The Problem of NPR

Be it NPR, PBS, PRI, etc., all of these entities have one major weakness in common, they suffer from being comparitively boring.

Put aside, if you will, the issue of a supposed liberal bias, nor can these channels really be defended on this matter on the basis of the quality of their programming and the interesting topics they cover. These channels are not horrible, they are just not appealing to the same audience which conservative talk radio, and television of the more mainstream variety attracts.

And looked at in terms of how they compare to what attracts most people, the public's view of there being more relevance in what Limbaugh, even admitted leftists on the radio, say and the simpler package of mainstream television, the partially public funded media outlets must be forced into the background.

Consider this, to drive home the point. Do you think most people care about the mating habits of Buffalos, or about the biography of a French poet?

Even the predictable redundancy of the likes of Hannity can't ensure that his listeners will not only turn to NPR, and the like, but that they will stay.

I've longed believed that relevance is what hurts PBS, etc., most, not being left wing, as is alleged, and this makes it much more boring that it perhaps needs to be.

Anti-Liberal nutcase murders innocent people

In front of children, no less.

The vicious monster? Jim D. Adkisson, 58, of Knoxville, Tenn.

So let’s cite this article to see what horrendous things these liberals did.

Unitarians have roots in a movement that rejected Puritan orthodoxy in New
England. Although the outlook and beliefs of individual Unitarian churches can
vary dramatically, most congregations retain a deep commitment to social
justice, which has led them to embrace liberal positions over the years.
Unitarians were among the first to ordain women, support the civil rights
movement and back gay rights.

Treating people like people, and decently?! How disgusting. I bet they don’t even own a paddle.

What other examples of immorality did these leftists show? Hold on to your hats, most righteous non-liberals.

Church members praised Greg McKendry, 60, who died as he attempted to block the
gunfire. Barbara Kemper said that McKendry “stood in the front of the gunman and
took the blast to protect the rest of us.

Yeah, well, well …

Well, this angry little bastard was denied the death he wanted, so now he can live for the rest of his misreable little, hateful life, hearing the sounds of screaming kids, seeing fearful faces, and knowing that the liberals he hates not only refused to be sitting ducks, they refused to let him duck justice.

Title to be determined

This isn't really about Obama. It's certainly not intended to be against him, and I plan to vote for him, but this is, ultimately, about world public opinion, the moral obligation of its holders, and reaction to the war on terror. I suppose I should place parts of "war on terror," if not the full phrase as I did there, in quotes, but that's tiring to do, so assume what biases you will.

Obama, being both a Democrat and liberal, two associations favored by Europe, et al, has his advantages over McCain, that I understand, but what I don't understand, and not in terms of a comparison to McCain, who is irrelevant here, is why an Obama Presidency should be expected to bring the benefit of greater cooperation that is not really hindered in the first place.
As far as I know, we are already being helped by some of the world's nations and peoples, some of them are even helping us militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I believe in more cases they are helping us in so-called "police actions."

Overall, most nations don't want to, for whatever reasons (and I attack none of these reasons at present), cooperate to the extent the Bush administration desires. What this means is that the primary benefit to us would be, it may be assumed, further cooperation in these so-called police actions.

Bush's behavior notwithstanding, what exactly would prevent the world's nations from furthering their cooperation anyway, as each is able, in international policing efforts, as things stand now?

If they are doing as much as can be reasonably expected, perhaps more, than they obviously aren't failing to assist us in our global security efforts, and by virtue of cooperation even in these policing actions, there is tacit acknowledgement, at least some would admit, that there is a legitimate danger to the world, however it is labeled, and wherever fault for it is placed. Therefor, if the world already concedes the need to collobarate on part of this battle, but refuses to go significantly beyond that, our burden is largely met, is it not? We aren't going to be helped militarily much further than we have been, besides which, I'm not even requesting that we be, and the rationale for more policing cooperation is that of the self interests of the world's nations and peoples, which is surely understood by most of them.

The world doesn't actually need Obama to be President to do more of what it is already willing to do in the first place, and it won't be willing to do much greater, no matter how preferrable it may claim him to be over Bush.

Much of the benefit of Obama is that he won't act bellicose toward the world (thank goodness), and some improvement in relations with the world is needed, so Obama is valuable in that regard, and probably others. But it remains nevertheless a decent possibility that some nation's unwillingness to cooperate further in policing efforts when they are able to, is at least partially a choice based in pettiness, and not solely the fault of American foreign policy and behavior.

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 a take on the origin of the astrophyical connotation 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_U3qbpJGSue6oysKAPPA194,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/