hiatus

won’t be posting, at least not much of anything of substance, for a long time, if ever.

read older posts and comment, or not.

later.

I really should tag and categorize these

But damn if I have the patience. I also don’t want to be reminded of how bad my grammar is.

Origin of the phrase “Black Hole.”

According to etymonline:

in astrophysics is from 1968, probably with awareness of Black Hole of Calcutta, incident of 1756 in which 146 Europeans were locked up overnight in punishment cell of barracks at Ft. William, Calcutta, and all but 23 perished.

From glancing over articles, looking for specific information, this claim is apparently exaggerated, if not outright false. But what interests me is just who, person or culture, coined the phrase “The black hole of Calcutta.”

Here is an interesting take on the origin of the of the phrase: http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-bla1.htm

 The nearest I can find as to the origin of the phrase black hole as relevant to the cell, guard house, what have you, is the following: http://books.google.com/books?id=vdvXOxzbiNwC&pg=PA196&vq=black+hole&dq=John+Zephaniah+Holwell+A+Genuine+Narrative+of+the+Deplorable+Deaths+of+the+English+Gentlemen+and+others+who+were+suffocated+in+the+Black+Hole&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U1_wvdNpcmY3_U3qbpJGSue6oysKA#PPA194,M1

Based on that bit of information, it would seem ”black hole” as a phrase, was Indian in origin, if not creation. I’m not sure whether Holwell, or another European or member of the Dutch East India Company, adopted the local naming custom, or if a local gave it to him or others. 

I think Father Morris has a point

I’m not going to argue the Constitutionality of either candidates’ respective proposals as to how “faith-based initiatives” should run, but I will say that, if you assume the veracity of the premise of a “church state separation” being part of the Constitution, the skirting, at least, of the line thereof by Obama by virtue of his support for these initiatives seems inconsistent when compared to his intent to limit those groups which are a part of these initiatives, on the basis of an apparent desire to respect Constitutional Amendments relating to equal protection:

Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

 I agree with Morris so far as goes his belief that such restrictions as above are contrary to assisting in the effectiveness of these programs. With their initiative models design centered around their religions, these ”faith-based” organizations need their capacity to control not so fettered as Obama would mandate.

To the question of the apparent inconsistency, perhaps the most obvious question to ask Obama is why even support these programs in the first place?

As for me, I don’t have much interest in the existence of the programs, but question how reasonable it is to allow them because of supposed success only to risk destabilizing that success.

Morris’ column: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/07/faithless-faith-based-initiatives/

Total writers block

I just can’t condense the one idea I had; make it interesting.

Letter to Colmes: Over simplifying the energy debate

From: Bill G.
Sent:Sat 6/28/08 6:17 PM
To: alancolmesradio@foxnews.com

Alan, as much as you may dislike doing this because it could make for boring radio, I strongly believe you need to have an economics professor whom can better explain the economic benefits of alternative fuels, and not just the economic weaknesses of oil drilling. This matter transcends politics. Your argument against drilling isn’t adequate. People will default to simple answers when in pressing times. Oil drilling is a decades old practice, one which people see as more viable in the short term (which is their main concern) than alternative/green energy sources. Please stop taking the simple approach, it’ll contribute to the failure of alternative/green energy. If you believe in your position, and I trust that you do, make a complete argument, and make it often.

W F G

Another Letter to Colmes

Concerning your criticism of Joe Lieberman

From: Bill G.

Sent: Sat 6/21/08 8:14 PM

To: alancolmesradio@foxnews.com

Does your view of Lieberman as a “DINO” extend even back to before he decided to support McCain and run as an independent Democrat, or was it those two choices that brought you to your opinion of him? I ask because I am not sure, though we both disagree with him on this matter, his support for the war makes him anti Democratic, after all, he was in the majority of Senate Democrats (29-21) who voted on H.J.Res. 114, though it can be said that the Democrats are trying to correct that mistake, so he would arguably be against the party platform as things now are. Also, I am unclear on how liberal his record is, or is not, for that matter. I believe that calling him a “DINO” is warranted by his support for McCain, if for no other reason, but I am not sure it is fair to call him one based on his record before that and his choice to run against Lamont and Schlesinger, etc. Does his record support the assertion?
 
Well, thanks for your time. 
 
W F G 

Old screen name search and my mangled comment.

Technically, I still use that screen name in at least one place.

http://litochoro.blogspot.com/2006/03/im-sorry-i-thought-this-was-america.html

My comment is the last one.

Only I may violate it, says the arrogant ass

It always amazes me, no, it annoys me, how a person can complain, even if justifiably, about one person’s violating the rights of others while effectively doing the same thing, and they do not know they are doing it.

Here are two examples.

I’m strongly opposed to the anti-snitching movement (anyone with a decent bone in his body would be). There are understandable reasons, having to do with personal and familial safety, for why some persons might not snitch when they witness crimes and suspicious activities, but a broad stand against snitching, and not just to protect junkies who qualify as being harmless, but possible murderers, rapists, etc., is absurd.

One of the main defenses of this is the claim that the police are corrupt. That’s true in some cases, but what bothers me more than the generalization some form from their anecdotal experiences or rumors , is that some of those who complain about the police abuses, use that as a justification to not only refuse to assist in bringing justice to the victims of criminal acts, but also to advocate vigilante justice, which is inherently going to violate the rights of those suspected of criminal activities, whom do, in fact, have rights.

” it’s wrong for the police to beat people up, but, by golly, if I think someone did something illegal, it’s perfectly ok for me and my buddies to beat that person up”.

Well, to enlighten, if you complain about violations of laws and then violate the law yourself, you’re a hypocrite, and not in a tolerable way. That kind of violation wouldn’t fall under the banner of civil disobedience either, not without making that strategy for change look insane.

The second example, and here’s where I risk the neocon label, is with the notion of Impeachment (of President Bush in this case, but the following holds true for any person facing trial).

My opposition isn’t with Impeaching Bush, I couldn’t care less if that’s done. If there’s a case to be made, make it. Obviously, if not, it can be argued that Impeaching him would be wasteful but for giving some people a sense of appeased vengeance, but that’s really of limited value if the goal is to remove Bush from office. With all that said, I’ll go onto what does bother me.

Given the anger, the justifications for which aside, people have over Bush, I wondered what they would think if Bush were Impeached but not convicted; would that be justice? According to most people I asked, the answer was no. Well, from a subjective standpoint, that’s true for them, and I might form the same opinion. But what they fail to realize with their contention, is that they aren’t only supposing only one outcome can be, which makes their understanding of impeachment minimal, at best, but that there’s a hypocrisy (again using a double-standard with respect to law, specifically the US Constitution), here also: According to their line of reasoning, Bush violates the Constitution, literally and in spirit. Therefore, we should ignore, before the fact, the outcome of a Constitutional procedure, Impeachment if we don’t like it (just as Bush is alleged to ignore and violate the Constitution), and proclaim what it should be. In other words, a trial is moot; there goes the principle of assumed innocense until convicted by a fair and impartial jury or judge, or, in this case, the Senate (no comment). 

If some want him out that bad, they should start a revolution, or at least admit to being hypocrites.