The paper formerly known as the Paper of Record says that Jesse Jackson won’t judge Ken Lay.
Hey, those dodgy bookkeepers have to hang together, or they’ll hang separately. Besides, we all know that Jesse’s always looking for the good in every Lay.
How Much For Him To Not Give A Speech?
Andy Borowitz says that Bill Clinton has started a new annual speech tradition.
Or Double Your Money Back…
And speaking of theological lawsuits, here’s a real one. A woman successfully sued a church for breach of contract when she didn’t meet Jesus.
America…what a country.
Another Monopoly Breakup
You’ll never find things like this reported anywhere except at The Onion.
“The evidence introduced in this trial has convinced me that the deity known as God has willfully and actively thwarted competition from other deities and demigods, promoting His worship with such unfair scare tactics as threatening non-believers with eternal damnation,” wrote District Judge Charles Elliot Schofield in his decision. “In the process, He has carved out for Himself an illegal monotheopoly.”
Also, there’s a great discussion over at Free Republic on this topic, e.g.:
Q: So re-incarnation is like those long return lines at Fry’s Electronics?
Actually, reincarnation is nothing more than instantiating a new instance of a Soul Object. It’s transparent. Most afterlives automatically handle Soul collection and recreation if that feature is enabled. You shouldn’t have to programmatically call a delete(Soul mySoul) through incantation or sorcery in afterlives employing modern architectures.
and
I believe one of the main criticisms was God’s strategy of “bundling” Salvation with the Dogma package. This definitely stifles competition. For instance, suppose I want an open-source Salvation solution — I can’t get that if I also want Dogma because most all vendors (Catholic and Protestant) have very strict licensing agreements that require them to only ship the standard Salvation product.
This makes it very difficult on third-party Paradise vendors. I applaud the ruling.
Peace and Freedom
It’s interesting (at least to me) to note that the Administration has made the Peace Corps subsidiary to the Freedom Corps. Looks like they’ve got their priorities straight.
Yet Another Conflict Of Interest?
The Government Accounting Office is suing Dick Cheney for Enron-related documents. But David Walker, the Comptroller General (head of the GAO since 1998), has an interesting resume himself.
Immediately prior to his appointment as Comptroller General, Mr. Walker was a partner and global managing director of Arthur Andersen LLP’s human capital services practice and a member of the board of Arthur Andersen Financial Advisors, a registered investment advisor. He also served as a Public Trustee for Social Security and Medicare from 1990 to 1995 while he was a partner with Arthur Andersen.
Should he recuse himself from the suit? We report, you decide…
SOU
Politically, it was a home run.
And from a war standpoint, I could have asked for no more.
From a policy standpoint, I found it disappointing on the domestic front.
While it was general and thematic, the themes were definitely not federalist or classically liberal ones–we, the federal government, are responsible for security, local and national; we, the federal government, are responsible for your health care; we, the federal government, are responsible to see that you have a job, or get prescription drugs, or don’t get screwed if the company you work for goes under. We, the federal government, are responsible for your lives–not you.
On the other hand, it’s good political strategy. It looks to me like Rove & Co. have made a political judgment that they want to put the Dems in a box, and take back the Senate, and build their strength in the House. We didn’t get into this socialist mess overnight, and we won’t get out of it quickly either. I’m willing to wait until 2005 to start to roll back this crap–I just wish that I had some sense that this was really what they’re planning…
“Respect For Nature”
Professor Reynolds points out this interesting article about the odd bedfellows of the left and the right when it comes to technology issues–in this case, Friends of the Earth.
I found this particular testimony most interesting:
the “push to redesign human beings, animals and plants to meet the commercial goals of a limited number of individuals is fundamentally at odds with the principle of respect for nature.”
“Respect for nature”? What principle is that? Is it universally shared? He speaks as though there’s some sort of well-defined societal consensus for such a principle.
I’ve already disquisited on this subject; there is nothing holy or sacrosanct about nature. Nature in itself has no intrinsic value.
If this FOE member believes that nature should not be trifled with, then no anaesthetics for him next time he needs dental work. In fact, no dental work allowed, other than knocking aching teeth out with rocks. And no plastic toothbrushes or floss, or anti-cavity toothpaste–they’re unnatural.
This falls into the same category of nonsense as Jeremy Rifkin’s “integrity of the genome.”
“Respect For Nature”
Professor Reynolds points out this interesting article about the odd bedfellows of the left and the right when it comes to technology issues–in this case, Friends of the Earth.
I found this particular testimony most interesting:
the “push to redesign human beings, animals and plants to meet the commercial goals of a limited number of individuals is fundamentally at odds with the principle of respect for nature.”
“Respect for nature”? What principle is that? Is it universally shared? He speaks as though there’s some sort of well-defined societal consensus for such a principle.
I’ve already disquisited on this subject; there is nothing holy or sacrosanct about nature. Nature in itself has no intrinsic value.
If this FOE member believes that nature should not be trifled with, then no anaesthetics for him next time he needs dental work. In fact, no dental work allowed, other than knocking aching teeth out with rocks. And no plastic toothbrushes or floss, or anti-cavity toothpaste–they’re unnatural.
This falls into the same category of nonsense as Jeremy Rifkin’s “integrity of the genome.”
“Respect For Nature”
Professor Reynolds points out this interesting article about the odd bedfellows of the left and the right when it comes to technology issues–in this case, Friends of the Earth.
I found this particular testimony most interesting:
the “push to redesign human beings, animals and plants to meet the commercial goals of a limited number of individuals is fundamentally at odds with the principle of respect for nature.”
“Respect for nature”? What principle is that? Is it universally shared? He speaks as though there’s some sort of well-defined societal consensus for such a principle.
I’ve already disquisited on this subject; there is nothing holy or sacrosanct about nature. Nature in itself has no intrinsic value.
If this FOE member believes that nature should not be trifled with, then no anaesthetics for him next time he needs dental work. In fact, no dental work allowed, other than knocking aching teeth out with rocks. And no plastic toothbrushes or floss, or anti-cavity toothpaste–they’re unnatural.
This falls into the same category of nonsense as Jeremy Rifkin’s “integrity of the genome.”