision which which was aimed at the removal of Mr Stevens “bridge to nowhere”. Mrs Palin, whom the Obama campaign targeted as “for earmarks before she was against them” of course has absolutely nothing to do with earmarks … unlike the Senators. Because, as we all know, Legislation (and earmarks) are enacted by Congress … not governors. So I guess Mr Obama and Mr Biden where, uhm, substantially for the earmarks in question but are now actually (perhaps) against them, now that that position is politically convenient.

Mr Obama different, how? Perhaps he’s dropped the “Change Change Change” mantra because its becoming increasingly clear that he is emphatically not a change. Why do his supporters think that he’s going to be not just a less experienced replay of Jimmy Carter in office is beyond me. If I was a little more cynical, I think I might start supporting him. If he wins, it will take decades for the Democratic party to recover the damage that I think he will do.

In what can only be viewed as an abandonment of fact for the purpose of Obama advocacy, the New York Times is reporting falsehoods about McCain campaign manager Rick Davis.  The denial from the McCain campaign is pretty categorical.

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis — weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual — since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times‘ reporting, Mr. Davis has never — never — been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with…Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times — in the absence of any supporting evidence — has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain’s long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

It’s not just misreporting but non-reporting that the Times is guilty of; both of the positive things that McCain has done, and of the negative connections to Obama.  Michael Goldfarb, in this statement, lists a few, but also the full Ayers connection that Mark linked to earlier.  If this tenuous connection to Fannie and Freddie is worth reporting on, certainly that should as well. 

The advocacy journalism of the Times is their right.  Pretending to be nonpartisan is not.

Charlie Martin has gone as far as getting the URL http://www.palinrumors.com/ to point to his ever-updated list of rumors about Sarah Palin.  Since last I visited there, there have been new ones added.  Here are a few (and details are on the site):

#72: No, she didn’t try to charge rape victims personally for rape kits.

#76: No she didn’t institute a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies.

#79: No, Palin didn’t eliminate or “void” the Alaskan WIC program as Newsweek claimed.

#83: No, she did not cut the Special Olympics funding in a recent budget, except in the Washington sense of “didn’t increase it as much as someone wanted.”

#84 Yes, she did bill the Alaska State Government for per diem on days when she was “home.”  But that’s the way the law is written, and even doing what other governors did, she still had expenses one-third to one-fifth of the previous governor’s.

Bookmark that page.

From the Patriot Post, a compendium of quotes regarding the current credit & mortgage crisis, and the bailout being debated.  Quite a number of different takes on it, looking at it from different aspects. 

(By the way, the Patriot Post can come to your inbox 3 times a week.  It’s a good read.)

“Financial institutions are not being bailed out as a favor to them or their stockholders. In fact, stockholders have come out worse off after some bailouts. The real point is to avoid a major contraction of credit that could cause major downturns in output and employment, ruining millions of people, far beyond the financial institutions involved. If it was just a question of the financial institutions themselves, they could be left to sink or swim. But it is not.” —Thomas Sowell

“The credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy. In fact, what we see now is a market correction to foolhardy government policy. Congress’ move to bail out lenders and borrowers who made poor decisions will simply create incentives for people to make unwise decisions in the future.” —Walter Williams

“[A]s lawmakers debate buying up hundreds of billions in assets, they should realize that the government’s aggressive meddling in financial decision-making is what got our economy into this mess in the first place. The long-term answer isn’t more federal control, it’s a return to free-market principles.” —Ed Feulner

“Crisis is the friend of the State. The politicians are desperate to be seen as ‘showing leadership,’ so we’re surely in for a new round of government interventions.” —John Stossel

“When the Forbidden Fruit was handed to Adam and Eve, they were allowed the moral choice to accept or decline. I know people who have refused to feast on the money tree. They live simply, within their means, and seem far more content than those who are trying to horde their wealth while clinging to the ladder of ‘success,’ terrified to let go. That isn’t real living. The Puritans rightly saw that as covetousness.” —Cal Thomas

When even the New York Times suggests that we might be winning, or indeed may have already won, the major part of the war in Iraq, that’s saying something.

When I left Baghdad two years ago, the nation’s social fabric seemed too shredded to ever come together again. The very worst had lost its power to shock. To return now is to be jarred in the oddest way possible: by the normal, by the pleasant, even by hope. The questions are jarring, too. Is it really different now? Is this something like peace or victory? And, if so, for whom: the Americans or the Iraqis?

The answer is, “Yes, all of the above.”  Could it break down at a later date?  Yes; no peace this side of eternity is eternal.  But I would be extremely surprised if it breaks down back to rape rooms and all out firefights among Iraqis in some sort of true civil war.  (One militia a la Al Sadr does not a civil war make.)

This article, according to the bottom of the web page, appeared only in the local New York edition of the paper, as if only New Yorkers would be interested in it.  When the news agrees with the editorial page, it’s on the front page.  When it doesn’t, it’s relegated to a spot somewhere around the Parade magazine insert.  That’s what passes for “balance” at the New York Times.

• Backing failure … and American political tradition … apparently.
• Sex-Ed and lies (or not) of Mr McCain’s ads.
• 70s Sci-Fi, two films featured.
• Power to act.
• Strong dollar, weak dollar … does it really matter?
• That guy from Iran.
• That OPM addiction.
• Mr Obama and Mr Ayers not just “neighbors” it seems.

The theme/question for this quarters CoCR by our host at The Cross Reference is:

I guess I’d be interested in hearing perspectives on what obstacles are presented by the varying liturgies (high/low, sacramental/non-sacramental, rubrical/freeform) and how they might be possible to overcome. I don’t necessarily want to get too doctrinal (although the law of prayer and the law of belief go hand-in-hand, as far as Catholics are concerned). And the issue of liturgical reform would be open for discussion as well.

Much of American worship experience when compared to that 5 or 10 centuries earlier is very much less liturgically and bound in ritual and movement than it was then. Charles Tayler in A Secular Age recounts the development of the secularization of modern Western society. The move away from the ritual and formal liturgical expression was one intended to concentrate the spiritual focus of the worshiper away from externalities and to turn inwards concentrating on ones heart and mind to focus on God. As a result many churches and expressions in churches have become less liturgically bound. I suggest that many who reject, or “don’t get” liturgical expression also don’t really appreciate it. Likewise those who cherish liturgical worship don’t “get” or have a real appreciation for good non-liturgical worship.

I will admit up front, that I have always been part of a liturgical worship environment. I grew up in a Lutheran church … and have now ended in a Eastern Orthodox church, which is arguably about as “high” liturgical as you can get in the modern church. So I have a definite bias on the place of liturgy in worship. But, I’d like to pose a question for the non-liturgical church members.

One of the things liturgy and liturgical cycles are good for is memory. Passover and Pascha (Easter) are memories of two very significant events in the Hebrew and Christian churches. These are marked liturgically. The rest of the church year is marked out with a variety of other liturgical events … which in part are to help us remember and mark those as important. These can also mark other historical events. Recently, the church I attend has added to its liturgical calendar a service to remember 9/11. Americans remember July 4th and certain other Presidential holidays. We remember Pearl Harbor a lot less well. Why? Because, there is no secular “holiday” or secular liturgical event (if you will) to mark that day. 9/11 currently also has no such secular liturgy remembering that day. In 50-75 years in the absence of such a marking, like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 will fade from our public consciousness. The point is, liturgy and ritual make a connection not just in our mind, but in our whole being, our nous if you will, between us and events which we … as a church, find significant.

My question is how do you non-liturgical churches hold precious and fast to the important events in Church history in the absence of liturgical remembrance?

The Washington Post claimed that a recent McCain ad, tying Barack Obama to Franklin Raines, former CEO of Fannie May, was based on “flimsy” evidence.  Problem is, the source for the information was the Washington Post itself. 

Rusty Shackleford’s Jawa Report blog is reporting that the first link in his suspected chain of command in the Palin smear viral video has admitted to producing the video.  However, it appears that Ethan Winner is falling on his sword, claiming full and sole responsibility for the production of the video.  Shackleford isn’t convinced, and he spells out why.

Developing…

• Transnistria?
• Well, here’s why Mr Obama went on the offensive regarding the banking crisis, to deflect. Or is this the reason? Or is this it?
• Mr Clinton on Mrs Palin.
• When is clean energy not so clean?
• Mr Stiglitz on the banking crisis.
• 10 suggestions for the spouse.
• Mr Obama and a particular pledge of his.
• Iraq.

Wacky ideas have been floating in my noggin.

• It might be an interesting political strategic move for the GOP, if President Bush, in a few weeks announced that on account of mistakes and failure to heed warning signs in the financial sector … that he’s resigning his office. President Cheney then makes a few moves to unbalance the Dems and then fades back into the background (where it might be noted, the President is … and I think that’s largely because the GOP strategists think that gives Mr McCain the best chance to win). How do you all think a surprise resignation might ruffle the waters?
• The Roman Empire divided into East/West in late antiquity because of the size of the Empire. Modern communications have made that unnecessary … however the complexity of the world has increased. Perhaps a “split” Executive office might be better for the Administration of the US in the modern era … perhaps dividing between a Domestic and Foreign Executive seat?
• One might suggest that voters tend to fall into two broad categories. Issues voters and character voters. Some want to dive into policy details, others into character and the psyche of the candidates. It might be interesting if some of the News outlets recognized this and specialized reporting those perspectives instead of a mishmash.

This report from Rusty Shackleford has been all the rage on the right side of the blogosphere today.  It links viral video with false claims about Palin back to a PR firm that Obama and the DNC have used, though it was made to look like a grassroots effort.  Most telling is that shortly after this scam was exposed by Shackleford, the videos came down and accounts were deleted.

The connection to Obama himself may be tenuous, but there is a better link to his chief media strategist.  It helps the the voiceover artist used is the same one used on other Obama ads.  Yeah, it smacks of conspiracy theories, but Rusty lays it all out (with screenshots and video, especially for the stuff that has since disappeared).  He reports, you decide.

Is this something that only political junkies would even notice?  Perhaps, but in the Internet world of MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube, campaigns have to sometimes answer charges that don’t make it into the mainstream media.  Although in this case, the New York Times and a number of liberal pundits did pick up and run with the charge that Sarah Palin had been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a secessionist group.  A big enough deal was made out of it that even FactCheck.org had to debunk the rumor.

Is this the “change” and “hope” and new kind of politics that Obama has promised his supporters?  They may have been sold a bill of goods.

One of the problems I have with socialized healthcare is that it takes the responsibility for payment out of the hands of the person getting the care and places it in the hands of a massive bureaucracy that has, depending on the system, either a monopoly on being the payer or at least one of the larger ones.  As such, it has an incentive to cut costs, but its incentive isn’t nearly as personal as an individual payer.  The larger the bureaucracy, the less concern for the individual. 

I’ve noted before how this led to the state of Oregon denying cancer medication to a woman, but still gave her coverage for physician-assisted suicide.  It also leads to a British medical ethics expert suggesting that the elderly should take the same route, for the good of society.

Elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families, according to the influential medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock.

The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are “wasting people’s lives” because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.

She insisted there was “nothing wrong” with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.

The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be “licensed to put others down” if they are unable to look after themselves.

Her comments in a magazine interview have been condemned as “immoral” and “barbaric”, but also sparked fears that they may find wider support because of her influence on ethical matters.

Lady Warnock, a former headmistress who went on to become Britain’s leading moral philosopher, chaired a landmark Government committee in the 1980s that established the law on fertility treatment and embryo research.

(A tip of the Blogger’s Fedora to Right Wing News.)

The “leading moral philosopher” in Britain is asking people to die for the good of the state.  What an insane world we live in.