Good news all around.

[silveradept]

Today had good news - annaonthemoon has found herself a residence, at least for close to a year. So all her goals have finally been achieved. We're both very happy at this result. So the move is still on, and the frustration of days past has been defeated. Huzzah, huzzah, huzzah!

blacktigr, I just realized that if I'm going to enjoy Ed and your company, that I will need to know where to actually appear at the designated time. If you could leave a message or other communication, that would be fantastic.

Putin's out for blood. Then again, if four of your government's diplomats were killed and people admitted to doing it, wouldn't you go headhunting? You can even get some of the international community on your side to do so.

Remember the quote about there being "liars, damn liars, and statisticians?" Watch as statistics are put to malevolent use to make the claim that Al Gore's documentary is a flop. By choosing the statistic of dollars per screen-showing, they can make it appear that the movie's tanking. When any other statistic shows that it's doing quite well. Always see what your numbers are and what they're doing before you believe statistics.

An inexcusable gift for a wedding night - the bridge and groom were shot by thugs trying looking to collect on a debt. The debt was less than $200, but apparently it was sufficient for violence. Was the debt really overdue, or something? Or were these people so fluffed on self-importance (or other substances) that they decided to get their gun and go shooting? Morons.

Obama says that if the Democrats want a chance in politics, they're going to have to bring their religion with them. He's got a point - if Democratic candidates say that they're religious, then they might be able to make themselves into the reasonable, moderate, and inoffensively religious candidates. That way, people who knee-jerk vote the religious candidates, regardless of actual religion or following of Scripture, will have options to choose from. Of course, it may not have any effect at all, depending on whether the Religious Right will shift gears into branding and smearing every candidate with a religion that's not as evangelically fervent as "not True" and in league with Satan - especially if they're pro-choice. Still, if the Dems can help bring the "religious candidate" back into the realm of reasonability, they'll help their own cause immensely. Right now, the Republicans have such a stranglehold on it, and are driving it so far to the right, that the polarization elects lousy candidates, based on their "values", rather than their issues. Or people think that all Dems are spineless atheists and as boring as Al Gore.

Those farther left than the Dems may have issues with Christian religion itself, and so may actually be properly classified as non-religious left-wing candidates. They might do well for the country, too, but the likely truth is that they're not going to get elected. Which is a shame. With the upcoming elections, one wonders just how frustrated or pleased John Q. American is with the legislature and their path. Then again, even if the legislature changes hands, will it do so with enough seats for redress to be put through?

Anyway, it's time to go off to bed - of course, I've got things hopping up on me that I have no idea when or what will happen, and so I'm doing the usual fly-by-seat-of-pants bit, but they're all for things like celebrations and social outings, so I'm not too worried. See you all in the morning, or something. Although I will have to run around a bit tomorrow to pull things off for the cart I'm supposed to make.

Comments

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

Thanks so much for letting me invade for so long...I know I drove you crazy while I was here. :-P *hugs*

[blacktigr.livejournal.com]

So sorry, hon. This past couple weeks have worn me out. Can we reschedule?

(Give me an email address and I will toss you a destination address.)

[wanderingbhikkh.livejournal.com]

Support your local interfaith council. :D

Seriously, the Dems need, more than a religion, a plan...something better than "we're left of Bush." The Republicans at least know what they're trying to do.

[shenalia.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, statistics work in the reverse, as well: the movie has claimed that "Global Warming" is backed by, or at least a great concern of, a majority of scientists and the majority of studies done in relation to it. Unfortunately, most of those claims rely on scientists who are not climatologists, and the vast majority of studies performed are written and invested in by people who have a vested interest in there "being a problem": groups who get paid for more further studies to research it even more... they're writing their own paychecks by basing their studies on flawed data.

I really shouldn't go into a rant on this. You can look up yourself the studies that have discredited the "hockey stick graph" that is used for a lot of the basis of the "scientific backing" of Gore's movie. Or the notes that the core samplings of polar ice caps used were taken in different situations, at different times of each year they were taken, using different methods: hardly a controlled environment for coming up with an actual cause and effect.

Grr. Shouldn't rant about stupid global warming junk science when I'm about to go to bed...

[przxqgl.livejournal.com]

Obama says that if the Democrats want a chance in politics, they're going to have to bring their religion with them

if any politician runs on a platform that includes religion, of any variety whatsoever, i wonder about their commitment to their constituents... after all, isn't the current fantasy based on a separatation of church and state?

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, Shen, the studies counter to "Global Warming Orthodoxy" also include those of people with vested interests in disproving the theory. And, I'm afraid, I'll have to note that the majority of climatologists who've published on Global Warming also support it.

The hockey stick graph discrediting you're talking about must be that of McIntyre and McKitrick, which, incidently, Mann claims to have addressed the issues with in subsequent papers. Of course, McIntyre and McKitrick regard the issue as not dealt with, but since both sides are still slugging it out, it is somewhat precipitous to claim that the hockey stick graph is discredited now. (I do find it interesting, on the side of ad hominem, that McIntyre and McKitrick aren't climatologists, and that their attempt to get published in Nature was rejected...)

The correct argument, at this point, is for you to talk about how "consensus does not mean that you're right" and that "correlation is not causality".

[silveradept]

Of course we can reschedule. Toss me an e-mail at silveradept at hotmail dot com and we'll work things out.

[yarha.livejournal.com]

spineless atheists

Hee! I can count the number of spineless atheists I know on one hand. Actually, I can use no-hands.

Yarha, Believes Spine is Very Necessary in Adopting the Underdog Belief

[jokermage.livejournal.com]

How I long for the olden days when non-Christians were routinely elected president.

[silveradept]

Well, I think many liberal parties have some of this problem - since liberal is usuallyy associated with changes toward the unknown, they can have a plan, but it may not be specific or detailed (but yes, the Dems ahving a plan would help), while conservatives can say "Hey, what we've got right now works, and has for a while. Why change?" It's always a fight against inertia to espouse and enact liberal policies.

[silveradept]

Yep. Both sides fund and publish studies that say what they want them to say, and the expectations were that they would say such before they were funded. If we can manage to figure out a couple truly neutral, controlled studies and see what they come up with, we might have an idea of what's really going on and why.

[silveradept]

Sort of. I'd say it's more been a "gentleman's agreement" that in political office, regardless of one's personal persuasions, one will make decisions based on logical (and likely political) reasons, rather than letting religious belief guide the path, and one will not emphasise or promote one's religion while in political office.

A lot of candidates get elected based on the religious values they profess to hold, but it's only been recently (I think) that politicians are overtly pandering to the religious while in office and justifying their decisions based on religious reasoning rather than logic or politics.

So now, the Shrub is breaking the unwritten rule, since the only entity expressly forbidden from passing religious measures is Congress, I think.

[silveradept]

That is a bit of a humorus phrase, isn't it, considering that I also tend to know the atheists as pretty millitant. So the Dems get it from both sides for being wishy-washy.

You're a Good Man, Charlie Silver?

[shenalia.livejournal.com]

Yes, thank you for clarifying as such.