Definition of a Nitwitter

My first Twitter post is dated June 19, 2009. I had once sworn never to join Twitter. But I love it. For my purposes, it works fantastically. (I basically use it as a news feed.) But the tool is only as good as its users. I've seen plenty of Twitter nonsense as well.

I knew somebody out there must have come up with a definition of a "nitwitter." I was right:

A person who discusses their twitting frequently and enthusiastically, causing irritation.

Person A: Did you read my tweets this morning? They were so funny!

Person B: Get lost, nitwitter.

I'd like to add two more definitions:

2. nitwitter: a user of Twitter who writes hopelessly incomprehensible Twitter posts. (I know 140 characters isn't much, but if you can't write a post that other people can actually understand, why bother?)

3. nitwitter: a user of Twitter who follows more people than he or she can possibly read, for the purpose of attracting more followers, who in turn neglect to read the first person's Twitter posts.

Don't be a nitwitter! In any of the three senses.

Still, I love it. Go to Twitter and follow me!

What If God Disappeared?

When I watched the first few seconds of this video some weeks ago, I didn't appreciate it. But now that I've watched it completely through...

Come On, You Homosexual Demon

No need to go to uncivilized, pestilence-ridden hovels at the far corners of the earth for crazy. We've got plenty of that right here in the U.S. of A.

Witness for yourself a "gay exorcism;" the attempt to cast a "homosexual demon" out of a teenage boy. The religious scene features a disgusting display of bigoted ignorance.

(It's unclear to me whether the alleged demon in question is itself homosexual, or if it merely causes homosexuality in its purported victim. I suppose a gay demon that also causes gayness would be particularly hard to exorcise.)

Wordpress Experience

Obviously I run with Blogger, but I've been curious about WordPress and occasionally irritated with Google (as when they shut down George Reisman's blog as "spam" for a time). Today I had the opportunity to try WordPress, so I figured I'd share a few comments about the experience.

One of my friends, Bob Glass, knows even less about techie internet stuff than I do, so he came to me for help. I went through several options, and he decided to register a domain with WordPress and set up a blog through that service. The cost is $15 per year, not a bad deal. We found (what I think is) a great domain: BobGlassRadio.com.

We set up a very simple site with a couple of blog posts. Eventually, Bob plans to upgrade the page, add permanent pages for a bio and links to archives, and so on. But at least we got up and running today.

Though I found the new setting a bit awkward, on the whole WordPress is easy to use. I was surprised that one must first establishe a ".wordpress" blog before registering a domain. But once you do that it's very easy to get the domain (with a PayPal transfer).

In creating blog entries, I was surprised that WordPress had trouble with my hand-coded "A HREF" commands. If there's an option that allows this, I didn't find it. But WordPress has a link button that's pretty easy to use. I guess it's largely what you get used to.

Like anything, tweaking a page will require a certain amount of playing around and trial-and-error. But I got the sense that WordPress can create a web page as robust as the user wants and has time to generate.

The main point is Blogger's favor is that it will transfer content to a third-party hoster at no charge. From what I gather, WordPress charges $10 per year for that. That's not a lot, but it contributes to my resistance to changing. I am glad, though, that there's a good alternative to Blogger out there. Let's hope Blogger doesn't persuade me to use it.

For most new bloggers, though, I'd recommend WordPress over Blogger, especially if you want to host your domain through WordPress as well.

Sotomayor On Abortion

I have made my opinion of Sonia Sotomayor clear: her race-based politics and judicial relativism pose serious threats to the legal system.

In the case of abortion, however, the enemies of my enemy remain my enemies. Sotomayor has come under fire for supporting the right to get an abortion, though I regard that as among the few points in her favor. (Radio host Jim Pfaff turned me on the the stories quoted here, though apparently we're on opposite sides of the issue.)

According to Paul Kengor writing for Catholic Exchange, Senator Jim DeMint said, "When I asked [Sotomayor] if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it... This is not just a question about abortion, but about respect due to human life at all stages." (Sotomayor's opinion here comes to us indirectly, via an obviously partisan senator.)

Part of DeMint's line (absent the context) made it into Charmaine Yoest's op-ed for the Washington Times. "Charmaine Yoest is president and chief executive officer of Americans United for Life (AUL)... [which] has been involved in every pro-life case before the Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade."

As background, last year I co-wrote a paper arguing that it is the anti-abortion stance that is, in fact, anti-life. Abortion bans would threaten the lives of some pregnant women, force some women to bear deformed fetuses against their will, force pregnancies even in cases of rape and incest, and interfere with birth control, scientific research, fertilization medicine, and a woman's right to control her own life and future. Personhood begins at birth, when a fetus leaves the mother's body and becomes a biologically separate and independent entity. Only religious faith can endorse the view that a fertilized egg is a person with the same rights as a newborn baby -- and religious faith conflicts with the requirements of objective law.

Significantly, Yoest bases her case, not on principles of objective law, but on popularity polls. The writes that "the overwhelming majority of Americans... support at least some restrictions on abortion." For example, "polls show" that "informed consent and parental notification" laws "are supported by at least 70 percent of the American public." I have not checked into the polling data -- though I suspect that the results depend very much on how the questions are worded (for instance, "informed consent" in this context means forcibly restricting a woman from getting an abortion for a period that politicians deem appropriate). The point is that Constitutional law is not properly determined by opinion polls.

Yoest writes that Sotomayor is guilty of "reading a 'fundamental right' to abortion into the Constitution." This is indeed ironic, given that the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention abortion, yet it does explicitly name the right to keep and bear arms. As Dave Kopel writes, Sotomayor has also found that "the right to arms is not a fundamental right." The fact that Sotomayor can find a fundamental right for something not named in the Bill of Rghts, but not for something explicitly named, indeed points to her prejudices.

Yet the entire doctrine of "fundamental" and non-fundamental rights is a judicial fiction completely at odds with the founding philosophy of the nation. Yoest is no less guilty than Sotomayor of ignoring the plain language of the Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Yoest refers to "common-sense restrictions on abortion" -- without explaining how the restrictions she favors comport with common sense (much less individual rights). Her language mirrors that of anti-gun activists who speak of "common-sense restrictions" on the right to bear arms. Yoest's clear intent is to undermine individual rights at the whim of mob rule.

Yoest does rightly raises two troubling issues. The matter of parental notification is not obvious. The argument against it is that parents have no right to force their pre-adult teens to take on a lifetime commitment to raising a child. The other troubling issue is "state and federal funding of abortion." Yoest is right to oppose it, as forcing people to fund abortions violates their rights. However, so long as the state funds medical procedures, to limit funding for one procedure to meet the demands of religious faith violates the separation of church and state. The only solution is to end state funding of medical procedures across the board. If Yoest favors that position, she does not state it in her op-ed.

Ultimately, Yoest falls into the same error as Sotomayor of subverting objective law to subjective experience. Whether the subjective experience is said to arise from the genes or from supernatural communion, the result is the same: the destruction of individual rights.

Mango

If you're looking for a delicious and healthy snack, dried fruit is hard to beat. But it has to be good dried fruit, starting with good fresh fruit, and without a bunch of added junk. Fruits that dry well without additives include strawberries, peaches, apricots, and cherries. (I did bananas once, but you have to soak them in something -- I used orange juice -- and they're a complete mess. Good, though.)

And mangos.



Shown here is one sliced mango on a dehydrator tray, with two jars of dried mango in the background.

All you need is a good dehydrator, some good, ripe (but not mushy!) mangos (Costco is currently selling them for around $7.50 for nine), and a good knife (my tool of choice is a Wusthof classic paring knife). And some time.

(I can't think of mangos now without thinking about the Flight of the Conchords mutha uckin fruit song.)

Twitter, Here I Come

Color me green. I'm joining the Twitter revolution. So here's how I plan to work it: I'll use my Facebook account for personal news and my Twitter account to post news and updates about Colorado politics related to liberty. I'll also post some stories about national and religious items.

Follow me!

The Stoning of Soraya M.

Who was Soraya M.? She was a young woman murdered by Islamist thugs in 1986. She is every woman who continues to suffer under Islamist tyranny around the world.

Most of the horror stories we never hear about. One story has been made into a film, The Stoning of Soraya M. I am not looking forward to watching it. But watch it I must.

Mormon Missionaries

I just passed a couple of Mormon missionaries on the way back from King Soopers. We had a very pleasant conversation for ten minutes or so, which I'll summarize here.

They asked me if I'd ever talked with a Mormon missionary. I said yes, and I don't believe a word of it. We quickly established that I don't believe in God and therefore regard every religion as false.

I suggested that in the coming years they allow themselves to seriously question the underpinnings of their religion. I pointed out that the community ties of Mormonism, a strength of the religion in many ways, also bears the danger that many Mormons adhere to their beliefs largely because of social pressure. We talked about the fact that, around the world, people tend to follow the religious beliefs with which they were raised.

One of the missionaries said that he listens to the Holy Spirit, which guided him in working through his doubts about the religion. I pointed out that such an approach is circular. By assuming the Holy Spirit exists, you're assuming the entire supernaturalist framework. To evaluate a religion at a fundamental level, it is precisely supernaturalism that must be questioned. I added that, what he sees as guidance from the Holy Spirit, I regard as self-talk; he's basically working through a problem mentally, and when he comes to persuade himself on some point, he mistakes this as guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Regarding the general issue of faith, I replied that one should base beliefs on reason rooted in the evidence of the senses, not resort to faith. After all, I argued, if faith is the reason to accept Mormonism, then why not accept on faith any other religion, such as Catholicism or Islam?

One fellow replied with two prongs of the faith line. First, he argued that the scriptures contain some verifiable wisdom. I replied that, to be sustainable as a religion, any religion must adopt a certain amount of common-sense wisdom, which by its nature is not inherently religious. (Scripture also contains a lot of bad advice, I added.) For example, I accept the view common among religions (but not inherently religious) that murder and adultery are wrong. So the fact that scripture might contain some truth does not justify a belief in the religion. Next, the fellow argued that, while we can go a long way on reason, finally we must resort to faith. I said that "punting" to faith is no way to ground beliefs, nor is it compatible ultimately with being honest with one's self.

Mormon missionaries tend to be young (one of the ones I talked with, a nineteen year old, nevertheless bears the title, "Elder"), which is why I tried to emphasize that they seriously question their beliefs over the next few years. I certainly don't think people have some sort of responsibility to try to persuade Mormon missionaries that their religion is false, and they are trained to handle discussions (in pairs, in something like a "good cop, bad cop" relationship). But I was up for it, and I thought that if they want me to consider their ideas, they might as well consider mine.

They asked me if I wanted a Book of Mormon. I said I already have a copy. I said that I'm on my way to read Atlas Shrugged in preparation for a reading group. I suggested that they read it, too.

Still Charmed

Jennifer and I are watching Charmed on Netflix (as the DVDs cost quite a lot to purchase). Sure, some of the episodes are silly, some of the acting is poor, and sometimes the focus seems to be on hiring pretty faces. In case you've missed it, Charmed is about three sisters with magical powers.

Sometimes, though, the writing is superb. And I really like the central characters. Tonight we watched "Awakened" from the second season. It and "Morality Bites" are the two best episodes of the show so far, as far as I'm concerned. Both have the same theme: integrity. Doing the wrong thing can have unforeseen and disastrous consequences.

In "Awakened," Piper (one of the sisters) brings unsafe fruit into her club, and she contracts a dangerous illness from an insect in the box. Then, the sisters try to save her by misusing magic, and that creates many more problems.

Unfortunately, the moral rules by which they use their powers are arbitrary and ambiguous. The idea is that they cannot use their power "for personal gain." But that's clearly not an enforced rule; all the time they use their powers to save themselves from nefarious creatures. Even if we add the exception of fighting magical villains, the characters still use their powers for personal gain all the time. For example, Piper regularly freezes people merely to chat privately with her sisters or to resolve some awkward situation. In the previous episode, another sister uses her powers to help care for a baby, for her own convenience.

So the sensible rule seems to be something more like, "Don't try to control innocent people for unearned gain."

The ridiculousness of the magical rules becomes obvious near the end of "Awakened." Somehow it's bad for two of the sisters to save the third from a non-magical malady by the use of magic, even though this is not for "personal gain," yet it's noble for another magical being to save Piper through magic (even though he's punished for it by his order).

However, if you abstract away from the silly magical rules to the universal theme of integrity, it's a good story. And the theme is actually carried off much better when a third sister quits her job in protest of her boss selling a painting she knows is not authentic. The show avoids the same flaw often enough to remain interesting.

Tomato Patch

Jennifer and I -- with some help from Jennifer's sister -- planted 48 tomato plants on Sunday. We had been shooting for 60, but 48 fit our space better. We have poor soil, so we planted each plant in a hole with "planter's mix" soil. We also planted assorted squash.

A word of warning: I called and had my utility lines marked, but in one case we found a line several feet away from the marking. (The guideline is 18 inches on either side.) So apparently the markings are largely guesses. I also suggest that you photograph the markings, so if you hit an unmarked line you have a good defense against related fees. At our old place a landscaping company hit an unmarked Comcast line, and the company's careful documentation prevented Comcast from passing along the repair fees.





It may not look pretty, but all I care about is the survival and growth of my tomato plants. Next year we hope to have a considerably prettier yard (which had completely reverted to weeds when we bought it last summer).

Dried Strawberries

King Soopers is selling strawberries for a buck a pound, not a bad deal, so we've dried sixteen pounds, with another eight to go.

Pictured here are eight pounds of strawberries loaded into a large Excalibur Dehydrator. As you can see, this yielded nine cups of dried strawberries, perfect out of the jar, on salads, etc.

(We have so much work to do on the house, yard, and garden over the summer that I'll probably blog more about that and less about cultural and political issues for a while. We also planted 48 tomato plants yesterday, and I'm a bit sore from digging holes.)

Meniskus Releases Partyer!

The Colorado band Meniskus released the single "Partyer" last night at the Fox Theatre in Boulder.

"Partyer" should be available soon on iTunes. For now, you can listen to it streaming on the group's Facebook page.

While you're there, make sure to check out "Brigade," "Letters," and "Overbearing." I consider these the band's four greatest songs, and an impressive collection for a relatively young band. If these songs hook you, you'll become a Meniskus fan. (Note: I like the version of "Letters" on Foreign Beyond best. You can also see the video for "Letters" on the Facebook page.)

I'm hoping that "Partyer" is the most radio and party-friendly release so far, and that it draws attention to some of the other songs. It deserves to become a popular hit song.

Defiance

Defiance is a film new to DVD about a group of Jewish freedom fighters who fight the Nazis and struggle to maintain a camp of survivors. Like all films about Nazi atrocities, Defiance can be tough to watch. Yet in this film the emphasis is on the Jewish resistance, so there's plenty to cheer for.

Edward Zwick, who directed the film, wrote the foreword to a new release to the history book by Nechama Tec on which the film is based. Zwick writes:

[T]o see Jewish men and women standing shoulder to shoulder in the snowy woods, brandishing automatic weapons in their own defense, flies in the face of the most pernicious oversimplification of the Holocaust -- one that minimizes the impulse of its victims to resist. And it is this impulse that Nechama Tec details with such ferocious clarity. Indeed, as contemporary scholarship has now revealed, resistance in fact found its expression in almost every city, town, and shtetl in Eastern Europe over which the shadows of extermination had fallen.

It is this spirit of defiance which animates the cry, "Never again!"