Flibbertigibbet

Let's Talk About Values

CNN: Dole: Republicans steadfast on values

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Extolling what she called the core values of the Republican Party, Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina told conventioneers Tuesday night that the party has stood firm in its defense of marriage and the protection of unborn children.

[...]

But Tuesday, Dole unabashedly championed her party's conservative stance against same-sex marriage and in favor of the rights of the unborn.

"Marriage between a man and a woman isn't something Republicans invented, but it is something Republicans will defend," she said.

A value is something that one seeks to gain or maintain. In the case of same-sex marriage, what is it that Republicans value? What do they seek to gain or maintain?

They don't seek the priveledge of heterosexuals to marry because they already can. If we can infer from Senator Dole's statements, marriage exclusive to heterosexuals is 'something.' What something?

As far as anyone can tell from the blathering herd of mystics and altruists we lob together as 'conservatives' the something that the Grand Old Party is trying to preserve is either Christian values or tradition or maybe a mix of the two.

When it comes to preserving Christian values in America the GOP really does pick and choose. Technically speaking, polygamy is a Christian value. Technically speaking, keeping women plain, quiet, and pregnant is a Christian value. Technically speaking, abstaining from masturbation is a Christian value. Although I am not intimate enough with any conservatives to speak to their stances on these items, I would hazard to guess that these did not make it into the GOP platform this year.

11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15: Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Timothy, Chapter 2, verses 11 through 15

Um. Senator Dole? Woman. Please sit down. I think a man needs to start talking.

So, CLEARLY, it's just some Christian values that the 'conservatives' among us wish to preserve.

I suppose that some will argue that marriage, unlike women being quiet, plain and pregnant--

You're wondering about the plain thing aren't you?

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

1 Timothy 2:9

and

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

1 Corinthians 11:15

And of course

1: Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2: While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.

3: Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

1 Peter, chapter 3, verses 1 through 3

-- anyway, I was saying. Some might argue that marriage is the fundamental building block of society to Christianity. Not to beat y'all with the Bible, because I don't like it any more than you do, but...

7: For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8: I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

9: But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

1 Corinthians, Chapter 7, verses 7 through 9

Clearly, Paul didn't agree that marriage was necessary for the proper function of the church or society. He felt that marriage was only necessary to keep people from fornicating.

Fornication, as best as we can deterimine, simply means sex out of wedlock. Marriage, in the KJV Bible, does only refer to man and woman, although the historical record of marriage throughout Christianity has supported same-sex unions as well.

My point is just that the Bible doesn't assert that marriage is required for individuals or society. So-called conservatives are really just preserving arbitrarily chosen Christian values and arbitrarily chosen traditions.

What is particularly frustrating about this isn't so much their fondness of tradition but that they would put tradition above other values, such as Life, Liberty, and Property.

Idiots.

THINK, MAN! THINK!

Inger Insipidemployee is at it again.

I sent a request to my team: Please develop a tool that does X, Y, and Z.

Inger: Would it be ok if it did A and B?

Me: No. X, Y, Z.

Inger: Oh. Well, I think that only a sparkle-widget will work.

Me: If a sparkle-widget will do X, Y, and Z, then that's perfect. Make one. If you can find anything else that will do X, Y, and Z, then that's perfect. Make one. I am less interested in the journey than I am the destination. Let me know when you can show me results.

This is characteristic of how I manage my team: I set broad, non-negotiable performance requirements and then I leave them alone. I judge their performance on how well they meet those requirements and nothing else. I do not interfere or dictate any particular method or approach to their work. I say: Give me X, Y, and Z and you get gold stars.

I realize that this management style does not work for everyone, but to be frank, I don't want to manage people for whom this doesn't work. This management style requires lots of independent thought. It requires that each member of my team operate as a rational, thinking ADULT.

I will not hold your hand. I will not wipe your nose. I will not tell you how to do your job, I will simply tell you TO do your job. If there is any obstacle to you doing your job, tell me. I will move it, remove it, or provide a means of circumventing it. As a manager, I consider it my primary responsibility to make sure my team can do their work. I do not consider it any part of my responsibilities to tell my team HOW to do their work.

Can you hear my frustration here? Can you sense how irritated I am that Inger doesn't get this?

Oral Fixation

TheLouisvilleChannelNews.com: Sex For Cigarettes: Local Inmate Confirms Trade

LOUISVILLE -- An inmate at the Jefferson County Jail confirmed that she gave a sheriff's deputy oral sex in a holding cell in exchange for two cigarettes.

I really wish that this woman came forward because she wants a state-sponsored smoking cessation program and not because she claims she was a victim. I think that'd be really, really funny.

From the looks of her, I think the deputy got ripped off.

Link found on Hot Sauce

Missing All the Fun

I want to live in New York so badly! I made up my mind a couple of weeks ago that my primary goal is to move to New York in the next 18 months. I have no doubt that will happen, but in the meantime I'm still missing lots of fun.

Case in point: Protestors at the Republican National Convention.

CNN is talking about tens of thousands of protestors and you just KNOW they're saying all kinds of crazy things.

I was looking through their gallery of protestor photos and there's one of a guy dressed like a bomb. See?

But look at the sign he's carrying. I don't know what the whole thing says but I am sure that his point is that the government should spend money on food, jobs, schools, housing, and healthcare instead of weapons for the military.

The purpose of the government is to protect the rights of individuals; it is not to provide people with their livelihood and look out for their personal well being apart from the protection of their rights. I realize that the lefty moonbats don't get that, but it doesn't make it less true or them less moonbatty.

I don't really care much about the Republican National Convention. I didn't really care much about the Democratic National Convention. But one of the features of this presidential election season is the fervor of the left against George Bush. Most Leftists I've spoken to aren't so much FOR John Kerry as they are just against Dubby. That is strange to me.

But what adds to the mystery of our situation is that the violent, frothy-mouthed, vitrolic screeching of the Left is matched only by the mocking, condescending attitude of lots of Righties.

Don't get me wrong, the Left is certainly laughable and their political ideals are worth nothing more than condescension, though I prefer open disdain. It's just that this kind of scale of protest was not seen at the DNC.

Why?

Probably because few can muster the energy to rail against the Democrats seriously for a long period of time. I mean, Michael Moore? Are you kidding me? No rational person takes that man seriously. But look at the rest of the list:

Hillary Marx-Clinton?
George Soros?
John "Reporting for Doodie" Kerry?
John "Breck Girl" Edwards?
Ted Kennedy?

Seriously? I mean, SERIOUSLY? These are the people they have?

I read an interview with John Kerry in GQ today in which John Kerry looked like that kid in school who would do ANYTHING to get people to like him.

Someone: Snake-eyes is my favorite GI Joe.

John Kerry: Oh! He's my favorite, too!

Someone else: I think Crazylegs is the best.

John Kerry: Oh! He's my favorite, too!

Except in the interview Kerry seemed like he was on speed.

I don't like Dubby, but I HATE John Kerry. I don't hate him because of his personality, which is very lacking. I hate him for his ideas. I hate him for the things he wants to do to this country. I hate him because him and the people who think like him are, have been, and will continue to be, the greatest, most direct, threat to freedom ever.

But I would wager that there is a large portion of those who just hate George Bush know much about what John Kerry is. They just hate Bush.

It's easy to dismiss this sort of thinking out of hand. It's absurd. It's ridiculous. It makes for such good mocking of protest signs, which is what I'm missing out on by not being in New York right now.

'Misunderestimating' the crazies on the Left, though, will be the thing that defeats Bush in November if he is to lose.

I don't mean that we should stop making fun of them. I just think we should pause occassionally to explain why they're so laughable.

A Reader Question

A verbose reader recently queried obliquely:

WTH is a Flibbertigibbet?

Now, I'm going to give all of my readers the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is not a question about how Google works or why Noah Webster got to be so clever.

I might, however, suggest that the reader who posed this question reflect back on his own life for a second. Specifically, I would ask our beloved barkeep to think back to May 19, 2004 at 7:51 PM when he posted a comment to the first post on my blog.

The post in which his masterfulness wrote this quotation:

This is the foul fiend Flibbertigibbet: he begins at curfew, and walks till the first cock; he gives the web and the pin, squints the eye, and makes the hare-lip; mildews the white wheat, and hurts the poor creature of earth. St. Withold footed thrice the old; He met the night-mare, and her nine-fold; Bid her alight, And her troth plight, And, aroint thee, witch, aroint thee!

King Lear, Act III Scene IV

Um. Barkeep? I just said to reflect. My glass isn't gettin' any fuller with you standin' there lookin' off into space.

Merriam-Webster defines a Flibbertigibbet thus:

flib·ber·ti·gib·bet

Pronunciation: "fli-b&r-tE-'ji-b&t

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English flepergebet

: a silly flighty person

Other dictionaries say:

A silly, flighty, or scatterbrained person, especially a pert young woman with such qualities.

Barkeep? My drink? Hellloooooo....

Speaking to the origins and meanings of the word Wierd Words writes:

A frivolous, flighty, or excessively talkative person.

This is a fine word to throw out, in the appropriate circumstances, though there’s a risk of tripping over all those syllables. That’s no doubt why it has had so many spellings. The original seems to have been recorded about 1450 as fleper-gebet, which may have been just an imitation of the sound of meaningless speech (babble and yadda-yadda-yadda have similar origins). It started out to mean a gossip or chattering person, but quickly seems to have taken on the idea of a flighty or frivolous woman. A century later it had become respectable enough for Bishop Latimer to use it in a sermon before King Edward VI, though he wrote it as flybbergybe. The modern spelling is due to Shakespeare, who borrowed it from one of the 40 fiends listed in a book by Samuel Harsnet in 1603. In King Lear Edgar uses it for a demon or imp: “This is the foul fiend Flibbertigibbet. .. He gives the web and the pin, squints the eye, and makes the harelip; mildews the white wheat, and hurts the poor creature of earth�. There has been yet a third sense, taken from a character of Sir Walter Scott’s in Kenilworth, for a mischievous and flighty small child. But despite Shakespeare and Scott, the most usual sense is still the original one.

Personally, this is a word I first heard from my maternal grandmother. The memory of its usage was rekindled in my while reading Slaughterhouse Five. I don't think very highly of the book, really, but the line in which Barbara, Billy Pilgrim's daughter, was described as a flibbertigibbet really made me laugh.

"All this responsibility at such an early age made her a bitchy flibbertigibbet." Chapter 2, pg. 29

So, there you go. Flibbertigibbet.

Barkeep? Beer? Anyone? Please? Getting... so... thirsty...

My First Link Love!

Madfish Willie was my first commentor but now I've got my first trackback! I'm so proud!

So, I want to thank everyone who helped me get this far. Pixy, High Overlord of Munuvia. Emma for being my second comment. Gir for the third. Me for being the fourth AND the sixth.

But right now, the biggest thanks goes to Chip at the Binary Circumstance. He is both my fifth commentor and my first link-lover.

Um. dirrty.

Consequences

I find Christianity disgusting. I think worse of Buddhism. There is a long list of silly ideas that I hate. If the truth be told, I don't spend so much time considering all the ways so many people are wrong in life, but whatever amount of time I spend thinking on particular breeds of idiocy is far too much.

A friend of mine has a saying, "People get what they deserve." And it's true. The consequences of action are derived from causality and the axiom of Identity; there's just nothing you can do to avoid it.

Interestingly enough, it's sometimes hard to tell who is getting their just desserts at any given time.

If you're a person who is opposed to the death penalty and you successfully lobby to have the practice outlawed, when will you see the consequences of your actions? That's a tough one and you may never notice the consequences, but they're there. Maybe one more serial killer comes to your state knowing he can kill and not worry about being killed by the state. Maybe your taxes go up from having to keep alive so many who would otherwise be killed.

One of the consequences of just having bad ideas might be suffering. If you think something stupid, you might come to some pain for it. Imagine the outcome of believing that you can walk through walls. For more abstracted aspects of philosophy, it's more difficult to envision the consequences of being wrong, but they are no less real.

Interestingly enough, the bigger, most profound cost of being philosophically corrupt isn't pain and suffering. The cost is happiness.

I'm not saying Christians aren't happy. Surely by some measure many are. But they aren't as happy as they could be if they weren't Christian. It's just not possible to experience the highest levels of happiness and joy that can be achieved as a human being if you flout the essentially human characteristic of rational thought.

I just think it's notable that the consequences of many people's actions isn't always sadness and hurting but they aren't happiness either.

In my book, not having happiness is the same as suffering, but my use of the words in this post comment on the gradations of pain and pleasure.

Every time you make a decision, you should be considering rationally whether or not that decision will bring you more or less happiness. One should only choose those decisions that, in the most rational terms, will bring them the most happiness possible.

Of course, some, like Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, et al, make it their business to do just the opposite. Foolishness.

Sometimes I Worry

Now and then I get it into my mind that there is something to be worried about. Just now it was the notion that the neighbors would stop by.

They never do.

But it's 6pm and I'm still in my underwear and I'm just not sure how I would be able to answer the door if they came over. They would see me running to my room through the windows.

I might just have to pretend like I'm not home. They're pretty used to me being weird like that.

At Least It's not Meat

I'm eating coconut flavored flav-o-ice right now.

Truly bizarre.

Yeah? Well, Canadians are... well... Canadian

CNN: Canadian MP calls U.S. 'idiots'

OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Canadian Member of Parliament Carolyn Parrish had said she hated "damned Americans" and called them bastards in the run-up to the Iraq war.

She found a new moniker, idiots, on Wednesday in discussing the planned U.S. missile defense system.

"We are not joining the coalition of the idiots. We are joining the coalition of the wise," the Liberal legislator told a small group of demonstrators.

[...]

"They tortured people in Iraq, they (the Iraqis) have no weapons of mass destruction. Could somebody explain to me whether you think they're idiots or geniuses?"

I'm not clear on how having a missile defense system correlates to idiocy exactly. I also did not realize that in life one has the option of being either a genius or an idiot-- not that I'm categorically opposed to hyperbole or invectives.

I feel obliged to correct the lady parliamentarian, though. First, it would be mild to point out as irresponsible her attributing the torture of some Iraqis in Abu Graeb by a few American soldiers whose actions are condemned almost unanimously to all Americans. Second, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. It may be claimed that massive stockpiles have not been found, but to say that no weapons have been found is factually untrue. That claim also ignores the extreme likelihood that WMDs were hidden or removed from Iraq in the days prior to the war.

But, let me be frank, I'm not really interested in debating either of those issues. I really don't even care that her statements impugn all Americans, really. Of course, the first thought is to assess the veracity of the claim, which is why I had to start with the above. Her remarks are patently false. That means I now feel obliged to consider the source of these remarks.

That's how I found this interesting articleabout Mrs. Parrish. Even though it is fairly out of date, it's very telling.

Some were prepared to dismiss her anti-American insult as an tactless off-the-cuff remark outside the House of Commons recorded by ultra-sensitive boom microphones. But a careful examination of her past reveals a track record of remarks so vile, and conduct so utterly lacking in human civility, that decent-minded voters of Mississauga will surely toss her out of office come the next federal election.

It turns out that Americans aren't the only objects of her hatred. Also on her personal blacklist are East Coast fishermen, French-speaking Quebecers, residents of downtown Toronto, members of her own Liberal Party, and even her boss, Jean Chretien.

[...]

Parrish's cheap shots often have a bullying tone, and stop just short of character assassination. Clashing with Beryl Ford, chair of the Peel Board of Education over the English as a second language program, Parrish threatened to "beat her up."

There's more, but I don't want to rip the entire article off, so go read it.

Then, I found this amusing and insightful post on another blog:

“I just think it’s wrong on every front you can imagine. It would inspire some countries to design missiles that can get through it, so you are just going to accelerate that whole arms race. Our job as peacemakers in the world is to decelerate that.� — Carolyn Parrish, Aug 18, 2004, Toronto Star

Yo, Carolyn, I hate to tell you this, but there are already entire countries plotting our (the West’s) destruction, and they’ll continue to do so regardless of whether the U.S. builds it’s missile shield or not.

Madam Parrish, I may share with you a tendency toward strong opinions and a disregard for common courtesy when ired, but given the binary circumstance false dichotomy you've outlined for us, I'm afraid I have to shed all modesty and call myself a genius. You needn't lose hope, however, your idiocy has a cure: think.

I do so hope to never hear of this woman again.

Overheard in My Bed this Morning

Me: Wake up.

Me: No.

Me: Yes. Get up. It's Friday. One more day.

Me: Shut up. It's Saturday. I'm sleeping.

Me: It's Friday.

Me: It's Saturday.

Me: Why would I lie? Get up.

Me: Are you sure?

Me: Stop stalling. Get up.

Me: Maybe I can sleep a little more.

Me: You've overslept by an hour already. If I weren't so compulsive about being early for things you'd REALLY be late for work. Now get up.

Me: I could just tell my boss I thought it was Saturday.

Me: You're fired. Get up.

Me: You can't fire me.

Me: That's actually what he'll say when you try to tell him you thought it was Saturday. Who wants to employ a manager who can't remember what day it is? Get up.

Me: I don't even think he'll be there.

Me: He missed yesterday, so he'll probably be in today to remind us all that he still does work there. Get up.

Me: I don't want to get up.

Me: I don't care. Get up.

Me: It might actually be unhealthy for me to rise so suddenly. The blood will go rushing around in my head. It could cause a blood vessel in my brain to burst and then I'd die.

Me: I'll risk it. Get up.

Me: but--

Me: GET UP NOW.

Me: You don't have to yell.

Me: You don't know yelling. Get up.

Me: It's Friday. They should make a rule that sleeping in is ok on Fridays.

Me: Let me get this straight: You think there should be a rule that lets people sleep in on Fridays because you happen to have stayed up past your bedtime last night?

Me: Yes.

Me: Shut up. Get up.

Me: You're mean.

Me: You're lazy. Get up.

Me: If we combined our powers we would make a perfect dictator: Someone who sits on his ass all day and bosses people around.

Me: That's what we do now, but at the office. You're going to be 3 minutes late now. Get up.

Me: Just three?

Me: GET UP.

Me: How do you know it's three?

Me: Four now. Move.

Me: Won't it be exciting to go to the movies this weekend? We've not been to the movies alone in a very long time.

Me: We can talk about this in the shower or in the car or anywhere but lying in bed being a slackass.

Me: You're totally killing my buzz.

Me: You're making me sick of me. Get up now.

Me: *SIGH* Fine.

Me: Thank you.

Me: But maybe I should rearrange my pillows so they'll be nice and neat.

Me: I'm going to kick your ass so hard.

Me: What? You like things neat! I'm just helping.

Me: GET YOUR ASS OUT OF BED THIS MINUTE!

Me: Fine. geez. You just had to ask.

Kerry-isms

Someone start a list or a book somewhere. This should be big.

New York Times: Kerry Renews Call for Rumsfeld to Resign

Kerry says:

"The truth, which is what elections are all about, is that the tax burden of the middle class has gone up while the tax burden of the middle class has gone down."

This has got to be a personal best for Kerry. He managed to change positions in mid-sentence.

Found via Poor and Stupid AKA Donald Luskin

Almost the Worst Idea in the World

There was a Braves game playing on my favorite AM radio station when I drove home from work today, so I wound up listening to the news on NPR. "News."

I hate how on these "news programs" they present opinion pieces as if they are facts. They don't warn you that what you're about to hear is some misguided fool's blathering at all.

Today, some nut job got on there and read a quick essay about how oil prices soared up in recent history (and have consequently started tumbling downward) and how presidents hold exclusive control of our country's strategic oil reserves.

The whole 'strategic oil reserve' controlled by the federal government is a bad idea in the first place. Without regard to who controls it or what is done with it, a reserve of any resource in the hands of the government is like giving ginsu knives to babies. It places considerable economic potential in the hands of a single politician.

What would happen if a sitting president recieved considerable contributions from oil companies and had an interest in driving prices up to return the favor to his campaign contributors? Right or wrong, what if? Bush? Cheney? Any thoughts?

Or, what if the opposite and he had incentive to open those reserves and drive oil prices down? Clinton did it and some speculate that it was to help Gore's campaign.

If you're invested in oil at all, this must feel something like the Sword of Damocles.

The commentor on NPR pointed out the considerable political pressure on sitting presidents to act one way or another with regard to these oil reserves. To solve the problem, the commentor proposed -- guess what!

To dissipate the strategic oil reserves in the market, end federal subsidies, and progressively return all markets including the petroleum industry to a free market system? Of course not. I was listening to NPR, remember?

He proposed that we create something like a Federal Oil Reserve board similar to the Federal Reserve that controls interest rates.

Even Alan Greenspan thinks the Federal Reserve is a bad idea, or at least he did at one time. No matter how well the FED does it someone is always hurt because interests rates are not controlled on the market. If they are even a smidge too high for a moment too long, then small lenders can't gain more clients. If they are even a fraction too low for a moment too long, then small lenders can't make money. The real losses are against larger lenders, though, who miss out on millions when a fraction of a point is spread out across all of their customers.

So, this guy thinks that an Oil Reserve Board to controll oil prices in the US is a good idea? Has he lost his mind? There is no possible way that THAT is a good idea. None.

And NPR treats is like news.

I Ain't No Libertarian

It may seem that I'm a Libertarian most of the time. My rants about a need for more freedom, my wholesale support of laissez-faire Capitalism, my opposition to the war on drugs even though I myself do not use drugs.

Well, Dr. Hurd has published some remarks on the Libertarian party:

Q: Dr. Hurd, I understand you dislike both the Democrats and the Republicans. But why vote Republican as the lesser of two evils? Why not vote Libertarian for President? They favor strongly limited government, like you do.

A: The Libertarian Party is worse than either the Republican or Democratic parties--and that’s saying something.

The Libertarian Party is the party of unapologetic pacifism. They make John Kerry blush. Their 2004 presidential candidate proposes, for example, that all U.S. troops everywhere be sent home immediately. Why? Because, apparently, all government is bad. Anything the government does to intervene in the rest of the world--even if those interventions are to protect the United States at home--is bad.

The Libertarian Party is completely unprincipled and takes strides to avoid answering the question of WHY they support limited government. WHY is Capitalism so good? WHY is all taxation bad? (They don't even say that all taxation is bad, though.)

Read the full article. It's worth while.

Hat tip to the Rule of Reason!

John Kerry Admits He Was Never In Vietnam

I just caught this on CNN.com:

"I watch a lot of the cable news shows, so I understand that you were never in Vietnam," asked Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show."

"That's what I understand, too, but I'm trying to find out what happened," Kerry

So, he ADMITS that he lied! Ha HA! And this:

"Are you the No. 1 most liberal senator in the Senate?" he asked, joking about claims that Kerry is "more liberal than Karl Marx, apparently."

"No," Kerry answered.

Which is a bit of a trick question, because everyone knows that Karl Marx was replaced by his philosophical progeny for Senator of New York, although Kerry is still more liberal than her.

"Are you or have you ever flip-flopped?" Stewart asked.

"I've flip-flopped, flap-flipped," Kerry said

Again, he admits his duplicity. But then he hurls this ad hominem at the interviewer:

Stewart also sought answers to another hard-hitting question: "Is it true that every time I use ketchup, your wife gets a nickel?" The candidate's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, derived her wealth from her late husband, an heir to the Heinz food fortune.

"Would that it were," Kerry said.

That's low, dude. Low. But this this mysterious conclusion:

"You'd be amazed at the number of people who want to introduce themselves to you in the men's room," he said. "It's the most bizarre part of this entire thing."

I was not able to reach George Michael for comment.