/life/Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
I wrote a new short story: Nemo Me Impune Lacessit. It's been brewing in my head for a while, but some discussion about the new bin Laden tape made me want to write it down.
It follows on with the characters from Trees, Rain, and Intuition.
Comments welcome.
/photos/Remember When I Used to Post Photos?
Okay, the photos from my Europe Cycling Trip are up, partially captioned and stuff. Unfortunately, the memory card half-died on us, and most of the photos recovered are from after Steve and I had split, so I don't know much about them.
There's also photos from when I got back to Canada and stayed in Waterloo, then went to Edmonton to visit Julia and Denny and others, Saskatoon to visit some people and walk down memory lane, back to Edmonton (thanks for the ride, Davin!), and then moved to Ottawa. Enjoy.
/extrospect/Kerry's Ten Commandments
In last night's debate, Kerry said:
I was taught -- I went to a church school and I was taught that the two greatest commandments are: Love the Lord, your God, with all your mind, your body and your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet.
Unfortunately for him, loving your neighbour as yourself is not one of the ten commandments.
(Hey look, original punditry! I noticed this all by myself!)
Correction: Err..see the comments. Apparently this wasn't a ten-commandments reference, but a two-commandments reference. Boy is my face red.
Comments
Tony wrote
Too bad you're wrong ;-P
He wasn't referring to the 10 commandments that God gave Moses; he was talking about the 2 commandments that Jesus issued in the New Testament.
Tony wrote
Dammit, Rob, your script ate my link. Here it is again as plain text: http://www.bible.com/bible/Bcommand.html
Rob wrote
Hah. Teach me to bible-thump.
And to use a site called "positive atheism" as a reference.
-Rob
/extrospect/Dubya and Roe v. Wade
Ten days ago, I hit rock bottom. I wrote, in a blog entry, that "I also bought socks."
It doesn't get much worse than that.
After a decanight of soul-searching, I've decided to join the fray of political observers. I'm paying quite close attention to the American election, as well as observing the genesis of stories from the blog-sphere into mainstream media.
Here's the latest tidbit. In the second presidential debate, Dubya was answering a question about what kind of supreme court judge he would appoint. He talked about the Dred Scott case, a very old, overturned, pro-slavery judgement. I thought it was just a "talking point" about him not being racist or something, but Americans seemed to find the reference extremely strange.
It turns out that, allegedly, Dred Scott is an oblique reference to the famous Roe v. Wade, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favour of a woman's right to have an abortion (I don't know the details well.) Supposedly Bush raised it not to say that he wouldn't appoint a judge that would have backed the Dred decision, which is obvious, but rather that he wouldn't appoint a judge that would back Roe v. Wade.
Interesting subtleties. Not sure if I buy it, but it's a pretty good explanation. You can dig for yourself. If you google for "Dred Scott Roe v. Wade" you'll find some recent article discussing Bush's Dred reference, as well as many older links where the religious right equates Roe v. Wade with Scott Dred.
Comments
patty wrote
I just noticed this blog entry. I also thought something similar about the socks comment, I have to admit.
Regarding Dred Scott, I don't see what the big deal is. Doesn't everyone know that bush is anti-abortion? Doesn't he already have every single vote of the Christian right - (imagine them voting for Kerry!)?
By the way, call me - its about paniers and cell phones.
Rob wrote
The big deal is not that he mentioned it, but that he (allegedly) mentioned it as a semi-secret way of letting the Christian Right know that he *did* have a "litmus test" for his SCOTUS nominations, and that it was Roe v. Wade not being overturned.
All very conjectured and conspiratorial, but interesting nonetheless.
-Rob
Lawrence wrote
Hey, long time fan here, first time blog-reader...
We talked a lot about the Dred Scott case in PHIL 219 last Winter and judicial activism. Bush made reference to Dred Scott indicate that the Supreme Court is not always right, and that rather than having politicians just defer to the courts, that the merits behind ideas themselves should be discussed.
If you talk to Paul Martin about Same Sex Marriage for example, he doesn't give an eloquent defence for why Same Sex Marriage is a right, he just basically says "because the Courts say that it is a right" without much more intelligence than that.
Rob wrote
I imagine Paul Martin actually defers to the courts because it's somewhat politically easier than defering to the will of the people.
Judges can be wrong. Politicians can be wrong too. I don't think Bush is capable of choosing a judge that won't be wrong. :-)
To be less glib, judges, especially supreme court judges, are supposed to be some of the best people in our society for making considered judgements in line with current ethical thinking. I don't think politicians would have done something other than agree with the Dred Scott case.
/life/Running Shoes and Bike Helmets
So Tuesday night I bought running shoes. I threw out my last pair of New Balances on June 18th as I left Finland. They were thoroughly falling apart, having lasted through 18 months of abuse. I bought a new pair of 894's for $80, which seemed to be a fairly good price.
I also bought socks, which is good because I've only had sandals, and I only have a few dark pairs of socks, so they were getting a lot of use.
Okay, not "a few pairs"...two.
I had another piano lesson Wednesday night. It was good. I can tap simple-but-different rhythms with my hands. I'm scamming a keyboard to learn on for free until January, so that's good.
Thursday morning I went for a run. I don't own a stopwatch, but it was somewhere between 5km and 6km, I think. I stopped near the end for a breather, but hopefully tomorrow I can do the whole thing.
Today I learned the word anthropocentric, after trying to make it up as "anthrocentric."
I went and saw Shark's Tale tonight. It was cute and packed full of detailed humour. Worth seeing, particularly if one's offspring constrain one's movie choices. I also ate at Montana's for the first time. In retrospect it sorta reminds me of "Tchotchke's" from Office Space. The veggie burger was alright, though.
I'm trying to do my taxes, but I don't know if I owe for CPP and EI on the money I made in Finland and the UK, and they're on strike so they can't tell me.
I took my touring bike in for a bit of a tuneup. They un-bent the frame from my little accident in Germany. I also got a new headset, and I need a new bearing on my rear cassette, since it's making a funny noise. And my rear wheel is almost true. And I bought a new helmet, 'cause I lost my helmet a few days ago. And I brought in my crappy bike to have its bottom bracket replaced so the pedal doesn't fall off on me again. $170 so far, or so.
And today I found $160 in my PC bank account that I thought was empty. That woulda come in handy a month ago. *sigh* Oh well, free money.
That's my life. I'm boring now. Sorry folks.
Comments
Dana wrote
how is it october 10th in your world?
Tony wrote
Does that mean your rear wheel is false then?
Rob wrote
Yup.
Well, actually, nope.
(For the record, a wheel is "true" essentially if, when you spin it, it doesn't have any kind of wobblage, and if it spins around its hub properly.)
-Rob
