DISQUS

So far I'm really enjoying it, and jumped on it for a few other projects since the one that prompted this post. It has some quirks and gotchas, and it's documentation is definitely one of them, so I'd recommend trying it out for a personal project before adopting it for any professional work.

If you're not used to frameworks at all, you may find it a little inhibiting--especially when composing database queries. Before Cake, I was a big fan of CodeIgniter, which is a much lighter framework but still has a fairly strong community.

Thanks for flagging this, I had no idea it'd been taken down. I've uploaded it here:

http://content.jdbartlett.com/1025.wdgt.zip

Was she charged for resisting arrest?

Good post. Like Jennifer, I haven't done much research into the historicity of Jesus. I poked around a little, but got frustrated at how little there is to poke at. Even once you've stripped out the miracles and the most-holy-of-holies-exposing earthquakes and the resurrection and the voices from heaven, you're still left with a story about a revolutionary philosopher who supposedly spoke to thousands and to whom thousands flocked to learn. For all that influence, Jesus went unmentioned by history until over half a century after his death. We have better record of the existence of some of the most obscure Greek philosophers, whose influence--the Gospels would have us believe--was pitiful in comparison.

Flying in the face of other commenters, I won't comment on Lolita except to say that your description of it reminds me a little of Luc Besson's film Leon, which I saw as a teenager, and which blew me away.

Instead, I'd like to say this: I associate cigars with two people:

1. J. Jonah Jameson
2. Groucho Marx

Both characters are insanely cool, but you're messin' with my mental image of you, Ryan! Even at your angriest, as above, I somehow picture you sitting Sukhasana on a hardwood floor, MacBook Pro floating before you should inspiration strike, crickets chirping peacefully in the background. Somehow, replacing the joss stick incense with a cigar... it's just not working for me!

Stay cool.

Good grief. That's ridiculous.

Good post.

And just like Jesus, Obama has predicted that only a minority will vote for him, but he plans to fix that by killing everyone who doesn't. We can't blame him; republican voters, as we all know, are irredeemably evil. Not even the eternal life Obama promises will be long enough to reform a republican.

On a more serious note, just like Jesus, Obama's reputation has been exaggerated to superhuman status by his followers.

I'm sure that was some sort of witty insider joke. I don't get it, but I'd love to.

Did someone whiteout the word "defamation" in your copy of that 2004 press release?

Thanks for digging that one up, Jennifer. That's actually the statement I was looking for when I found the Op/Ed piece I posted earlier.

Another of my blog reads recently posted on the false dichotomy of the two-party system after deciding to vote Nader instead of Obama over this very issue. I don't particularly agree with him on every issue, but I think his message applies here, and it's interesting to see how strongly people are reacting over this issue.

I don't like terms like "flip flopping". It makes it appear that you demand bigotry and intolerance of your preferred candidate, when all you're really trying to say is you think Obama made a wrong compromise.

Jen, I was looking through all the news stories on this for something I considered "source"-worthy, and found this Op-Ed piece, which happens to offer my very opinion of this whole situation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10col...

Something else that's awesome: the universality of US gas stations and how little they've changed since March 7 1992. I could easily believe this was filmed at the Get 'n Go down the street several hours ago.

Usually PZ is spot on, but I still mostly disagree with you both on this one.

Don't overlook the word Initiative. It's not just there for filler. I agree that the OFBCI doesn't need to fund programs that already have stable funding, but the intent of the OFBCI is to dangle the carrot for communities to start such programs, or to provide incentive for them to continue such programs if funding falls short. Churches are community centers, which means they can offer manpower to people and causes that need it. All they need is a little (finger-thumb rub) Initiative.

How do you make sure the money really is being spent on turnips and soup bowls and not on new raiments? The same way the IRS makes sure we disclose our taxes correctly: receipts and occasional audits. I've heard rumor the OFBCI doesn't even do that at the moment; perhaps it isn't receiving enough funding or attention to audit or enforce correct spending.

(I also disagree that returning money to the taxpayers is better than providing universal health care, but maybe that was just a figure of speech.)

Interesting. I appreciate your alarm, but read the article slightly differently.

We already know Obama "believes deeply in the separation of church and state." We've heard him express that message very eloquently, using the majority faith of his audience to frame it. If he stood up and spoke abruptly of secularism, he would risk heckling and dismissal. Instead, he found a way to deliver his message using religious terminology.

"Few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples and mosques."

This isn't a recommendation, but a statement of fact: the majority of Americans attend church. Obama sees church cliques as a potential resource that can be harnessed to assist their surrounding communities. I don't object to the concept of "faith-based initiatives" when what is really meant is leveraging the community effect of churches for some actual benefit.

I recognize that caution is due. "Faith-based initiative" promises have been abused to directly fund religious propaganda in prisons and elsewhere. I'd like to push Obama to elaborate on his plans and explain how we can eliminate such wasteful spending and make sure faith communities really do provide "social service programs for the poor."

I think Obama's basically saying: "OFBCI? It's a nice idea. But you're doing it wrong."

I think that definition is wrong. It's a tidy codification, but wrong.

The wikiHow article insists that anything less than unconditional love isn't love at all but "deep-seated opportunism". Unless its author has a new definition of the word "unconditional", that's a false dichotomy, it's prescriptive, it's overly-idealistic, it denies the complexity of human psychology, and it contradicts the article's later admission that love "can be lost". Losing love means precisely that it was conditional, and that one of those conditions wasn't met. That we aren't consciously aware of a condition when we start loving someone doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We attach the label "love" to a diverse mess of complex behaviors. In describing personal relationships, I'll happily refer to OED's definition: "an intense feeling of deep affection". Our practical treatment of others may coincide or contradict that feeling, depending on cultural indoctrination, personal experience, emotional stability, etc., etc., but a practical display of altruism such as consistently "putting the needs of others before your own" is not the whole sum of love.

"This is more about outsiders deciding who is and isn’t Christian in spite of what each individual claimed themselves to be."

I agree. Because belief is an internal process, you pretty much have to take someone's word for what they believe. Unfortunately, many Christians don't. e.g., many would have it that Einstein believed in God, while Hitler was an atheist. Maybe when more Christians adopt evolution into their belief system, Dawkins will become a Believer in many imaginations. After all, he considered himself a "cultural" Christian, and that's got to be the same thing...

Belief is an internal process, so you pretty much have to take someone's word for what they believe. Unfortunately, people tend to die, and then their word tends to get reinterpreted. Sometimes, it even happens while they're alive. I'm not suggesting any of your research was wrong, David—I personally believe that most of America's past presidents probably did consider themselves Christians—just that there isn't really a satisfactory way to define people as "Christian". Christians have made the borders of their beliefs too fuzzy.

Trivia factor aside, is it particularly useful to establish what number of America's presidents accepted the Nicene Creed? It doesn't demolish the claim that America has mostly been led by Christians: the length of the terms of those presidents still has to be accounted for. Before you count that, though, I think this research distracts from other very important points.

For example, Christianity isn't why America was established. To some extent, sectarianism was a factor in the nation's colonization, but that only highlights the difficulties Christians have agreeing with one another even on their most basic doctrines. More importantly, Christianity was rampant in Europe throughout America's childhood, and America declared its independence for secular reasons. In declaring independence, America separated itself from a Christian monarch who considered himself God's representative. If we were to describe America's independence in terms of religion, the term would be "apostasy". The reason we don't do so is that America declared independence for sound, secular reasons.

But the fact of the matter is, precedent isn't good pretext. Even if America were founded a religious, state, why should it remain so? Bigotry?

Inflammatory accusations of bigotry aside...

I feel strongly about this message. I don't think it can be easily summarized or paraphrased. Apparently, it can't even be recommended without causing polarization. But Obama delivers it brilliantly and makes it understandable. Rather than trying to please the largest denomination, Obama acknowledges everyone's beliefs but still emphasizes the need for a secular basis for government. I think his message is perfectly concordant with the spirit of the founding fathers, and illustrates that the spirit this country was founded on is still relevant. He's taking a bold stand, but delivering it in such a way that most conservative Christians would be hard-pressed to disagree with him.

If Obama doesn't win this election, America's an idiot.

Thanks for articulating this. I'm still discovering how much of my perspective has been warped and tainted by past beliefs, and this is a feeling I noticed fairly quickly, but wasn't quite able to pin down.

When you get right down to it, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses dictate that people in general are getting eviler as time goes on—that eventually they'll become so evil that God will have no other choice but to commit genocide, just like in Noah's day. You can't believe that sort of thing without tainting your relationships with non-JWs. It's just not possible. You can't create a proper relationship with someone you ultimately feel deserves to die.

I've been moderately aware of this since childhood: I knew I didn't feel quite as close to my father as my mother, and I knew it was partly because he would die at Armageddon. It didn't particularly horrify me, it just left me with a sad sort of feeling that he was somehow less real—less permanent—than my mom or the elders at the hall.

Putting that into the context of my present situation is really difficult, because I realize that's how my wife and family will feel about me.

also, i must find a better m-dash to use in your blog, ryan. testing:

— (mdash)
-- (two hyphens)
— (option shift hyphen)

let's see which of those works.

my efforts to self-deprogram started pretty recently, and i haven't come out the closet just yet. i haven't decided on the value of openly talking things over with other jw friends. what could advertising my apostasy accomplish? if it leads anywhere except argument, i may end up pulling someone else into my painful position--alienating them from their own friends and family. how can i justify turning someone else's world upside down?

(of course, there's the blood issue.)

What Erik said.

That's nothing compared to the Harvard cell animation they ripped off.

I'm with David, though: failure to seek permission is a molehill compared to the dishonesty this movie was conceived for. Getting all riled up about the Yoko Ono situation is like ranting that Hitler was evil because he didn't pay for overdue library books.

Did you spot what I did there? How easily I invoked zombie Hitler? Imagine that paragraph, but for four hours. Can you picture that?

Good; now you don't need to waste any time or money on Expelled.

Awesome. Now you just need to increase paragraph spacing a bit for the comments.

This is a new paragraph.

This is another paragraph.

Here's a fourth one.

That's right, I said fourth.

Ha! Oh, man, that's awesome (the A thing).

Still needs more line-height, though. "line-height: 130%" looks good to me w/the current font.