Just test drove a Subaru Legacy AWD sedan- I really like this car. Anyone know of problems with this model?
Big Government Republicans
Ryan Sager in the Post (via Glenn):
The Republican promise of smaller, less-intrusive government is getting harder and harder to believe. Especially when a more plausible plot line is unfolding every day: that the GOP has put aside the ideals of Reagan and Goldwater in order to pursue a political strategy based on big spending.
When people break promises, they are known as liars. Why mince words?
Congress is no innocent victim here
The 2015 SAT
The Huffington Post
Provocative post titled “Some Dare Call It a Theocracy” by Max Blumenthal at the newly minted Huffinton Post blog, and this piece on Ipods is worth a gander. Of course, I will probably make it a daily read just to see what Jim Pinkerton has to say.
I do have to ask, shouldn’t a blog like this, in the spirit of openness that most bloggers adhere to, have a public hits counter? I use the hit counter on other sites all the time, because it helps you find the daisy chain of who is saying what. Yes, I understand there is technorati and memorandum, but I like the quick and dirty way of seeing who is directing what where.
Overall, I like the site- I am interested in what Jon Cusack, Harry Shearer, and Elizabeth Warren and many others have to say. Some may have mocked it, but I bet it turns out to be a great success. Personally, I can’t wait for the first bitter internecine struggle, which is bound to happen when someone pisses someone else off. Too many diverse opinions for that not to happen.
Dave Whiner
What a petulant, whiny bitch.
A Real Clunker
Sounds ot me like Kingdom of Heaven is a real clunker.
*** Update ***
Ebert seems to like it.
On a related note, has Orlando Bloom ever been in a movie where he is not wielding a sword?
More on Intelligent Design
Via Richard Bennett, this excellent essay on what ‘Intelligent Design’ really is:
Their premise seems to be that as long as they don’t explicitly name the “designer”–as long as they allow that the “designer” could be a naturally existing being, a being accessible to scientific study–that this somehow saves their viewpoint from the charge of being inherently religious in character.
But does it?
Imagine we discovered an alien on Mars with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfill the requirements of an “intelligent designer”?
It could not. Such a being would not actually account for the complexity that “design” proponents seek to explain. Any natural being capable of “designing” the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own “designer.” If “design” can be inferred merely from observed complexity, then our purported Martian “designer” would be just another complex being in nature that supposedly cannot be explained without positing another “designer.” One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause.
By the very nature of its approach, “intelligent design” cannot be satisfied with a “designer” who is part of the natural world. Such a “designer” would not answer the basic question its advocates raise: it would not explain biological complexity as such. The only “designer” that would stop their quest for a “design” explanation of complexity is a “designer” about whom one cannot ask any questions or who cannot be subjected to any kind of scientific study–a “designer” that “transcends” nature and its laws–a “designer” not susceptible of rational explanation–in short: a supernatural “designer.”
I find it a grave insult to the English language that something as stupid as ID should incorporate the word ‘intelligent’ in its title.