My son Thomas asked me which death was more important, Michael Jackson's or Billy Mays'. What a question. How would you handle such a question? I told him that both people contributed to society, Michael by creating wonderful music that many people loved very much, and Billy by being a consummate sales person and bringing novel products to the world in an entertaining manner. I told him that someones life is far more important than their death, and that I could only really think of two deaths that had importance, the death of Jesus of Nazareth catalyzed a world changing religion, and the death of Franz Ferdinand catalyzed WWI. I'm sure that there are countless others, but I was driving down the highway and trying to discuss philosophy with an 11 year old. The point I wanted to make was Billy's or Michael's death didn't really change anything. They both in their own way make us sad, and the possible future contributions of these exemplars in their field have been eliminated, but it is their lives and their work that created whatever value they leave behind, not their deaths.

Haven't written in a while. Been super busy. Ex father-in-law had his foot cut off, so I've had to step in to keep his business running. Also am now a stay at home dad again, so questions every five minutes. Missed a major deadline that will limit my choices for interviews in the fall, but it couldn't be helped. And I will get back on my dissertation in 45 minutes when I put my son to bed, and finish up these thoughts.

1. The people of Iran are so close to realizing that the power of government is derived by a mandate from the people. They are in charge. Proving it will be bloody. I hope they have the will.

2. Our president is a coward. Waiting for the dust to settle, and saying you were on the side of the victor all along is a coward's way out. I guarantee you the American people are on the side of the Iranian people. As a country we should be shouting it from the rooftops. We should be air dropping food, medicine, and AK47's as fast as we can get them there. But this president is no 'cowboy.' He doesn't shoot from the hip with a comment, or a bombing run. Everything is measured. And that's why we elected him, but sometimes you have to put the white hat on and beat hell out of those that richly deserve it. It's like Kenny Rogers said in Coward of the County: "Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man."

3. If they do get it together and win, let them have the government they want. As much as I'd like to whip my Objectivist-libertarian views on them this is their country. If they want a more tolerant religious theocracy, or a pure communist state, or a full democracy, it's their decision. I hope that they receive good advice, for in a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom, but in the end, the decision is theirs. For my left leaning friends: Wouldn't it be great if Iran beat Iraq to being a stable bastion of freedom and goodwill in the middle east? I'd gladly eat crow if it happened.

Back to Matthew now. Take care all.

LOOTERS! SPOTTED IN THE WILD

Hello friends..... If you're familiar with Ayn Rand's seminal work 'Atlas Shrugged' you're familiar with the term looters. If you know me, you know I've been using this term to describe phony capitalists, bureaucrats and and politicians since before this financial debacle we call an economy began it's downward spiral. (March of the Piggies plays softly in the background)

As I key this brief note my students are finishing their statistics finals and helping themselves to some tea that I brought to help celebrate the 'tea parties' going on around the country. (By the way MSNBC they are not, as you surely know, tea-bagging events you hateful sickos.) And I'm reading this story at MSN Money. The people that I've been blaming for this, and some I forgot to include are all being ripped new ones. It's quite entertaining, but the interesting thing is how this guy is nailing them to the wall for what they're actually doing, which is looting the United States, its people, and their own companies. At least it's interesting to me.

I recently asked my friends’ little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, ‘If you were President what would be the first thing you would do? ‘She replied, ‘I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.’Her parents beamed.

‘Wow…what a worthy goal.’ I told her, ‘But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.’

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, ‘Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?'

I said, ‘Welcome to the Republican Party.’

Her parents still aren’t speaking to me.

I'm looking for actual data about how much money the government spends. A lot has been made of the current budget proposal, but the Democratic response indicates it's not nearly as out of proportion as it is being portrayed. The data points that would be most interesting to me are:

1. How much did we spend in year X (1776-pres)

2. How much did we say we would spend

3. How much did we earn (that is, how much revenue did the gov't confiscate)

4. What was the surplus/deficit

Would not these four numbers look awesome on a timeline?

Good night.

I have been fairly busy today. But I feel compelled to write, I don't know why. The morning and afternoon were spent learning more about UCINET software and eliminating mistakes in my dissertation dataset. The evening was spent grading papers and catching up on recording the grades. I should be preparing even more for class tomorrow, and this and that, but I don't feel like it. [there's an Amway commercial on the history channel right now]

On the way home I went to the grocery. I should never set foot in a store, for any reason. I went in because my soon to be ex-housemate needed bread. I bought it for her. And I bought doritos. And I bought good and plenty. And I bought sushi (yes, grocery store sushi). And I bought meat sticks, but at least they were turkey. And finally, I bought an 8 pound bag of oranges. I'm glad I got a basket instead of a cart. Can you imagine what this list would look like if I had taken a cart inside?

I'm supposed to be angry about what all is going on right now across the world. People are pissed with Obama making a special olympics joke. Get over it. They're upset he fired the President of GM. You knew he was a socialist when you voted for him. Of course he'll try to nationalize these industries. Let it go, you elected him. There is much trepidation about his upcoming meetings with the G20, NATO, etc... I'm sure he'll do all right. He's learning fast, and he was smart to begin with. Some of us may not like the outcomes, but I don't think he'll be an embarrassment. All in all, I'm a little depressed about our direction, but honestly I'm not as fearful as I was a month ago. I'm more resigned than anything else. I just hope we avoid a Carter repeat.

In other news, my tenents are out of my house in Eaton, so I can move there at my convenience. Woo hoo.

I MEAN THIS. THIS IS NOT THE LEAST BIT RHETORICAL.

Those who know me know that I disagree strongly with Obama's position on abortion, characterized by the right wing media as infanticide. I suppose that the characterization is accurate, because his votes in the Illinois Senate were on bills allowing a doctor to kill a child that was somehow born alive during an abortion. But if it is your opinion that you can end the life of a fetus, whether you do it inside or outside the womb is simply a matter of location and convenience. As I said I disagree with this, but I admire (and I'm serious about this) his consistency. First, he's putting the life of the woman ahead of the life of the child. Second, he's putting the safety of the woman ahead of the child. Accidents happen in all kinds of surgeries, this is no exception, and if it is safer to deliver the child, then kill it, then that is what (in his opinion) should be done. Ok. Third, a child is not likely to be born spontaneously before the process begins, but during. This means that the child may be missing limbs, brain matter, etc., so in a way, one could view the 'completion' of the abortion once the child is born as a mercy.

This brings me to Notre Dame's inviting the President of the United States to give a commencement speech. Catholics are outraged, because Obama's views (cited above) are anathema (Pun Intended--and no, this is not an XKCD reference) to the Catholic Church. Like Obama, they (those that run the university) have a hierarchy of belief. And, just as Obama believes that the woman's life/comfort/convenience is more important that the life of the child, Notre Dame values tradition and prestige over the politics surrounding the right to life movement. Is it a good decision? I disagree with it, but it's certainly not as bad the selling of indulgences, or the crusades, or...

In other words, there's a lot to be angry about. Is this where we should be wasting our vitriol?