Dean's World

I think the game is almost up. The desire of the have-less to vote themselves more and fears of global catastrophes and the like will, in the end, trump liberal Democracy.

Maybe this election turns out relatively alright, but with the constant decline of the public’s capacity for wisdom, the increasing power of the Media, and the constantly decreasing cultural restraints on its partisanship, it’s only a matter of time before individual liberty completely ceases to be a practical governing philosophy.

Many thinkers in the past have pointed out the inherent dangers of law by majority vote (mob-rule), and for the past 200 and some-odd years we have been mostly able to dismiss their misgivings, but in the end, I believe, they will prove correct, and liberal democracy will be decided to have been as impractical as it has been wonderful.

The only saving feature is our Bill of Rights, but as those rights are perforce qualified (can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, for example) and those qualifications are continually defined by popularly elected judges-however indirectly-it is only a matter of time (maybe a long time) before those qualifications come to completely reflect the wishes of the majority of the 'evolved' populace.

It's noteworthy that in the founding generations, the benefit of personal liberty was palpable to the electorate. They did not have to study Hayek's 'Constitution of liberty' to grasp it. They also had no illusions of Government being able to act the provider, or of it's omnipotence as to the harsh realties of the Economy. Much has changed. Much is changing.

In Robert Heinlen’s ‘The moon is a harsh mistress’ a successful revolution is lead by a wise professor type, self described as a ‘rational anarchist’ and dedicated, almost absurdly, to individual liberty. After the dust settles, an influential inner party member seeks to nominate him Monarch of the fledgling government.

Explaining himself, the party member says how he is a ‘Monarchist’ because he is a (real) Liberal. The professor declines, but the Monarchist has a point.

We had better hope for the real Messiah.

Oh, and hold on to your guns.

My latest is up at Guardian:

In my opinion, the secular resurgence has far more to do with material concerns than ideological ones. Ordinary Pakistanis didn't vote for the ANP because they suddenly became hip to Thomas Jefferson or because they became persuaded by some blogger in Birmingham. They voted for the ANP because they want clean water. If the ANP fails to deliver the essentials of life - and simply uses nationalism the way Islamists use Islam - then they will be replaced.

CNN link

The two chapters that Dean and I wrote, then fought over for three years, have been posted at my blog, Filed Away, for any who might be interested.

Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to give him medical care unless he gave them military information; they beat and interrogated him, but McCain only offered his name, rank, serial number, and date of birth,[51] Soon thinking he was near death, McCain said he would give them more information if taken to the hospital, hoping he could then put them off once he was treated.[53] A prison doctor came and said it was too late, as McCain was about to die anyway.[51] Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care[51] and announce his capture. At this point, two days after McCain's plane went down, that event and his status as a POW made the front pages of The New York Times[39] and The Washington Post.[54] Interrogation and beatings resumed in the hospital; McCain gave his ship's name, squadron's name, and the attack's intended target.[55] Further coerced to give the names of his squadron members, he supplied the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line.

A new paper suggests so.

The idea that it's an invention of modern Western Capitalism may need to be re-examined. It wouldn't surprise me a bit. Such an obvious idea seems like it would have occurred naturally quite early in civilizational development. To me, anyway.

now they're calling Obama a commie jew bastard. Or more specifically, a "half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby"

and yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier -- also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)

Freeperland? nutpicking from the fevered swamps of RedState? Nope. The Corner at National Review Online, flagship publication of conservatism in America.

glad to see the level of political discourse rise to a higher plane of muck its better than the lower plane of muck, anyway.

They've even got the pseudo-McCarthyism angle ready:

Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family's background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much.

Oh, but Michelle Obama said something vacuous, so it's all fair game.

Sans helmet or armor, in a city that no longer appears to be a war zone.

A sure sign that victory is imminent is that the Democratic front runners and commentators have little or nothing to say. Which is sad, but we just have to get used to it.

(Via Glenn.)

In election battles in Washington state, Hawaii, and Wisconsin yesterday, Barak Obama and John McCain won in all three states for their respective parties' nomination. At this point, McCain has the nomination sewed up, but I notice that most commentators are suggesting that it may be all over for Hillary Clinton.

Hardly. While Obama's victories are impressive, Clinton continues to accumulate delegates in every state, and is very close to Obama. Writing her off early would be a foolish mistake. If she loses in Texas or Ohio in the coming weeks, it may be time to write her epitaph, but otherwise...

*Update*: John Hood is right.

With Kevin and the rest of the second rank of Dean's World writers, I'm still kicking, though incredibly busy in real life plus work.

It isn't necessary to say it. I usually cross-post something from Likelihood of Success here once a week or so, but it has to be something I think Dean's World readers need to know ... and nothing has quite seemed right lately.

But that's in specific. There's still in general, you know. Still here! How about that Obama guy, huh.

Jack M. at AOSHQ defends the Hawaiians from Cheesehead domination.

Cindy McCain softly upbraids Michelle Obama.

I propose that this weighty matter can only be settled by a jell-o wrestling match.

For the past day or so I've had an odd bitter taste in my mouth, almost like baking powder. It's unaffected by brushing and mouthwash. A quick online search reveals high exposure to metals like copper, selenium and lead can cause this, but I really don't think I have lead poisoning...

Politics, religion and literature are, you know, forthcoming. Today though it's strange bitter tastes.

I've never liked Eleanor Clift as a political commentator. Whether I was a loyal Democrat (as I once was), a loyal Republican (as I once was), or an independent (which I now am), I just found her really hard to fathom. She'd say stuff that I found impossible to take seriously--unlike, say, Susan Estrich, whom I still love and who almost always has something smart and insightful to say.

Anyway, on Eleanor, case in point: her bizarre notion that Al Gore may yet be the Democratic Nominee. Although I'll admit to being wrong myself a year or so ago when I predicted that Gore would likely try for the Democratic nomination this year, I can't believe that even Ms. Clift believes this ridiculous notion she's spinning.

What's she's suggesting isn't impossible, in the sense that it's not impossible that Republicans will change their minds about McCain and nominate Michael Reagan. But that's about all.

(More here.)

Apparently, John McCain has decided against an Abba song, but mostly due to royalty concerns.

I say he dump the idea and get a real Scandinavian supergroup: Armi ja Danny! McCain's unrequited love for conservatives would be perfectly addressed with this classic!

(Man, that video just never gets old, does it?)

via bloomberg, looks like the rezko thing is as dead as HD-DVD.

The couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid ``was the best offer'' and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama's presidential campaign and the seller. [...] The sellers hadn't previously made their side of the story public out of concern for their privacy, according to Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama's campaign. They approached Obama's Senate office 15 months ago and agreed to break their silence now through the campaign out of concern that the story was being distorted in the media, Burton said.

Toured Property

Burton said Obama, 46, toured the property with Rezko for 15 to 30 minutes at some point before the purchase. Burton said Obama wanted Rezko's opinion of the property because Rezko was a real-estate developer in the area. Burton said he didn't know when the pre-sale tour occurred.

Burton said a campaign adviser discussed the sale with Wondisford by phone and followed up with an e-mail to Wondisford repeating his points. Wondisford responded: ``I confirm that the three points below are accurate,'' according to the e-mail, provided to Bloomberg News and authenticated through records shown by the adviser.

The e-mail says that the sellers ``did not offer or give the Obamas a `discount' on the house price on the basis of or in relation to the price offered and accepted on the lot.'' It also says that ``in the course of the negotiation over the sales price,'' Obama and his wife, Michelle, ``made several offers until the one accepted at $1.65 million, and that this was the best offer you received on the house.''

Wondisford has declined to talk directly about the matter.

Three Bids

The Obamas submitted three bids: $1.3 million on Jan. 15, 2005; $1.5 million on Jan. 21; and $1.65 million on Jan. 23, according to a copy of the sale contract shown to Bloomberg News. Obama received more than $1.2 million in book royalties and a book advance in 2005, the year he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate, his financial disclosure statement shows.

However, Obama's middle name is still Hussein, so it's not like McCain's campaign will be wanting for attack material come October.

I'm never entirely sure what the difference is between skill and talent. Dean's World commenter Mike recently wrote:

...Perhaps it is my profession (lawyer), but skill as a writer is something I look for as I read an opponent's brief, as well as looking for what is actually written. In my career I have seen many implausible things written well, as well as many plausible things written poorly.

BTW, you are a skilled writer. Skilled writing is a joy to the reader.

(No, I am not sucking up; fat lot of good it would do here.)

No, it wouldn't do you much good Mike, but I'll take it anyway. ;-)

What I've noticed over the years about writing--which I think translates to other skills--is that you can have natural talent, but that usually only takes you so far. Practice and the desire to improve seem to matter more.

I am a naturally talented writer. I just am. It's something people remarked upon even when I was a child, at a very early age. Yet I'm a much better writer today than I was 10 or 15 years ago, in part due to efforts to learn and improve. Yet I've met and seen other writers who had no natural talent become truly excellent writers. A case in point would be The Queen, who when we met was a really terrible writer--no offense, but punctuation and grammar often eluded her and, frankly, when she wrote she usually came off as not very bright, which is almost crazy as she's one of the most intelligent individuals I've ever known (she's got an IQ way above mine, for example). Even though she was a brilliant student, she usually needed help in school just to get through English exams and writing tasks.

Yet she "got into" blogging years ago, and it was amazing to watch her go from a simply awful writer to a genuinely good and funny one. Where'd that come from? The only answer I can think of is practice and a desire to improve. (You do have to have both, not just one or the other.)

Celia Farber once told me, to my amazement, that English was her second language and she had to work very hard to write well. I found this stunning, as her work has always struck me as simply beautiful to read, whether professionally published or not.

I mention all this mostly just to discuss it, and to encourage budding writers and others out there: natural talent is handy, but it only takes you so far. Actually writing, and wanting to be a better writer, are the real keys to getting good at this sort of thing.

And you know, I'm pretty sure that's true of most things.

Dean's link to Zakaria's piece about the death of conservatism inspired me to blog about how I make a distinction between ultra-left "progressivism" (eg. Counterpunch) and mainstream liberalism (eg. DailyKos). The same essay was well-received at Daily Kos, I might add - look a the poll results.

Somewhat along the same theme, willem left a rather interesting comment on Dean's post which I reprint in full:

I think Zakarias is describing "provincialism" when he attempts to describe conservatism. The proto-marxist meme of conservative vs liberal is assinine to begin with. Provincialism is the dominant remnant of the preceeding Victorian Era. We have remnants of the Victorian era all around us. What passes for "conservative" usually falls into one of these three camps; 1) a genuinely Jeffersonian originalism; 2) Father Knows Best/Leave it to Beaver fabulists; and, 3) neo-Victorian provincialists reacting badly to a changing age.

As a nation we need to get back to our Jeffersonian roots. Neither Stalin, FDR or Nixon will take us there. As long as we're rhetorically and conceptually trapped by false prophets preaching the false meme of "liberal/conservative" the orthodoxy that controls things will continue to put government and government employees first, and the rest of us, an increasingly distant second.

Food for thought, grist for debate...

Fidel Castro has "officially" resigned. Yet his butcher brother Raoul remains in power. They've got lots going on about it at Babalu, just hit the front page and scroll.

Well, Democratic stalwarts like Kevin Drum and Paul Krugman also seem to think so.

Are Democrats really about to nominate someone they haven't thoroughly vetted again?

*Update*: Hmm, apparently Mrs. Obama only likes America when it votes for her husband. Interesting.

*Update 2*: Victor David Hanson asks, "Were Democrats fleeing the self-absorption of the Billary power couple of two Yale-educated lawyers — only to embrace the self-absorption of a power-couple of two Harvard-educated lawyers? Or was it a Yale versus Harvard Law School intramural thing all along?"

Obama is just another politician, people, and it's time more people stepped up and said so.

I've got it.

Islamists routed, even in conservative areas.

Today is an American national holiday: President's Day. Here is a basic short history of the holiday.

Anyone else old enough to clearly remember when Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday were separate holidays? I don't neessarily object to merging them, but it does seem like most everyone has forgotten that it used to be two holidays for two different men.

Pajamas Media thinks so. I'm not so sure, but I am pretty sure that his status as the flawless Golden Child is going to come under heavy fire, if not from Democratic sources then certainly from Republican sources.

It's a tight race in Wisconsin but I think Obama will eke out a win here. Given the way the primary mechanics work in Texas, I also think that Obama is going to win there, largely because Clinton's campaign didn't seem to be paying attention (and truthfully never expected to have to fight beyond Super Tuesday).

In Ohio, even though the polls show Obama slightly ahead, I still think Hillary has an advantage. Let's see how it all pans out. The chips begin to fall tomorrow.

BTW I have launched yet another blog, devoted to Wisconsin life and politics. Stop by, Arnold :)

I linked the wrong thing. Let's try this again: Superdickery galleries.

Fareed Zakarias has a pretty good riff on why conservatism--at least, as it's been broadly understood in the US for the last 30 or so years--is a fading philosophy:

Conservatism grew powerful in the 1970s and 1980s because it proposed solutions appropriate to the problems of the age—a time when socialism was still a serious economic idea, when marginal tax rates reached 70 percent, and when the government regulated the price of oil and natural gas, interest rates on checking accounts and the number of television channels. The culture seemed under attack by a radical fringe. It was an age of stagflation and crime at home, as well as defeat and retreat abroad. Into this landscape came Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, bearing a set of ideas about how to fix the world. Over the next three decades, most of their policies were tried. Many worked. Others didn't, but in any event, time passed and the world changed profoundly. Today, as Frum writes, "after three decades of tax cutting, most Americans no longer pay very much income tax." Inflation has been tamed, the economy does not seem overregulated to most, and crime is not at the forefront of people's consciousness. The culture has proved robust, and has in fact been enriched and broadened by its diversity. Abroad, the cold war is won and America sits atop an increasingly capitalist world. Whatever our problems, an even bigger military and more unilateralism are not seen as the solution.

Today's world has a different set of problems. A robust economy has not lifted the median wages of Americans by much. Most workers are insecure about health care, and most corporations are unnerved by its rising costs. Globalization is seen as a threat, bringing fierce competition from dozens of countries. The danger of Islamic militancy remains real and lasting, but few Americans believe they understand the phenomenon or know how best to combat it. They see our addiction to oil and the degradation of the environment as real dangers to a stable and successful future. Most crucially, Americans' views of the state are shifting. They don't want bigger government—a poll last year found that a majority (57 percent) still believe that government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life—but they do want a smarter government, one that can help them be safe, secure and well prepared for political and economic challenges. In this context, conservative slogans sound weirdly anachronistic, like watching an old TV show from ... well, from the 1970s.

You can read the whole thing here.

Broadly speaking, I agree with his contentions. I also wonder what the heck ever happened to conservative skepticism of large corporations, which used to be one of their defining traits.

We grow closer to it all the time.

Have you ever noticed that Celia and Willow are [a couple of] the best writers on Dean's World? I always enjoy reading their stuff. It just makes me happy, and I don't care much what they're writing about either. I wish I knew what it was they had.

"Knowledge is neither old nor young, ancient nor new. Through it there is accomplished a great unlimited, evolution. Everyone who obstructs it will be the progeny of darkness. Everyone who according to his strength will assist it will be a true warrior, a co-worker of Light."

Nicholas Roerich, "The Invincible" Peking Dec 22, 1934

Segment 1 reported on a Bayer anti-clotting drug called "Trasylol" that was killing 1,000 Americans per month from renal failure while the FDA dithered.

It was conceded that safety is no longer one of the benchmarks of FDA drug approval, but rather, a drug is approved if there is a lack of substantive proof that it is hazardous.

Segment #2 was light and fairly silly--covering a study that supposedly measured human happiness and/or contentment, and found that the gold medal goes to Denmark. It's the happiest country in the world, except for the fact that they apparently have not expressed any happiness since they won the World Cup.

Four young Danes sat around and piously told American viewers not to be workaholics, to spend time with family--and yet these are people who admit their government gives them 100% paid six month paternity leaves, and pays them to attend university.

The men were handsome metrosexuals, bicycling to work. The only thing they could articulate about Danish character is that when you wish to get off a bus in Denmark, you don't say, "I am getting off," but rather, you rustle your bags until the person grasps that you need to get off. "Danes believe in their right not to be spoken to," one of them explained. Morley Safer deployed every cliche in the book in the grand tradition of Americans whipping themselves at the feet of morally superior Scandinavians who have never had to worry about putting food on their family's dinner table. How many times do I have to see footage of Danes licking ice cream cones and riding bicycles as though this were the final station of moral human development.

Good for them.

One wishes Morley Safer, in his reverie about Hans Christen Anderssen and herring, would at least have refrained from referring to Hamlet as "depressed."

Hamlet was clear as a bell. He was neither "depressed," nor "ambivalent," nor "young," nor, most likely if you really study the works of 'Shakespeare'---Danish.

Even if I sound crabby, I too have a soft spot for Danish men, primarily because of their gutteral cadences, which make the female ear HAPPY.

When I am dying I want to have the voice of a Danish SAS pilot piped through headphones very loud, telling me about weather conditions in Copenhagen. Great stuff.

Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul followers have new cause for hope.

Superdickery.

(Yes, it is in fact work safe.)

If I refuse to vote for Mike Huckabee because he's a fundamentalist theocrat twit, why would I vote for Obama?

Oh, right, I wouldn't.

I see that the Kosovars have made a bold bid for independence from Serbia. It's not surprising. Assuming they are successful (and I suspect they will be), they will be yet another example of the small but growing number of Muslim-dominated free and pluralist democracies. I wish them luck.

5:05pm--go!

Am I the only one who's noticed just how much Barak Obama's campaign rhetoric resembles George W. Bush's, circa 2000?

moar humorous pics

This post of Dr. Helen's reminds me of things I'd forgotten in recent years. It's funny what twisting yourself into a pretzel and forgetting your real self will do to you. I used to skydive, ballroom dance, ride horses, and practice martial arts. I went from that to being a surly depressive who sat and sulked most of the time. Who'd want to be around that? I sure hated myself that was for sure.

Some years ago I broke my back in a skydiving accident. Going back to skydiving after that was one of the most important moments in my life. Why? Because I was terrified. I remember looking down from the open airplane door and thinking "I'm gonna die I'm gonna die I'm gonna die!" And then I thought, "Okay, but I won't die with fear ruling me," and jumped.

I didn't die. :-)

Link

I quote from pp 3

"Each of the top selling SSRI drugs has been found in courts of law (italics mine) to be a causative factor in acts of violence and/or suicide."

Note I was not able to post this as a comment to my last, admittedly emotional and unscientific post, so I am creating a new post instead, in hopes the conversation can begin with this paper, rather than what I last wrote.

I cried yesterday afternoon, last night, and again this morning. Not all horror stories in the news break us--if they did we wouldn't survive--but this shooting at the University of Northern Illinois has pushed me over the edge. Late last night as I was looking at the headlines on my computer, I saw the figure go hideously from 4 to 5, and this morning, 7. They say it's the fourth school shooting in one week. The side of me that believes it can agitate, report, investigate, expose--that side wants to scream bloody murder about the repressed data on the connection between SSRIs and homicide/suicide. Go ahead and find one school shooter who was not medicated on one or several psych meds for "depression" and I will admit faulty logic. Until then, I stand firm. There should be a national campaign this instant to protect our children from this insanity.

My son is 13, and just got accepted at a very good public high school here in New York that was the one school he wanted to go to. As a parent, I am brought to my knees. He is everything to me and will have no choice but to send him into a potential war zone when he goes off to high school. Those parents who today woke up to dead children, how can their grief ever end? It will be there when the mountains crumble.

How can any "issue" matter in this country more than the question of whether brain altering chemicals in the form of SSRIs are creating murderers in sneakers and sweatshirts? You don't think so? Then go look up the histories of school shooters in this country since Columbine. You won't find an unmedicated one.

I don't care if they teach my son that the earth is flat. I don't care if they teach him anything. I care only that the school's policy on protection from carnage is. I want to see the plan. I want, in fact, to know how many students in the school are on drugs--legal drugs, psych drugs. I have no such right, but that doesn't stop me from wanting it. I want there to be professionals who watch for signs--glassy eyes, a morose demeanor, a sense of profound alienation, a personality that doesn't quite seem human but a bit...chemical and desensitized. That kid...needs love. Attention. Inspiration. Intervention. That kid does not need meds.

To see these images of these bloodied students being carried on stretchers, of students praying, holding each other, hands clapped over mouths in shock, eyes red and cast upward toward the heavens as the increasingly cold and empty "WHY?" is cast across the sky like an exercise in futility.

Put some muscle and sinew into this "WHY," America.

Don't make it a Hallmark card. Let's really ask "why?" and let's get answers. Let's ask "how?" and get answers. This country is falling apart in our hands, and it doesn't matter who becomes president, unless they can begin to answer the question of how and why these mass shootings have become a routing part of the American post-apocalyptic landscape.

Have you noticed that everybody is on drugs? Have you noticed that people aren't very human anymore? That people hardly see, connect, touch, remember one another anymore? That everybody is alone, stone cold alone, and gasping like fish in a shallow pond, and not knowing why everything hurts so much?

It's supposed to. We're not supposed to live anymore. We are supposed to take their drugs and die real slow. And abandon one another, little by little, and buy more cheap decorations to hang on the walls of our slums where love has departed. Hence the need for numbing the pain that keeps the psych business booming. Were we permitted a path back to our true emotional foliage, we would find that we like being human, we know what to do when something hurts, we cry, then we smile again. Without vulnerability and sadness, we are a nation of monsters. The pills that were designed to block sadness have created a grief that transcends every scale. It's not human.

Let's start a movement that once again permits Americans to feel sad and to cry and to stand up again and start over the next day, rather than run to the pill pushers. I consider them murderers.

And if you want to sell me on all the millions who have been "helped" by anti-depressants, I say tell that to the parents, standing over the graves of their kids.

I'm going to be writing a series of posts on ancient Christianity. I see a lot of misconceptions when I write occasionally about my journey back to the Christian faith, so maybe this series will be helpful to some. Or not--I'm going to write it anyway. ;-)

First up: understanding what the catholic church is and is not.

Most of the world's Christians consider themselves to be part of the catholic church.

The word "catholic," it surprises many to learn, simply means "universal." When you refer to "the catholic church," you're simply saying "the universal church." Although in casual use people will say "catholic" to refer to the church led by the Vatican in Rome, it turns out that many denominations continue to use this word to describe themselves, or a general concept they have of Christ's Church. This is why many people refer to the church led by the bishop of Rome as the "Roman Catholic Church."

The phrase "one holy apostolic and catholic church" actually comes from two of the oldest and most universal creeds of Christendom, the Nicene Creed as well as the Apostle's Creed, which are part of the standard teachings of not just the Church in Rome, but also all of the Eastern Orthodox and the largest Western Protestant denominations including the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and others.

Why the need for creeds? Because the Bible alone, created by the church in the context of the early centuries of the church, admits to multiple interpretations of all sorts of issues. Creeds were established by the early leaders of the church to help separate heresies (which simply means false teachings) from orthodox (which simply means correct belief). It is simply not possible to create a consistent and complete view of the Christian faith by reading the Bible alone, and those who wrote and edited and preserved the Bible over the centuries never suggested it was (and indeed, the Bible never says this about itself).

Most Christian denominations hold to the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, and most Christians believe themselves to be members in the one holy catholic and apostolic church. It's only a fairly radical minority that don't believe that.

Next up: What's a bishop?

Okay, you all know I pretty much had to build a new PC recently. But now I have a problem. As I stated earlier my new motherboard is SATA and I don't want to buy a SATA hard drive. The motherboard only has one IDE chain and I need two for both hard drive and DVD-ROM support (I have two of each device).

I purchased a PCI card that provided me with a second IDE chain that my PC sees as a RAID controller. You can look at the card here.

Question:

Is there a way I can have my hard drives plugged into IDE1 and my DVD-ROMs plugged into the PCI card? Or even the other way around but still boot from the master hard drive?

Because, right now, if I plug the DVD-ROMs into the card my PC doesn't boot. If I remove them the PC boots just fine. If I plug the hard drives into the PCI card my PC prompts me to insert a boot disk.

Any help would be appreciated.

BTW: I'm running Windows Vista Ultimate. If that helps at all.

The Clinton campaign celebrates a victory. Now the question is, will this be the start of something bigger?

A new paper published in Science details a very significant find.

Solar systems like our own may be quite common.

well, frak me.

The Washington Post wonders if Hillary should go negative.

Why not? Republicans certainly will. If Obama can't take it now, he'll never be able to.

I want.

My latest about Obama and my sideburns at Jewcy.

I can’t imagine why any intelligent person would want to elect someone who has only “been around” running government to be our President. As Senator, it looks like she only used the office as a placeholder until something better came along.

Hey, I was born and raised in a garage. My husband teaches Marines how to fix their cars. I’ve “been around” auto tech for 56 years. Does this qualify me to be the Fleet Manager for UPS?

No way.

Does anybody else remember how she tried to steal 9/11 relief funds to force women into jobs they didn’t want in the first place?

Or the silly books she’s written? (As a writer, I have to wonder whether she wrote them herself or hired a ghost.)

This is not a gender thing; there are many well-qualified female candidates I’d happily support. There are women in the House, women in the Senate, and women as Governors of many states. When and if one of those honest, experienced individuals run, I will certainly consider them.

Hillary’s just a groupie wanting to play lead guitar. American voters seem to know that.

I see today that Darren Mack got lots of jail time. IMHO, that’s the least of what he deserved, but nobody asked me. I think he well may have killed somebody else that got in his way sooner or later, divorce or no, and the particular situation was coincidental. Some of the others that have killed wives, children, and/or others are the same – all they needed was the appropriate trigger to set them off.

I do believe, though, there is a different group of men who may not have gone off the deep end and killed in a rampage had their situations been different. Certainly I do not excuse their actions, but what if something could have been done to prevent these kinds of killings?

As someone who at one time communicated extensively with divorced and divorcing men, I’ve heard a lot of their stories and have seen all kinds of similarities. The divorce stories took on a pattern to the point where I can now just about predict what a guy will say. How he handles his situation takes a different turn, however, when physician-prescribed psychogenic drugs come into the picture.

Of course not every divorce spawns a murder or even domestic violence of any kind; but what I’ve seen are radical changes in behavior by some men taking these drugs. Most often they’re just odd little quirks that seem perfectly ordinary to the guy at the time, but as an outside observer I find disturbing. Some past killers were on these drugs.

This is something I wish someone like Dr. Helen would look into. As someone with no initials behind my name, all I can do is suggest. And hope.

There have been men who phoned or e-mailed that I knew were just idiots, and it was all I could do to keep from saying something like, “Well, if you’d just stop being an asshole, then maybe life wouldn’t be so tough.” If anyone thinks I always take every story at face value, then you need to know I don’t. There is a clear and obvious difference between the assholes and the guys caught off guard; forced into a situation not of their own making.

What I’m sure about is that there are men who can suck it up and go on with their lives. Most of them do, and quite often the children and sometimes even the ex-wives wish it had gone differently. Very few men erupt in radical violence, but there are now enough of those who do they no longer make national news. If you check regional and local news sites every day, you’ll find a sad trend.

This death scenario is happening everywhere, and yet, most of the news stories proclaim nobody can imagine why John Doe picked up the gun that day.

Are we as a society so vengeful and misandric it’s more important for us to see bad men behind bars or executed, and then “put the horror behind us” than it is to examine these incidents objectively to determine why they happened, and perhaps save the lives of some innocent people in the future?

Right now, I just don't know.

Part III is up.

BAGHDAD - Iraq's parliament on Wednesday passed three key pieces of legislation that set a date for provincial elections, allot $48 billion for 2008 spending, and provide limited amnesty to detainees in Iraqi custody.

The last time Iraqis voted for local officials was January 2005, when nationwide elections ushered in representational government for the first time in modern history.

But many Sunni Arabs boycotted the polls, giving Iraq's majority Shiites and minority Kurds the bulk of power. The U.S. hopes the new elections will empower the Sunni minority and blunt support for the insurgency

In my days on this Earth I've learned a powerful Truth:

Either you like Superman more than Batman or Batman more than Superman but you never like them equally.

I've never met a person that likes both Superman and Batman the same and if I did I would inquire of them if perhaps they're from some other Earth in the multiverse and what's the weather like there.

I like both Superman and Batman but I like Superman more. Honestly, I think he's much more interesting. Dark and brooding has its place but after awhile it gets played out. It's like hanging out with someone that thinks everything is terrible and nothing is ever going to get better 24/7. Eventually, you get tired of their atmosphere and you move on.

Batman seems like that to me sometimes. And, frankly, it seems too easy to write.

Superman, on the other hand, is much more appealing to me because he's the exception to the rule, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Where lesser men would eventually turn despot for the good of mankind, Superman doesn't. He could, and he knows he could and maybe at times even wants to because it would be easier, but he doesn't. Batman revels in the darker side of his nature. It's his strength. Superman doesn't have that luxury.

And given Superman's awesome powers it's much harder to tell a compelling Superman story. That's why I enjoy Jeph Loeb over Frank Miller (and I think Loeb is much more fair with the Man of Steel than Miller too). Very rarely do I honestly feel for the Dark Knight. I like him, but I don't feel for him. Reading Superman for All Seasons or Superman: Birthright I really do care about Clark Kent and his life. He's trying to balance the human life he wants with the awesome responsibility his powers demand of him. Bruce Wayne, on the other hand, has virtually sacrificed his humanity for the cause. Bruce Wayne is the mask. Batman is the person. There is no balance to maintain.

I could go on but that's enough of my fanboy gushing. Which camp do you fall in? Why?

And loathing, from Senator Clinton.

She had been told by the echo chamber and her politically "brilliant" husband, once the Teflon President, that she may not be President next year, but she will certainly be anointed by her party in 2008. And now she can see it fading from her grasp.

I imagine having one's own coronation canceled is really hurtful.

My last link on the subject was helter-skelter. This, from Open Democracy, is much better, and far more informative (I hope). It also gives insights to the actual arguments that pro-Sharia-Muslims are making as opposed to all the white noise out there. Link.

Wow.

(Via Glenn.)

An interesting look at the House and Senate from a conservative perspective.

McCain's lifetime rating is over 80%, oddly enough.

I guess this is goodbye, for a while.

For all the Western gloom, the forces trying to break up Iraq are not as strong as the fears of seeing it so trisected. Federal Iraq has survived Iranian subterfuge, the House of Saud terrorist subsidies, Turkish invasion, and Kurdish nationalism — and is still there. It won’t be quite Kansas, but the Iraqi state has a good chance to evolve into something no more violent than the usual Middle Eastern state, but without either murderous dictators or theocrats — or, of course, the genocidal murderer Saddam Hussein.
...
The combination of new American tactics, the surge, shared fear of Iran, vast oil revenues, sheer attrition of jihadists over the last five years, and growing Iraqi hatred of Wahhabi terrorists over the same period, have all led to a perfect storm for al-Qaeda. It now suffers the almost unbelievable humiliation of having Arab Muslims willingly join Americans to expel it from the ancient caliphate.
...
In the last analysis, the real worries about the survival of the West in this war are not with America and its courageous twenty-something suburban kids in Anbar trying to offer something better than the sharia morality of the seventh century, but with the likes of sanctimonious and cowardly churchmen in England trying to spread it.

Well then. Now conservatives will have to vote for McCain, otherwise Fred will destroy them.

Don't miss Michael's latest.

My motherboard crapped out on me. $420 later I pretty much have a new PC that's actually faster than the one that died.

My motherboard is about four years old. I bought it when I built my rig. It was socket 939 which, it would appear, no one carries retail any longer. Sure, I could have paid $50 and got one online but, I supposed, it was time to upgrade. I knew that with a new board I'd need a new processor. NO big deal. Now I'm kicking it with an AMD 2.1 GHz dual core. I didn't anticipate having to buy new memory (2GB DDR2 down from my old 4GB DDR). Oh, and a new power supply. Apparently a 20 pin plug into your motherboard isn't as good as a 24 pin. So, now I have a new 550 watt power supply that's not as kewl as my old one because that one was internally lit - I have a window on the side of my tower. All my fans are LED lit as well. I still need to get some neon in there too.

So, motherboard dies, I need to get new motherboard, processor, RAM, and power supply.

The board is SATA but has one IDE chain. It didn't occur to me until I got home and installed it that I needed two (I'm not buying new SATA hard drives). Off to Newegg.com to order a PCI card that'll give me an additional IDE chain. So, no DVD- or CD-ROM support until Thursday. And wouldn't you know it? It appears AGP has gone bye-bye. So, my old video card is useless. Newegg.com again for a new PCI Express video card.

The lesson here?

Never get off the technology train. Ever. Replace one part with something newer and you gotta redo the whole stinking thing.

A fascinating look at an important historical figure.

One of the more important changes in American politics and demographics that most people know little about: the Great Migration, which amongst other things explains a lot of black culture and language, as well as voting patterns.

The Clinton camp is expecting more major losses this week, and is hanging everything, it appears, on even later primaries.

In the meantime, Obama is waffling on Iraq, in what looks to me like a good way (i.e. away from the insane "bring the troops all home now except those needed to protect the embassies" bull he's done so much to promote).

I see some on the right are angry again with Bill Maher.

Look, the man is one of the biggest hatemongering, irrational demagogues of the Left. Nothing he says should surprise anyone. Why would this comment, among the countless others he's made that are despicable, be seen as egregious? Fliply wishing Limbaugh had died of an overdose instead of someone else who died of an overdose? These are the people who tell us that "Bush lied about WMDs in order to fund his excellent adventure in Iraq." This is tame by comparison.

A Left that includes the likes of Maher, Michael Moore, George Soros and Janeane Garafalo has no place whinging about Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh anyway.

This is getting fun to watch.

“I know that it is unusual for someone like me — an Independent Democrat — to support a Republican candidate for president,” he wrote. “But the dangers we face as a nation are too profound … for us to let partisan politics decide who we will support.”

The Democratic National Committee stripped Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman of his “superdelegate” status following his December endorsement of fellow senator John McCain of Arizona, a Republican, in this year’s presidential race. The move means that Lieberman — who has been persona non grata in the Democratic Party since losing renomination in the 2006 Democratic primary and subsequently winning re-election to the Senate as an independent — will be unable to cast a vote for the party’s nominee at the Democratic National Convention in August

Democratic leaders at both the state and local levels said they are baffled at Lieberman’s decision...

Question:

Is it fair for a business to block a competitor from even setting up shop in such a proximity as to force them to compete?

Where my mother-in-law lives there’s a WalMart. They’ve (WalMart) been trying to stop the city from allowing a Meijer to be built near them as Meijer would be the strongest competitor to them in the area (pretty much the only competitor).

Is this ethical behavior in a free market? If so, why? If not, why not? Please don’t let the fact that WalMart is part of the equation color your judgment. Either what they’ve tried to do is ethical for all or it is ethical for none.

You know, it used to be very common to bemoan the fact that most election reporting was about "the horserace rather than the issues." I used to be one of those who did such carping: why are the reporters focusing on who's doing better in the polls, and personalities, rather than the issues?" I would wail and gnash my teeth over it, because the policy issues I wanted to be part of the discourse got so little coverage.

I've changed my mind on that for a few reasons. Part of it is because I've come to see the electorate as much smarter than it's ever been given credit for; the average voter is actually quite sophisticated. Moreover, I've realized that the internet completely turns that old saw on its head. No longer can most people who care claim that the information on where the candidates stand isn't out there; the internet has made it impossible to say that you have no way of knowing where the candidates stand. Instead we can see clearly now that the "horse race" is all about where voters stand on the candidates and the issues, and the compromises the voters and the candidates make to arrive at something they find acceptable.

At least, that's how I'm increasingly starting to see it. Tell me what you think.

Force a showdown, in other words, and use any means necessary to get the bloodshed ended.

But what exactly are these young idealists campaigning for?