I think sarah silverman is very funny

I'm not sure if a gentile is allowed to find this video hilarious, but I do:


The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.

Yeah, low poverty and a good lifestyle provides you with the opportunity to grow taller

John McCain, in the debate last Friday, mentioned that North Koreans are an average 3 inches shorter than their South Korean counterparts. He was using this as striking evidence for the difference in lifestyle between a free nation (S.Korean) and a nation under tyranny (N.Korea).

Today I read a cool article in the NYT which uses the population height measure to compare Americans to Western Europeans.

Guess who's shorter?

McCain wins debate?

According to a blog post on the washington post's website, internet ads are appearing which make the claim that McCain 'won' the debate (which hasn't taken place yet).

This is silliness on at least 2 levels.

this made me ell oh ell

wow

just.... wow

Say it ain't so Obama!

Obama gets his first 'pants on fire'.

Genius!

One way to feed vagabonds.

It goes both ways

Obama's campaign is just as guilty.

Sex differences

I just read an article in the paper which describes a couple of cross-cultural studies (personality surveys actually) which show that the magnitude of personality differences between the sexes differs greatly from culture to culture.

Many people believe that gender differences are not a genetic/biological phenomena but a cultural one, and the findings of these cross-cultural surveys might support that. However, the survey also finds that in countries where the gender roles are much stricter (where, for example, women aren't allowed to work and men do very little child raising) the gender differences are much smaller than in countries where both the men and women seem to share the same kinds of work.

I always believed that gender differences arose from a combination of culture and biology (though, biology is the root of the difference since these differences appear in the natural world as well). But the findings that the cultural explanation is not that simple is really exciting.

Overcoming bias

If you can manage to get all the way through Eliezer's maze-like syntax, use of punctuation, and expository style there is something really interesting and exciting and compelling and thought provoking about the blog he co-authors with Robin: Overcoming bias.

Genesis 6, in which God makes clear his plan to erase the great experiment

We learn in this chapter what we should have known in the previous chapter about longevity. It is unclear why this information comes so late.

When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, ²the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose.

It's unclear to me exactly what verse 2 means, what it's supposed to imply. Were only boys born for a long time and then, finally girls came around? If that's the case, then how were all those children born? In what time frame are we?

³Then the Lord said, ‘My spirit shall not abide^* in mortals for ever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’

So the reason why people lived so long was because God's spirit was still strong in the direct descendants of Adam and Eve. But as the blood thinned out (presumably because there were lineages other than Adam and Eve's?) their longevity weakened.

⁴The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterwards—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.

The Nephilim, I had been told, are either giants or very scary warriors. But they don't exist anymore. But even knowing this, it seems like this verse is very opaque. what does it mean for 'the sons of god to go in to the daughters of humans?' Are there any daughters of God? Are the Nephilim being called heroes and warriors of renown? Or are the sons of God the heroes and they defeated the Nephilim? So confusing!

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. ⁶And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. ⁷So the Lord said, ‘I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.’ ⁸But Noah found favour in the sight of the Lord.

So God's experiment failed. He decides to kill everything (animals included, which is strange since they haven't done anything evil). It seems to me that this is a pretty extreme action on God's part. I mean, he did the creating and he gave us free will (presumably). So what makes him think that starting from scratch is going to change anything? Is he planning on taking away free will? or is he just going to not allow our minds to do bad things? But the worst part is that when he starts over again, he doesn't allow Noah to begin at the beginning, in the garden of Eden. That would seem like the fair thing to do. Maybe Noah will be wise enough to not eat of the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Noah Pleases God

9 These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. ¹⁰And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

I don't think anyone can ever be sure what is meant by the phrase "walked with God" here. It seems to me that it means either 'believed in him' or 'did things that pleased him'. But, at this stage, God hadn't really told anyone how to behave. There were no commandments yet so (I've been told) that without God's will being expressed we were all savages without law. But for some reason Noah knew how to walk with God. Thus, he was spared a drowning death.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. ¹²And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. ¹³And God said to Noah, ‘I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth. ¹⁴Make yourself an ark of cypress^* wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. ¹⁵This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. ¹⁶Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.

Thus, God explains how to build the Arc. People have been arguing about these instructions since they've been put on paper, I assume, because to hold all of the creatures that are currently on the planet (and the food it takes to keep them alive for the duration of the flood) you would need a pretty big boat: A boat bigger than any that currently exists on this planet. And it would have taken Noah several years to build this boat.

¹⁷For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. ¹⁸But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. ¹⁹And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. ²⁰Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive. ²¹Also take with you every kind of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them.’ ²²Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.

Noah knew what was good for him.

The thing that strikes me the most about chapter 6 is the way we all know the story of God's choice to kill EVERYTHING minus a half dozen people and a couple hundred thousand species of plant and animal and we don't blink an eye at this kind of brutality. I know that when I was a kid I didn't think about it at all, but as I grew older it always troubled me the way that God really treated human life like something worse than a play thing. We hear a lot about God's love and compassion in the new Testament, but we really have to work hard to find it in the old.

Things get even worse in later books. But we'll get to those later. My point is that the more I read the old Testament the more I realize that there is very little wisdom to be taken from it. The old Testament paints an unpleasant picture of God and of humanity and humanity's history. Yet so many Christians seem to have no problem picking passages within it and creating a moral code from them.

I've been watching a bit too much tv.

I've discovered a show called "Top Gear".

It is a fantastic show. The hosts are incredibly funny and the editors of the show really know how to cut the video.

If you have an opportunity, I suggest you watch it. I haven't laughed this much since I watched 40 year old virgin for the first time.

Genesis 5, 200th post!

Text here

5This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humankind, adam');" onmouseout="return nd();">^* he made them him');" onmouseout="return nd();">^* in the likeness of God. ²Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them ‘Humankind’ adam');" onmouseout="return nd();">^* when they were created.

A bit of review from chapters one and two.

3 When Adam had lived for one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. ⁴The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters. ⁵Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

When I was a young tyke I asked some adults why people in the old testament were able to live so long without modern medicine. They told me it was because there was much less pollution in those days.

6 When Seth had lived for one hundred and five years, he became the father of Enosh. ⁷Seth lived after the birth of Enosh for eight hundred and seven years, and had other sons and daughters. ⁸Thus all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.

The first human beings' longevity is what, presumably, allowed them to be so good at populating the world so quickly (though by Cain's words the world seemed to be already populated not by Adam and Eve's progeny). But it's unclear whether these folks were having their first child at these late years or whether the author is just highlighting the birth of Seth, Enosh, and the rest of them.

9 When Enosh had lived for ninety years, he became the father of Kenan. ¹⁰Enosh lived after the birth of Kenan for eight hundred and fifteen years, and had other sons and daughters. ¹¹Thus all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.

12 When Kenan had lived for seventy years, he became the father of Mahalalel. ¹³Kenan lived after the birth of Mahalalel for eight hundred and forty years, and had other sons and daughters. ¹⁴Thus all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.

15 When Mahalalel had lived for sixty-five years, he became the father of Jared. ¹⁶Mahalalel lived after the birth of Jared for eight hundred and thirty years, and had other sons and daughters. ¹⁷Thus all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died.

18 When Jared had lived for one hundred and sixty-two years he became the father of Enoch. ¹⁹Jared lived after the birth of Enoch for eight hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. ²⁰Thus all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died.

More genealogy.

21 When Enoch had lived for sixty-five years, he became the father of Methuselah. ²²Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methuselah for three hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. ²³Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. ²⁴Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him.

What does "walk with God" mean in this context?

25 When Methuselah had lived for one hundred and eighty-seven years, he became the father of Lamech. ²⁶Methuselah lived after the birth of Lamech for seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had other sons and daughters. ²⁷Thus all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.

28 When Lamech had lived for one hundred and eighty-two years, he became the father of a son; ²⁹he named him Noah, saying, ‘Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands.’ ³⁰Lamech lived after the birth of Noah for five hundred and ninety-five years, and had other sons and daughters. ³¹Thus all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.

"Out of the ground hat the Lord has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands" I suspect that by Lamech's declaration, Noah was the first farmer that didn't have a hard time farming (due to God's curse on Cain and his people). I'm not sure whether God told Lamech that he was going to break the curse, or whether God heard Lamech and made it so. Either way, it's poor writing because it cannot be interpreted accurately.

32 After Noah was five hundred years old, Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

And that's the conclusion of Genesis 5, a chapter of lineage.

Why Senators have a hard time getting elected: THE RECKONING

So remember how a few hours ago I was talking about how unfair it was that McCain was being called Pro-rape because of some subsection of some bill?

I also hinted at the fact that the McCain campaign is saying that Obama supported a bill which would "teach kindergartners about sex". It is claimed that the McCain campaign left out the word PREDATORS from their claim (sex predators, not sex).

I just stumbled upon a youtube video from msnbc where a couple of duchebags argue about it. I'm in agreement with one of the duchebags, but certainly not both. Try to guess which one!



Hint: it's not BRAD

In many ways, this "kindergarten sex-gate" is a thousand times worse than what i was describing in my previous post. That's because this isn't an issue about voting for or against an actual proposal, but it's an issue of lying, pulling facts straight out of one's ass.

Am I disappointed because it's happening? a little.

But I'm much more disappointed because it's going to work.

Why Senators have a hard time getting elected

A lesson in how government works:

4 years ago, I remember people (the news media) talking about Kerry's label as a "flip-flopper" and how any Senator, who has been a senate member long enough, is going to end up, several times, voting in conflicting ways on a singular issue. This is because Bills up for vote are never simple things like "A bill to give money to starving orphans".

For example, a republican may propose a bill which does 8 things. Among them is "giving money to starving orphans" and "increasing military spending by 3%". So if you want to give money to starving orphans but don't want to increase military spending you choose which one you want to do more and then you vote Yea or Nay. Problem is, you're screwed either way if you're a Democrat who isn't supposed to want to increase military spending.

The democrats pull the exact same trick in their proposals, of course. That's just the awful way that law-making works in most countries.

So, recently, I saw this story which claims that McCain voted AGAINST making forensic rape exams free. Basically, when someone is raped, the police requires an exam to collect dna samples and other evidence for the crime in order to start an investigation. Prior to 1994, the victim payed for this exam with their own hard earned cash.

Horrible, right?

In 1994, HR 3355 came up in the Senate. From what I understand, within this bill, money was appropriated for rape exams such that the victims would no longer be required to pay for that exam out of their own pocket. And McCain voted Nay. He was among 37 others (2 dems and 36 reps) who voted against the bill. The bill required 50 Yaes in order to pass the Senate, and with the help of some other Republican senators it passed.

So why would McCain vote against a bill that made these rape exams free? Wouldn't we all agree that rape victims should certainly not be made to pay for this exam, no matter how cheap it may be?

Of course. I suspect that the reason why 38 republicans voted against this bill is because it wasn't the "free rape exams bill" but it was actually a much more far reaching, complicated bill to "amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies and members of the community to address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety."

This bill was generally going to provide more federal money for crime prevention programs (or possibly, it would force states to provide more money to these programs). The staunch republican view on bills such as these is "THIS IS A STATE ISSUE AND FEDERAL MONEY SHOULD NOT GO TO THESE PROGRAMS or THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD RESPECT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES TO RUN THEIR OWN PUBLIC SAFETY AFFAIRS"

Now, regardless of how we feel about that particular view point I think we must agree that even though McCain voted against this bill it isn't because he is pro-rape. It's probably because he adheres to the standard conservative view.

But guess what? Idiots are out there screaming "MCCAIN IS PRO-RAPE!" because of this Nay vote in August of 1994.

Is this fair? Is this an appropriate attack? I don't think so. I absolutely hate it when Republicans do it to Democrats and I absolutely hate it when Democrats do it to Republicans because it relies on manipulating an ignorant public. And it's impossible to defend these types of attacks because you can't really give the explanation I provided above as a 10 second sound byte. It's a boring explanation and no one has the patience or attention span to hear it.

So what happens next? McCain is pro-rape, Obama wants to teach sex education to Kindergartners and everyone is a big fat liar.

What's the solution? Voters need to wise up. When some reactionary liberal asks you a poll question like "how do you feel about McCain voting against free rape exams" you need to say "That sounds awful but I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for such a vote, and I'm going to www.senate.gov to find out exactly what's going on there".

If all voters responded like this to partisan pollsters (and followed through with it) then these baseless attacks would stop working and political groups (and Karl Rove) would stop using them.

more lies from the rovian mccain camp

Depressing

Lie #1

Lie #2

Spreading the word, I guess

That video is a bit sensationalistic, but people ought to see it anyway.

More from politifact

John mcCain racks up another 'pants on fire' from politifact's FACT-O-METER with his campaign's new smear on Obama.

Read about that here.

MaxFunCon

I'm going to attend MaxFunCon. Upon my return, I shall be approximately 500% more awesome.

Why do people do this?

No more bullshit! no more lies!
The story is bad enough on it's own, you don't need to pad it with lists

cheer one's self up with trivialities

So I decide to check out some onion news to cheer myself up:


Pre-Game Coin Toss Makes Jacksonville Jaguars Realize Randomness Of Life

Works every time.

I don't get it.

I'm inclined to agree with this guy.

I'm having a sad day.

Dear Voters, DO RESEARCH. Thank you.

Suppose that one of the presidential nominees said the following:

"My opponent has voted 100% of the time in favor of the no-child-left-behind Act, which has done more harm than good for our nation's children."

Following this statement, you're very likely to get a bunch of applause or hootin' and hollerin'. Why? Because, regardless of whether people understand the favorable or damning aspects of the no-child-left-behind series of bills many of us have gathered some opinion about it and we are either supporters or opposers (but not critics, because that would require us to UNDERSTAND something about the act). But, even if you know nothing about this act and have no opinion about it, if you are listening to your favorite nominee and don't very much like the other guy, this sentence is going to sound good to you and it's going to automatically GIVE YOU an opinion on the no-child-left-behind Act.

Political speeches are full of this kind of bullshit. Why? Because it works.

The average asshole doesn't know anything about the no-child-left-behind Act. The nominee tells him "the no-child-left-behind Act had done more harm than good" combined with "my opponent has voted for this lousy Act 100% of the time". Now, at this point, it doesn't matter if the opponent voted once in favor and then never voted against (1 out of 1 is still 100%). It also doesn't matter whether there is a clear consensus on the efficacy of the Act. What matters is that your pick for the white house is for something good and his opponent is clearly supports something bad.

It makes my blood boil.



I recently saw this clip of Palin saying the following:

"The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."

This sentence, as you can see at the end of the clip, is followed by a big cheer from the asshole crowd. Why? Because it sounds great to a bunch of uninformed conservatives (BIG and EXPENSIVE are real bad words to republican voters).

The problem is that, this statement, even in context, makes no fucking sense. Fannie and Freddie are privately owned companies. The government, now stepping in to fix a problem that was left to market forces, is making it "too big and too expensive" for the tax payers.

So what are those assholes clapping at? WHAT ARE THEY CLAPPING AT!!!!!!!! I'll tell you what they're clapping at, they're clapping because most of them don't even know who the fuck Freddie and Fannie are and they don't want to look like ignorant pricks. So they clap at the key word combination BIG+EXPENSIVE+TAX-PAYER

It makes my blood boil.

I had a friend in college who suggested that the voting privilege should only be given to people who were informed about current policy and the policy of the candidates. Namely, people who knew enough about each topic to understand what it means to "open up offshore drilling" or "reduce carbon emissions by 20% in 10 years". I used to think that there were just too many problems with the idea that voting should require some kind of test. That it was better to have an uniformed voter than to delegate all voting power to people who had the time to learn about all these key factors.

But after 2004 I realized that an ignorant man could be elected into office on the basis that:
A) the smarter man is believed to be a flip-flopper
B) people like to imagine that they could have a god damned beer with the president
C) a sizable majority of voters have this crazy notion that Republican = godly and Democratic = Satanly

It makes my blood boil.

I see McCain winning in 2008 because:
A) he was a POW who made it back through the will power gifted by the lord
B) voters seem to think experience counts (regardless of the fact that the level of a candidate's experience fails to correlate with any measure of success in the presidency)
C) The republican party lies to its potential voters and they are too uniformed to realize it.

Nobody gives a shit. None of this horribleness is important enough to make people spend 30 minutes a day learning about the issues. Yeah, I've heard people rationalize their apathy with the assumption that the president, himself, doesn't have any power over long term policy anyway. This kind of thinking magnifies the ignorance a thousand fold.

PS did you know that the guys who brought you the "HEAD ON APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD" product are actually turning a fantastic profit. did you know that there are a substantial number of people who actually read SPAM and even purchase things advertised in that SPAM?

I know this and I'm still shocked by the fact that there are people in America that voted for Bush ultimately because they'd rather have a beer with him than Kerry. That makes me an idiot too, I suspect.

Using the internet to get political information

Politifact is a non-partisan website that takes statements that polititians make and checks their veracity. They will tell you if something said was TRUE, MOSTLY TRUE, HALF-TRUE, BARELY TRUE, FALSE, or a really bad lie (PANTS ON FIRE). The best part is that they spell out exactly why the statements were labeled as such.

They also happen to tally up the statements in an easy to read diagram, by candidate. I used those tallys to make the following (unscientific, oversimplistic) calculations:

(Using data from politifact)

------------------------------------------
Ratio of truth to lies: TRUE/FALSE
True and mostly true statements I count as TRUE
Half true, barely true, false, & pants on fire statements I count as FALSE

OBAMA = 1.216
McCAIN = .531

On average, Obama told 1 lie for every 1.2 truths.
On average, McCain told 2.2 lies for every 1.2 truths.
McCain lies more than twice as often as Obama for the same number of truths.

------------------------------------------
Lie severety = sum of points
true = 2 points
mostly true = 1 point
half truth = -1 point
barely true = -2 points
false = -3 points
pants on fire = -4 points

OBAMA = +2 points
McCAIN = -70 points
------------------------------------------

Of course, a conservative looking at these numbers on the website will automatically assume that politifact is part of the liberal media.

Kick ass experiments

Why I love science so much:

Genesis 4

Enough with the video posts

4Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.’

I've always wondered why we, in modern translations of the bible, we continue to use the word "know" in place of the phrase 'copulated with' or some other modern variant. Even my old students' version used this verb. Using this common verb can confuse the casual reader.

²Next she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. ³In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, ⁴and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, ⁵but for Cain and his offering he had no regard.

This sure looks like a jerk move by God. I mean, I'm sure God had his reasons for hating on the fruits and loving on the succulent lamb shanks, but you'd think that the author of this chapter would maybe give us a little help deciphering God's motive here. Was he trying to test Cain? If so, why test him when you already know the outcome? I've actually heard people use Genesis 4:4 as an argument for why vegans and vegetarians are not right with God.

So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. ⁶The Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? ⁷If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.’

8 Cain said to his brother Abel, ‘Let us go out to the field.’ And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.

We're only 4 chapters into the bible and already 75% of humanity is composed of jerks. Why did the ever so wise Adam and Eve not try to teach Cain that murder was wrong? Where did Cain learn that murder was an acceptable form of mediation? Even after hearing God's wisdom Cain goes out and tricks his brother into death, without skipping a beat.

⁹Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is your brother Abel?’ He said, ‘I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?’

This is often referred to as the first murder and the first lie. But given that the next few passages suggest that there are a bunch of other human beings around, I very much doubt that this is the case.

¹⁰And the Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! ¹¹And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. ¹²When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.’ ¹³Cain said to the Lord, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear! ¹⁴Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.’

Passage 14 suggests that the world is already populated. We hear no explanation for how that came to pass. Some people make so much fuss over the fact that the bible refutes the claim that "man evolved from monkies" but nobody cares that it also fails miserably in telling us where everyone except for adam, eve, and their crazy kids came from.

¹⁵Then the Lord said to him, ‘Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.’ And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him. ¹⁶Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Here we come to one of the first passages which could lead a discerning reader to some very good wisdom. THERE SHALL BE NO VENGEANCE KILLING. What a simple lesson we could learn from Genesis 4:15-16. Killing a killer only brings more misery, it doesn't bring Abel back.

17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch.

Alex had a son named Bob, and everyone called him Bob and he had a bicycle he called Bob, whom Bob named after himself, Bob. Bob and Bob had many misadventures, bob bob. And so on.

¹⁸To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael the father of Methushael, and Methushael the father of Lamech. ¹⁹Lamech took two wives; the name of one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. ²⁰Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock. ²¹His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe. ²²Zillah bore Tubal-cain, who made all kinds of bronze and iron tools. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

The bible authors loved their genealogies. Unfortunately, they do serve to confuse the bible readers. I wonder if the pipe players know that it was Jubal who bore them.

23 Lamech said to his wives:
‘Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for striking me.
²⁴If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold.’

What?

25 Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, for she said, ‘God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, because Cain killed him.’ ²⁶To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to invoke the name of the Lord.

What?

I've never understood the conclusion of this chapter. What does it mean, exactly, to "invoke the name of the Lord? What does Lamech mean with his killings speech?

More genius from GYWO

Get your war on.

Hypocrisy: The revenge

Hey, speaking of hypocrisy, check out this excellent commentary by the geniuses behind the daily show.

EDIT: forgot to add the video

Finland could teach...

I've expressed my admiration for Scandinavian countries. Here's another good short story on Finland.

I think it's interesting that the article's author decided to frame Finland's lesson as one for Latin America.

But I'd like to add that while better teachers (lured by better salaries and even better benefits) would help most education systems the critical component is parent involvement. Parents need to be aware and involved in their kids' educations. It needs to be their top priority.

huh?

what?



God Damn you fox news.

Is this a laugh or cry moment?

Wow:

Do you see what we've come to?

We've gotta do something about gas prices.

another recommendation, if I might

The Aussie Sia is super talented. Observe:

	Sia - Electric Bird
	Found at skreemr.com

	Sia - The Girl You Lost To Cocaine
	Found at skreemr.com

song tips

I was just listening to my iTunes playlist, as I often do while working at the computer, and this song came on:

	Iron & Wine - The Trapeze Swinger
	Found at skreemr.com

I'm a big fan of Iron & Wine, but I haven't heard this particular song in a while. And as I was listening to it (all 9+ minutes of it) I thought to myself that this would be a fantastic song to run film credits to OR to play as a graduation song.

I've never really approved of any of the graduation songs that I've been subjected to. The problem is that no single person gets a say in what graduation song gets chosen, its done by democracy and so it's done by popularity which automatically makes all of these decisions completely unoriginal. I guess it's also possible that the most popular person chooses a song and everyone agrees because that's what you do in high school or elementary school.

So we used songs like that Sarah McLaughlan song about remembering each other (I actually like a lot of Sarah McLaughlan songs but that mirrorball album got overplayed). I also remember some lame song set to Pachelbel's Canon which came out around the time I graduated high school. That one seemed to be written specifically for high school graduations and it was terrible. And for some reason, I think we used Mariah Carey's 'Hero' for my 8th grade graduation.

Anyway, MUSICAL RESPECT goes to any class who uses Iron & Wine's "trapeze swinger" as a graduation song.

P.S. Iron & Wine will be opening for the Swell Season at a concert this october at SDSU. I highly recommend it. Here is a sample of the Swell Season:

	Glen Hansard & Marketa Irglova - When Your Minds Made Up
	Found at skreemr.com

	Glen Hansard, Markéta Irglová & The Frames - Falling Slowly
	Found at skreemr.com

Classy

Good move.

Hypocrisy

We are all hypocrites, I know we are all hypocrites I even think I know why we are all hypocrites. So, in highlighting political hypocrisy on this scale I don't mean to imply that only Conservatives are hypocrites. We are all guilty of it. But hypocrisy on a political scale does much more damage to many more people than does the hypocrisy we might see when a 2-pack a day mom yells at her teenage daughter for smoking.

So, anyone who doesn't realize that all human beings are dirty hypocrites and that political parties (republicans more than democrats by my count) will make attacks about the opposing party that they could just as easily be the target of in the past or future: I present you EDWARDS IS TOO INEXPERIENCED TO BE A VP