d_rawk

hot.

Steve -

This isn't related so much to this thread, but thought I might give you heads up in case you're interested. I caught the 'season premier' of TVO's Big Ideas today, and it features a 45 minute lecture by Simon Blackburn (who wrote "Truth: A Guide"). He talks a fair bit about Rorty, Wittgenstein, and other pragmatists. It's an excellent lecture and will be replayed tommorow at 1:00pm (EST).

Hmm. Ok, judging by your "Loc" description, you're not only *from* Cleveland, but *in* Cleveland. This is probably irrelevant to you, then. Once again (and why is it always in the afternoons that I find myself saying this?), I guess I've been awake too long, and it is clearly time for bed. Oh well, for anyone in Ontario - or elsewhere if you can get it on cable - it is worth checking out.

G'night(/day).

I didn't know we were allowed to do 'and's ...

This movie made it ok to be me, after I'd already been being me anyways.

This Charles Pierce:

or this Charles Pierce?:

Ok, I'm being silly now. That means bedtime.

the US believed they were trying to preserve communism

I think you don't mean this ...

Thanks for the post. Sad story.

The new surge of violence before an Oct. 15 referendum on Iraq's constitution has killed at least 194 people, including 13 U.S. service members, in the past five days.

How strange ... and CNN only mentions huricanes.

Watched it last night. Funny shit!

Phorbesie, reading what you quoted, I'm not too sure what I was on about either :crazy:

My point was just that intelligent design can be approached as a neutral topic without explicit references to God (or Spaghetti Monsters). And that both the sides promoting it and fighting against it are overly keen to make it about God/creationism when the topic doesn't actually demand it. The goobleygook was just a rough attempt at how it might be framed in order to accomplish that.

But yes, I need an editor

DEM - well, exactly. Which is why I don't think religion has a role to play in the subject in the context of a (science/biology) classroom. But I don't think it needs to in order to accomodate inquiry into ideas like ID, but we're alienating all the moderate voices by focusing on the extreme ends of the debate. (faith claims in the scientific community are not open to rejection without stirring up really divisive forces either -- countervailing evidence or not)

That's hilarious about Don Weibe. So, what does he think of the Social Sciences or the Humanities?

[edit to add:] you almost got me started on a rant about pharmaceuticals with your clever aside. I showed restraint! *proud beaming smiley*

Deal.

The Bright Eyes / Britt Daniel (of Spoon) split is good. Haven't heard any others.

Hehehe. Where are the pictures?

Haha. That's cute.

Just call me the fun police, but ...

Wouldn't intelligent design, taken as a neutral theory, suggest something like: where there are unexplained gaps or phenomena which can not be (yet) accounted for through processes of biological selection alone, and where such phenomena could equally be taken to be suggestive of a guiding or purposeful principal at work in their development where the prevailing notion of directionless development and random mutation has not adequately been empirically demonstrated to be the entirety of the mechanism behind such developments, it is no less reasonable to consider the possibility of such purposeful intentionality (or design) than it is to consider - in what would amount to an act of faith - that the presently dominant notions of unguided naturilistic development will eventually prove sufficiently robust to account for such deficiencies?

That is, wouldn't it suggest (again, if treated responsibly) that to believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the source of said intentionality, or to believe that the Christian God was the source of said intentionality, or whatever, well that's fine, but a matter of personal religious conviction and not the point. Because we can not investigate the *source* of said intelligent impetus, our concern can only be to investigate whether or not there are sufficient grounds to believe that there *may be* such a source, quite apart from attempting to *identify* such source (in the absence of empirical methods of doing so).

So it wouldn't be an "alternative theory of Intelligent Design". It would be a peculiar quirk of the letter writter, and quite irrelevant to the theory itself.

Of course, this isn't what the Dover Area School District are doing, and I don't doubt at all that they are closet creationists of the literalist Christian variety, co-opting ID much as market capitalists co-opt natural selection to justify their economics, or as others do to justify "social Darwinism".

I'm no big fan of Intelligent Design theory. But I think that it is often being wrongly conflated with book of genesis-style creationism, and that this actually plays into the hands of those who want to push their God on people ... like those in Dover.

These sorts of people would boil God down to being something this side of Mystery, so rendering each idea completely worthless, but giving themselves all sorts of fiat in the process.

That is awesome, DEM, and is what I'm going to chew on for the rest of the night.

and have to assume, in some refraction of a categorical imperative, that everybody else must be doing the same as well.

I suspect that this is equally awesome, but I'm going to have to jog my memory of things Kantian before I'm sure

Hahaha. I suppose that analogy will do

Yeah. The basic idea is: you can eat your fucking bible. My word is my word. My integrity is my integrity. And if I'm prone to dishonesty, it probably doesn't matter what book-cover I'm touching as I lie to your face and tell you I'm going to tell you the absolute truth. And while you're at it, you can take a minute in the corner and consider whether it is really appropriate for you to be telling me how and when to relate to God ... publicly, no less.

It goes deeper, too, of course. Jesus admonished his followers to "swear not at all" (yes should mean yes, he said, and no should mean no). And while not all Quakers are Christian, traditionally they were (radically anti-church Christians, mind you, and among the first religious groups to advocate against slavery, in favour of homosexual unions, for prison system reform, against capital punishment .....)

Being honest is more than just not telling lies.

This is part of what is so offensive about the freedominion folks mentioned above. To them, affirming rather than swearing an oath is evidence of "Godlessness". Well, no. It isn't. We've been through this ... a long time ago, and at a lot of good people's expense. And further: even if it was evidence of such (and, again, it's not) ... so. fucking. what.

Those are good points, for sure. I don't doubt that there is an awful amount of waste happening, and I'm willing to concede too that some of that waste happened through the office of the outgoing GG. I just dislike the gov. not coming to Clarkson's defense in the matter and at least shouldering some of the criticism.

What is it that you do "on the ground"?

I personally don't have a problem at all with an appointed official doing the rounds where there aren't actual state-to-state negotiations taking place. I don't think we really want our head of government tied up with these things when they can be handled just as effectively (or more - Charisma is not Paul Martin's middle name ... nor need it be ...) by someone else. The US, for example, makes use of its secretary of state (presently Condi Rice) for such purposes, who is also unelected. But I understand your point. I think that there is something of a crisis of legitimacy regarding the GG, which a lot of Canadians are becoming uncomfortable about as the position gets more attention, and it is going to have to be dealt with sooner or later. It's a reasonable concern.

It will be interesting. We're going to have to make some big decisions about these things in our lifetime.

no prob. Dr Evil Mouse. Good luck.

MaxWebster - is that a bit of a dig for not returning the call about the wireless router? I'll PM you.

PS. I thought I was dead to you anyways ...

This is actually a pretty interesting area. If you are getting at what I think you are ... I agree. I think that there is a significant problem with the idea of the PM appointing the very person who is to hold him accountable. Although, for certain reasons, I'm reluctant to think that direct election of the GG is the way to solve the problem. Approval by a certain proportion of parliament (2/3rds?) might be desirable. Some have suggested appointment by the Order of Canada rather than the PM ... but that seems to smack of aristocracy to my sensitive disposition.

Anyways.

France: the President is presently in fact directly elected by the country's citizens. This is rather new -- he used to be selected through the electoral college. Much as there are increasing calls for the GG of Canada to be elected rather than appointed by the PMO. The power still lies with the PM. Here's the thing -- the President appoints the PM. The appointment must be approved by the assembly, however, which means the President's hands are pretty much tied as to who he can appoint. His role has traditionally been largely ceremonial. He officially signs laws (like our GG), receives foreign officials, presents the country to the world, etc.. France is moving somewhat from a Parliamentary system towards something resembling a Republican/Presidential system (owing in some measure, I suspect, to the increased confidence given to a directly elected head of state), so the President's powers are growing somewhat.

Germany: The President is pretty much strictly ceremonial, and is "elected" by a special commision (of assembly officials) put together for the express purpose of selecting the President. This is an appointment. He/She is not elected by the people. The executive and legislative power rests with Parliament, and more specifically, the Chancellor. Tellingly, the office of President is often referred to as "First Representative of the State", which, I'd argue, is fairly on par with what we should expect from our own Governor General.

oh, fun!

The kids over at freedominion.ca (WARNING: site is bad for your soul) hate her seal, and hate that she's not british, acts like a rapper (??), and apparently ... kills chickens (being Haitian and all).

I put my foot into that muck because I was curious to see the arguments regarding her oath. Apparently they are all a-tizzy because she "affirmed rather than swore her oath of office, with some insisting that even though she doesn't believe in God, she should have sworn on the bible anyway, and others saying she shouldn't have been allowed to serve as GG". But I find the forums there hard to navigate and haven't yet found what I was looking for.

I come from a line of Quakers, who consider swearing an oath to be the height of hypocrisy. It suggests two truths. It suggests that you are only being honest when it "counts", that it is not only acceptable but *expected* to be dishonest otherwise, and only really necessary to act in the service of truth when one is presumably at risk of some exterior threat, like damnation.

Damn freepers. Good on Jean.

I fell asleep after the word 'solitudes' in your quote.

Well then, you're missing out, aren't you?

Well no, but that's because I think Paul Martin would carry more weight.

I don't know for sure, but I think that maybe this is because you are too close to it. When we see Jacques Chirac, we don't generally, for example, say "oh, but he's just the President of France [d_rawk's note: essentially the equivalent of our GG]. He doesn't carry the weight of the Prime Minister of France!".

When we see the President of Germany [d_rawk's note: again ...], we don't tend to say, "oh, but he's not the Chancellor!"

Foreign relations and representation abroad are part of the duties with which these people are invested. It is understood that it is representative of the larger will of the country, and thus "weightful".

No, she gets to decide whether the newly defeated PM should be allowed to call a general election, or whether there are sufficient grounds to believe that the opposition (or coalition of opposition) are able to form an effective government. This, in fact, was the crux of the King/Byng controversy. He wanted an election. The GG said no, and the opposition formed government.

The basis of McWhinney's argument cited above is that because Clarkson had been extensively briefed - and had ample time to contemplate - what to do in such a scenario (which, again, is a distinct possibility in the very near future), it was irresponsible to usher her out and bring in someone new who presumably might be unequiped to deal with such a situation should it arise (through no fault of her own, but simply through lack of preperation and inexperience).

As to the question of whether royal assent has ever actually been withheld in regards to legislation, I'm not sure. My guess would be that it has probably happened when the GG was still appointed by the Queen and Canada was still considered a Dominion. But I'm not sure. I would be very surprised if it had ever happened since we started appointing our own GGs from within Canada. I can only even think of one recent example where even the Senate overturned legislation approved by the Commons (abortion).

I believe that, technically, yes. But it would be a shit storm.

The GG can be crucial when it comes down to what to do if a government is defeated in the house. Which is a very real possibility under the present circumstances. IE. Mackenzie King and Governor General Byng (that's for you meggo ...)

Plus the ceremonial functions and representation abroad, for which the GG tends to take a lot of shit - mostly, I imagine, because people tend to be in the habit of thinking of the PM as the head of state. I mean, would Canadians have been so critical of attempts to raise Canada's profile abroad if it had been Paul Martin making those appearances?

Missed the installation speech because you were working? I just know you're dying to read it, so here's the link:

The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada on the occasion of her installation

I thought it was pretty good, as far as these things go.

The time of the “two solitudes†that for too long described the character of this country is past. The narrow notion of “every person for himself†does not belong in today’s world, which demands that we learn to see beyond our wounds, beyond our differences for the good of all. Quite the contrary: we must eliminate the spectre of all the solitudes and promote solidarity among all the citizens who make up the Canada of today. As well, we must make good use of our prosperity and our influence wherever the hope that we represent offers the world an extra measure of harmony.

There is an observation by Montesquieu, a philosopher of the Enlightenment, that has a particular resonance for me and I would like to share it with you. It states that “The duty of the citizen becomes a crime if it makes him forget the duty of the man.â€

In Roy MacGregor's Globe piece this morning, he summarized Edward McWhinney's fairly convincing argument that the Liberals are being irresponsible by having Jean succeed Clarkson prior to the next election. But then, Clarkson's failing health kind of makes it excusable ... and I'm sure that she is as happy as a fucking clam to be returning to private life after the Libs let her take all the heat for (worthwhile) expeditions which they themselves approved both in concept and through funding. (A GG can't spend money that isn't approved by the house, folks ...). Cowards.

Ok, to hopefully tip this towards 'helpful':

The way to create additional accounts is to open up Thunderbird, then go to Tools --> Account Settings.

Click Add account.

Check Email account and then click Next.

Enter name and email address; click Next.

Select POP and enter incoming mail server.

Uncheck Use Global Inbox; click Next.

Enter incoming and outgoing username (login id); click Next.

Enter a name for the account (e.g., "county email" or "my email"); click Next.

Double-check the information and click Finish.

Click OK to close the Account Setup window.

From a University of California webpage

I haven't used Thunrbird for awhile (my primary email account is only accessible through a web portal), but when I did use it, I'm pretty sure I had it set up to pull from multiple POP accounts (and auto-seperate them into seperate folders).

Hmm. From Ars Technia

"Multiple accounts and the Global Inbox

Like many mail clients, Thunderbird can handle multiple e-mail accounts. There is the option to keep them separate in their own distinct worlds or it is possible to take multiple POP accounts and have all the e-mail deposited in one "Global Inbox." Or if you suffer from acute separation anxiety, you can merge some accounts together using the Global Inbox and still keep a few other accounts separate."

So, I think it can do what you want it to do. I'm just not sure offhand how to create those seperate accounts, and don't have a copy on this computer to play around with.

Sorry, I realize that this is halfway between helpful and useless

I think that with an aggregator like say iPodder you can subscribe to the RSS feeds and use it with either just your PC as is or any other mp3 player you might have (iPod or otherwise).

It tends to get confusing because of the 'pod' in the names, I think. Like, one would normally assume that something called "iPodder" is designed to be used with an iPod. But not so.

But up till now I've been mostly a "just click on the mp3 link" kinda guy, so I'm pretty new to the whole software aggregator/subscription stuff.

More important than any of this, though ...

what sort of ideas do you have kicking around for the jamcast?