Marvel vs. DC

Comparison from a movie perspective, with scores based on Rotten Tomatoes' aggregate reviews.

DC:

Year	Movie	Score
1978	Superman	94
1981	Superman II	88
1983	Superman III	24
1987	Superman IV	10
1989	Batman	71
1992	Batman Returns	79
1995	Batman Forever	44
1997	Batman & Robin	13
2004	Catwoman	10
2005	Batman Begins	85
2006	Superman Returns	76
2008	The Dark Knight	94
2009	Watchmen	64
2010	Jonah Hex	12
2011	Green Lantern	27
	Average	52.73
	Median	64
	Standard deviation	33.63

Marvel:

Year	Movie	Score
2000	X-Men	82
2002	Spider-Man	89
2003	Daredevil	45
2003	X-Men 2	88
2003	Hulk	62
2004	The Punisher	29
2004	Spider-Man 2	93
2005	Elektra	10
2005	Fantastic Four	27
2006	X-Men: The Last Stand	57
2007	Ghost Rider	26
2007	Spider-Man 3	63
2007	Fantastic Four 2	37
2008	Iron Man	94
2008	The Incredible Hulk	66
2008	Punisher: War Zone	26
2009	X-Men Origins: Wolverine	37
2010	Iron Man 2	74
2011	Thor	77
2011	X-Men: First Class	87
2011	Captain America	79
	Average	59.43
	Median	63
	Standard deviation	26.58
	Independent average	78
	Independent median	77
	Independent std dev	10.22

Titles in red were independently produced by Marvel studios.

On average, Marvel's films tend to be a little better than DC's.

Lowest of the low: Superman IV, Catwoman, Elektra (10%)
Best of the best: Superman, The Dark Knight, Iron Man (94%)

Merry Christmas!

We mailed this on Saturday. You may or may not receive one in the next few days. Depends on how much we like you.


Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2010, er, 2011!

Dying of Laughter

Star Wars as an allegory of Vatican II.

Here's the part where I had tears in my eyes:

The heroes involved with saving the Church from the Culture of Death, i.e. rescuing Leia from the Death Star, was Paul VI, John Paul II, and the faithful Catholic laity … that is, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker, and Han Solo. 

The way to destroy of the Culture of Death is, paradoxically, by means of more life … that is, by sex, impregnation … and so forth. At the battle of Yavin, the rebels intend to symbolically do just that … namely (hear me out on this one) … have sex with the Death Star. Oh, man, I’ve really lost it haven’t I? The rebel starfighters attempt to shoot proton torpedos (which vaguely look like sperm) into a small exhaust port (which, I’ll just say it, represents the vaginal opening). Furthermore, the rebel’s ships are called X-Wings and Y-Wings … which are, of course, represent X Chromosomes and Y Chromosomes (i.e. the sex-determining structures of DNA involved in reproduction). Moreover, imperial TIE Fighters, which represent contraception (i.e. TIEing one’s tubes … and later on TIE “Interceptors” which sound like “Contraceptors”), try to destroy them to prevent this symbolic act of impregnation.

While Luke is narrowing in on the target with his targeting computer, Obi-Wan mystically tells him to “let go” and just “use the force,” as the computer is destined to fail. In other words, Obi-Wan is encouraging a natural method for this act rather than an artificial one. Luke obeys him, and it works. This, of course, parallels how Paul VI advocated natural sex as opposed to artificial birth control, and John Paul II followed his predecessor in this. John Paul II thus helped to blow up of the Culture of Death with his … yes, that’s right …Theology of the Body (his pivotal work explaining to the modern mind the correct view one should have with regard to human sexuality).

(H/T Mike Flynn)

Did you know that the number 31 ...

... is XXXI in Roman Numerals?
... is the third Mersenne Prime (2^5 - 1)?
... is a twin Prime (with 29)?
... is a centered triangular number, a centered pentagonal number, and a centered decagonal number?
... is a self number?
... divides every 15th number of the form 3...31?
... is the atomic number of Gallium, a metal which melts at only 85 degrees?
... is the Messier number of the Andromeda Galaxy?
... was the jersey number of the legendary Greg Maddux, the first MLB pitcher to win the Cy Young award 4 years in a row, and has been retired by both the Cubs and the Braves?
... is the number of musical triads?
... is the number of flavors at Baskin-Robbins?
... was the year B.C. that Octavian Caesar's naval forces defeated those of Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium?
... was possibly the year Christ was crucified?
... is the age of Joe Belland as of today?

Happy Birthday, Joe!

Really Totally Looks Like

"I'm so smart," I hear you saying. "I can tell Anthony and Damien apart by their hair!"

Well, OK then, you clever person you. Let's see how well you do when hats are added and hair is removed from the picture:

What do Resident Murlocs have for babies? Baby Murlocs!
This was hard to take. Damien kept taking Murky and putting him back in the living room where he belonged. OCD babby is CDO.
Two out of two babbies prefer the taste of swords.

Diablo III Beta: First Impressions

For all zero of you who are interested.

[Editor's note. I started writing this after first playing it in September. Then I forgot about it.]

So, after a furious weekend [circa Sep. 9-11] of computer-playing, I managed to complete the Diablo III beta with all five character classes. It was hard work, but someone had to do it.

So here are my impressions.

In a word: "visceral". Everything packs punch. Every ability and spell. Every hit and kill has a wonderfully satisfying "thwack" behind it. Corpses flying; blood splattering; stone crumbling; book cases exploding. Everything feels weighty.

Class I'm most unexpectedly impressed by: Wizard. I did not like the wizard when I played her at Blizzcon a few years back. She seemed under-powered and uninteresting. But after dispatching approximately 4,294,967,296 enemies by shooting LIGHTING out of my FINGERTIPS, I am a changed man. And the way the lightning crackles when disintegrating enemies? Magnifique!


Class I'm most unexpectedly unimpressed by: Witch Doctor. I fell in love with the witch doctor at Blizzcon some years ago for one simple reason: Flaming Skulls 'o Doom. Unfortunately, that spell is not available in the beta. While fun, the witch doctor just lacked the oomph of the other classes.

Class I'm most expectedly impressed by: Demon Hunter. Exactly as awesome as I expected.

Design decision I'm most disappointed in: Lack of level-up choices. The original Diablo had skill points, earned upon level-up, that could be assigned to the attribute(s) of your choosing. Diablo II had skill trees which were actually the inspiration for and predecessor to WoW's talent trees. Diablo III? Nuthin. No decisions or choices are made upon leveling up. Instead, you are given a fixed train of progression. You have no choice in which skills you get next, and have no ability to put points into particular abilities. Instead, you are assigned a new skill, and merely have the choice of whether or not you are going to use it.

Add on to this the fact that, in the beta, you only have two, then later three, skills that can be active at once, and there isn't a whole lot of variety in character builds. Of course, in the final game, you'll have a couple dozen skills from which you can choose six active abilities, then customize each one with a runestone. Blizzard has stated the number of possible character builds, and it's somewhere north of the number of elementary particles in the universe.

Biggest adjustment: The concept of "lagging out" of a single-player game. What do you mean I can't play by myself because I couldn't connect to the login server? Why do I need to login to a single-player game? Why do I have latency when I'm by myself?

Exhibit A for why Blizzard should just make the WoW movie themselves, as a CGI film: This trailer, unveiled at this years Blizzcon.


To wit:

Photograph or CGI rendering? Does it matter at this point?

Approximate number of hours I will lose to Diablo III, upon release: 65,536

8/979 Postiversary!

So I haven't quite written another 500 posts in the last four years. So sue me. But while we're celebrating this blog's 8th anniversary and 979th post, why don't we look at some of the best articles of the last four years?

Top 10h posts, Nov. 21 2007 – Nov. 20 2011

10. Belland Family, Inc. Announces First Expansion to Popular "Family Life" Simulator
F. "The Banalization of Sexuality"
E. Play Like a Pirate Day
D. Babby Vs. Death Star
C. Infrequently User Units of Measurement
B. Catechebulary
A. The RESPONSIBILITY of Self Defense (had to get one from Tom in there)
9. Hey! It's that Guy!
8. Once, While in a Late Night Fog
7. The Nine Most Important Words Ever Spoken
6. Beate Joannes Paulus Magnus, Ora Pro Nobis!
5. Happy Monday
4. Quaestiones
3. Offering of Indulgences: An Operations Research Approach
2. The Six-Toed Wonder
1. A Very Different Raid Night

(Others I liked that didn't make the top 10h: Magic Jacket, F.U. News Mailbag, March 18th, 2008, The Simple Emperor's Daybook, FLASH: A Woman is Pregnant!, A Moral Quandry, First Pictures of the Little One, Along the Lines of "Me on the Dating Scene", A Handy Comparison, Blizzard Story-Writing Cheat Sheet, It's Just Too Easy, Shopping for a Delli Sandwich, Cosplay Twenty-Ten, Goodnight, Sleep Tight, Don't Let Order Sixty-Six Bite, Blogging in the Olden Days, Living History)

So, four more years, and I'm still around. It's interesting to see how much my life has changed since then, let alone since I started this blog. I wonder how it will change in four more. To think that Damien will just be starting first grade....

Two Oxford Professors Go for a Walk in the Woods...

Brought to you by Kevin O'Brien, who you may know better as Stanford Nutting.

(H/T Why I am Catholic)

What We're Watching

So with the cancellation of V, Stargate Universe, and Heroes within the last few years, and with 24 ending its run, The Murloc and I were concerned we weren't going to have any TV to watch in the evenings, after the chil'uns had gone to bed. We were basically down to Castle, Futurama (only in the summer), and Mythbusters.

Well, the Powers That Be seemed to have decided that this could not stand, and have bestowed upon us lesser mortals more TV fare than we can reasonably consume each week. So here's a breakdown of what we're watching, so you can look down your noses at we who watch too much TV.

Sundays:
The Walking Dead, AMC: Everyone got in to this during the first season last year, and I wanted to give it a shot, but didn't. Finally, after everyone started raving about the second season premiere last month, The Murloc and I decided to add it to the list. After watching the first season on Netflix in two days (it was only six episodes), we got into this one. It's a pretty good take on the forthcoming Zombie Apocalypse, based on a graphic novel. Oh, and apparently, it's very violent. I couldn't tell you, because at some point between murdering hordes of infected with a chainsaw in Left 4 Dead 2, such that I could only see the entrails dribbling from the piles of bodies through the only little splotch on my screen that wasn't covered in blood, and causing the limbs and heads to explode off enemies with a well placed crit in Fallout 3, I became completely desensitized to violence.

Also, I have a theory that when the Zombie Apocalypse actually does happen, it will be stopped almost immediately because we'll all know what to do.

Once Upon A Time, ABC: The Evil Queen casts a curse on Snow White and Prince Charming, and everyone else in the kingdom, erasing their memories and condemning them to never find true happiness by trapping them in a small town in... Maine. No description can do it justice, and it's probably the most imaginative thing on TV in years, brought to you by the writers of Lost. The story revolves around Snow White and Prince Charming's grandson, now adopted by the Evil Queen (who is mayor of the town), who seeks out his mother, who escaped the curse, to bring her back to help break the curse. This is one of three shows that I can't wait for each week.

Mondays:
Terra Nova, Fox: In 2149, the Earth lies in the midst of environmental collapse, but a portal to 85 million BC has opened up to allow humanity to escape to an earlier time—with dinosaurs! This show had me hooked within the first few minutes, but that may just be because I'm a sucker for plots that involve dystopian future societies that limit family size. This show has an interesting premise—with dinosaurs!—and likable characters (including one played by the actor of the best character from blue-people Avatar), which are the two most important things for me in a show, which is good, because it's off to a rocky start—with dinorsaurs! The episodes so far have been a mix between forehead-slapping stupidity and genuine intrigue, much like Star Trek: Voyager, of which it reminds me—but with dinosaurs!—and with which it shares some writers. We'll see how this one goes.

Catholicism, PBS: The four episodes that were to air on public television aired here in October, and were every bit as good as I suspected. Fr. Barron just has a way of explaining the faith in an accessible, intellectual, and moving way. Right now, I'm just waiting for the remaining six episodes to air on EWTN.

Castle, ABC: The best show on TV three years running and vehicle for Nathan Fillion's awesomeness, returns for a much-deserved fourth season. Season three ended with Rick Castle professing his love to Kate Beckett as she lied bleeding from a gunshot wound. Upon recovery, she claims not to have remembered, but we know better. Come for the Firefly references, stay for the great mysteries and crime drama.

Tuesdays:
Last Man Standing, ABC: Why am I watching Tim Allen's new sit-com, which is functionally identical to Home Improvement, but he has three daughters instead of three sons? Shut up, that's why.

Wednesdays:
Mythbusters, Discovery: Stuff blows up. 'Nuff said.

Penn & Teller Tell a Lie, Discovery: Quite clever show, where Penn makes seven amazing claims, of which six are true and one is an utter fabrication. The magic/comedy duo is humorous, and interesting.

Thursdays:
Person of Interest, CBS: A genius computer programmer designs a computer system for the government that monitors everything (surveillance cameras, conversations, phone calls, emails, etc.) looking for terrorist activity. It sees all crimes, but only reports the big stuff, so the designer puts a back door into the system that feeds him the social security number of people the machine thinks will be involved in murder, either as victim or perpetrator. He recruits ex-special-forces operative Jim Caviezel, whom you may remember as Jesus Christ, to assist him. Developed by J.J. Abrams (Alias, Lost, Fringe, Star Trek (2009)) and Jonathan Nolan (Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight), filled to the brim with intrigue and action, this is easily in the top three things on TV this season.

Fridays:
Grimm, NBC: The second fairy tale-based series in prime time, this one focuses on a detective who is a living relative of The Brothers Grimm, who, as it turns out, wrote about true stories. The detective must "hunt the bad ones", i.e., the villains from the fairy tales. Created by David Greenwalt, who worked with Joss on Buffy and Angel, this one hasn't quite captured my attention like Once Upon a Time. However, I'm willing to give it a try to see where it goes.

Saturdays:
Used for catching up on the rest of the week.

We also find ourselves leaving the TV on Disney channel alot for Damien, so are watching a lot of shows there, the best ones being Phineas and Ferb, and Good Luck Charlie.

All Saints Day

Happy Halloween!

Statistics Quiz

If you randomly choose an answer to this question from the options provided, what is the chance that you'll choose the correct answer?
A) 25%
B) 50%
C) 0%
D) 25%

(H/T Shamus Young)

More Totally Looks Like

Science Discovers Cure for Too Many Brain Cells

I'll just go ahead and leave this here.




Special guest brain cell killing by Barats and Bereta.

The Damien-English Dictionary

The complete vocabulary

• Mama – Mommy (also used to identify an iPhone)
• Dada – Daddy/Donald
• Dadeye – Strawberry
• Nana – Banana
• Appo – Apple
• Ba-ba – Bottle
• Deedy – Mickey/Teddy
• Neeny/Ninny – Minnie
• Bubo – Pluto
• Doody – Goofy
• Daisy – Daisy Duck
• Pete – Pete the Cat
• Ohtoo – Toodles (Oh Toodles!)
• Adda/Addeye – Anthony
• Beeby – Baby (used interchangeably with Anthony for any baby/doll-like object)
• C-A-T Cat – Cat
• Mow/Mowf – Mouse
• Esseh – Elephant
• Giwah – Giraffe
• Bee – Bear
• Meow, Woof, Moo, Baa-a-a, Neigh, Oink, Qua (quack), Do-do-dooo (Cocka-doodle-doo), Twee (tweet, squeak), Roar, Gwah (growl), Ribbit, Hoot, Oo-ah-ah (howler monkey) – Various animal noises
• Ohwy – (Oh Really?) Snowy Owl sound
• Yahwy – (Ya Really!) Horned Owl sound
• Dadum, dadum, dadum, dadum – Shark noises
• Voom voom – Car sound effect
• Choo choo – Train sound effect
• Dwuh – Truck (no F-bombs from our little one)
• Uh-oh, Oh no! – Various exclamations (usually said with hands on side of head or on cheeks)
• Night-night! – Goodnight
• Hi – Hello
• Bye – Goodbye
• Aww – What he says when leaning in for a hug
• Yay! (clapping) – Used after a song
• Wuh, Two, Twee, Fo, Fi, Si, Sehseh, Ay, Ni, Ten, Lehveh, Twev, Tootee, Fotee, Fitee, Sitee, Sehtee, Aytee, Nitee, Twehtee! – Numbers
• Weh, Ownh (nasally grunt at the end), Yewo, Gwee, Boo, Popo, Bwa, Why – Colors
• Whasa? – What's that?
• Hussssssssss – The old woman whispering "hush"
• Up, UP, UP! – Where the Snort takes the Baby Bird
• Boo (short oo) – Book
• Boo! (long oo) – Boo!
• Deedoo! – Peekaboo!
• Yoda, Ahtoo – Star Wars characters
• Bah – Ball
• Bwah – Block
• Soosoo – Circle
• Suhsuhsuh – Cylinder
• Cue – Cube
• Twiah – Triangle
• Eye, No, Mouf, Ee (ear), Heh (head/hair), Chee (cheek), Teef, Knee, Foo, Toe – Body parts
• Fafa, suh, *kiss* – The Sign of the Cross, kissing the Rosary at the end

Further bulletins as events warrant.

QFT

"If you're going to come here and get our food, bedding and clothing, have books and medical supplies for no charge, they need to give back. There's a lot of takers here and they feel entitled." [Emphasis added.]

--Lauren Digioia, member of the OWS Sanitation Comittee, on the vagrants in Zuccotti Park, quoted in the NY Daily News.

(H/T Mike Flynn)

The Art of Non-Argument: How to Debate without Debating

There is a strand of argumentation that I have been seeing very frequently of late, and it is one of which I have become increasingly weary, and would love nothing more than if the entire world just agreed to drop the whole thing for the good of mankind. Rightly speaking, it isn't really even an argument, but rather a non-argument. It is an attempt to do away with argument, stop it cold in its tracks, so that the conversation can't continue.

This non-argument is seen in many different conversations and is stated in many different ways. It comes up in conversations about law, about justice, and about public morality. Its specifics vary from time to time, but it almost always starts with the following statement: "that may be your personal opinion, but...."

In effect this non-argument does not insist that the opposing view is wrong, but rather that the opposing view is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how reasonable, how rational, or how true the opposing view is. All that matters is that the opposing view has no place interfering with the outside world. It is not an attempt to refute the view, or show where the one proposing it has erred. It is a trump card, designed not to engage in debate, but rather to avoid debate altogether. Playing this trump card is simply an attempt to prevent the logic and reason of others from having influence on one's own thought.

And I can easily see why one might be tempted to make this non-argument. As we have seen from the ladder of inference, the premises we take to a conversation—true or false—are personal and based on our experiences. Another person, with another set of experiences, may approach the conversation with a different premise. Since no amount of rational argument or reasonable deduction will convince another person that his experiences did not happen, it is in most cases impossible to change the opinion of the other person. And since the premises—and experiences upon which they are based—are not only not the topic of the conversation, but most frequently are not even brought up, we most often don't even know why we disagree on the topic. The rude person assumes the other person has a defective brain, and calls him stupid or his views irrational. The charitable person, trying to understand how a seemingly intelligent and reasonable person may have arrived at such an unintelligent and unreasonable conclusion, may be tempted to simply invoke the non-argument. That is, "well, the person may have reasons for his belief, but since they are not my reasons, they don't affect me." Hence, the "that may be your personal belief...."

What irks me most about the non-argument, is that, in its attempt to defuse the disagreement charitably, it doesn't seem to have thought itself through very well. For, truly, aren't all our beliefs personal? If one person's argument is not admissible because it's his personal belief, why not any other's? Shouldn't we adopt the post permissible moral code possible? "Well, yes," reply the non-arguers. "To each his own." But then, does that not allow for all sorts of atrocities, from murder, rape, and torture to shoplifting, petty theft and everything in between? "No of course not! You mustn't harm another person!" But... isn't this your personal belief? And since the definition of "person" is one of the very things the non-argument is often used to obfuscate, why should we use your personal definition of personhood over any other? Taking it further, isn't it only your personal belief that personal beliefs should not be forced on others? In its attempt to marginalize the other person's argument, the non-argument marginalizes itself.

The non-argument attempts to reduce law, justice, and morality to the realm of the subjective, such that preference for one morality over another is simply like a preference for chocolate over vanilla. The problem is, I've never met someone who actually treats morality as if its not objective. Those who make the assertion that morality is always a private matter are the ones who are most indignant and most self-righteous at perceived injustices against themselves or others. If all morality is a private matter, subject to personal opinion, then there can be nothing inherently immoral about injustice. On what ground do you protest someone who commits an injustice against another? It may be your personal opinion that his actions are immoral, but who are you to enforce your personal opinions on others?

Of course, I'm being a little unfair here by grouping everyone who makes the non-argument into a group with those who deny objective morality. Many who non-argue are not opposed to the concept of a universal moral law, but rather, simply misunderstand the opposing view. The non-arguer may not understand the reasons behind his opponent's views, and just simply infer that it's for some mysterious unknowable reason. "You only say that because you think the Bible tells you to." But this, again, is a non-argument, because it doesn't address the actual reasons behind the view, just the inferred reasons. It ignores the appeals to natural law and objective truth, and instead simply attacks a strawman.

Despite these obvious (to me) problems with the non-argument, I continue to see it used whenever someone doesn't want to admit a view contrary to their own into the debate. Whenever someone takes a stand for traditional marriage, the non-argument will be made "that's just your personal opinion about marriage! You can't force that on others!" Whenever someone says that it is an injustice to deny the unborn their rights, someone else will non-argue "but that's merely your opinion on personhood! You can't deny a woman her right to choose!" Whenever someone explains the moral difficulties of euthanasia, the non-argument appears, "keep your morality off my body!" In none of the cases is the non-arguer actually making a case about the nature of marriage, the rights of the human person, or the dignity of human life. All he is saying is that all such arguments are irrelevant.

World of Warcraft: Attack of the Pandas

Following on the heels of their success with 2004's hit World of Warcraft, Blizzard Entertainment upped the stakes. For their 2007 expansion The Burning Crusade, they introduced the corrupted demon-hunter Illidan Stormrage, Lord of the Black Temple.

You are not prepared!

To up the ante even further, for 2008's Wrath of the Lich King, the brought out the Lich King, Arthas, ruler of the Scourge: a race of undead monstrosities, who terrorize the people of Azeroth.

His frozen heart lies beneath the tundra of Northrend.

And building upon that, 2010's Cataclysm introduced Deathwing to the world, a dragon aspect consumed with hatred for all that lives, and whose explosive release unleashed a wave of destructive force across all the world.

The world shall burn.

So what can Blizzard possibly introduce to top this incredible lineup of menacing villains? What is the next horror the denizens of Azeroth face?

Giant Pandas!

Their superpower is the Power of Love.

Hateful Kitty

Kathleen De Vere, of my favorite Commodore 64-based Canadian sketch comedy group "Loading Ready Run", has seen fit to draw an entry to her webcomic "Things My Cat Hates" based on a suggestion I sent her.

You should go check it out by clicking here.

Or here.

Or here, if you like to wait until the last minute, but that will be your last chance.

Of course, Kathleen, herself, had one of her tweets used in an Old Spice internet response ad last year. For those keeping track, this gives me an Old Spice Man Your Man Could Smell Like index of two.

(OK, I lied. This is really your last chance. For reals.)

Premises, Premises

So, I've had the idea for this post for a while, but haven't been able to put it in words. I had planned writing a long, rambling, boring post, but I realized it could probably be said better shorter.

Also, it helps that SF author, statistician, amateur philosopher and historian, and all around Cool Guy Michael Flynn has done the bulk of the work for me. Recently, he wrote a piece on the "ladder of inference". You should go read it. No, seriously. Go. I'll wait.

All done? To summarize for those too lazy to read, the ladder of inference is basically the process we mentally apply whenever presented with facts. It goes like this:

1. I observe objectively.
2. I select data from what I observer.
3. I add meaning to what I have selected.
4. I make assumptions based on the meaning I have added.
5. I draw conclusions, which prompt feelings.
6. I adopt beliefs about the world.
7. I take action based on my beliefs and feelings.

Now, there is a loop, called the Reflexive Loop from step 6 to step 2: our beliefs influence what data we select from our observations. This is why two people can be presented with the same set of data and draw completely different conclusions about it. Based on their beliefs, developed from previous experiences, people will notice different things, infer different meanings, and make different assumptions from the same things.

For our purposes, I will refer to these beliefs that influence our observations and actions as "premises". These are not, of course, philosophical premises in the sense of "first principles", since they are based on prior experiences. But, for a given situation, they are the things we assume are a given, and not topics for discussion.

Now, the problem is people tend to assume that their experiences are universal, and internalize their premises to such a point that they assume everyone else shares them. So when two people observe the same data, and come to different conclusions, if they've climbed too high, too fast, on the ladder of inference, they'll be completely at a loss to understand how the other person came to another conclusion.

This is why arguing on the internet is, for the most part, completely futile. Every time you see two people going at it in comboxes, each one talking past the other, it's typically because one (or both) have climbed too high on the ladder. Each one assumes his premises to be true, based on experiences he assumes are universal. And since the premises are usually not the things being discussed, the "conversation" continues apace, with neither party actually hearing or addressing the points made by the other.

Every time you come across a pro-life person lamenting how much pro-choice people hate babies, while the pro-choice person bemoans that pro-lifers hate women, it's because of the ladder. When you see a same-sex marriage advocate calling a traditional marriage advocate a homophobe, while the latter insists that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman and why-oh-why can't the homosexuals understand this, it's the ladder. And when you see an atheist call all religion irrational while the theist is calling atheists blind, it's the ladder. None of the parties are acknowledging that the other person may have a different starting point for his beliefs because of his different life experiences.

(Note: I'm not saying that neither person is correct, or that both views are true; I'm just saying that someone's reasons for holding a belief are, in the vast majority of circumstances, rational and well-intentioned, no matter how wrong it might be.)

So it's a particularly treasured moment when someone reveals in plain language, right off the gate, what his premises are. It allows one to see why, exactly, that person holds the beliefs that he holds,

This is all a very, very roundabout way of introducing the topic of a document released by the International Planned Parenthood Federation called "Exclaim!: Young People's Guide to 'Sexual Rights'". An old college buddy of mine linked to it on the blog of his psychotherapy practice as an example of the "philosophy and social conditioning that the youth of today experience in our culture."

I found it fascinating because it puts the premises of the the sexually promiscuous culture right out front, plain to see. For instance:

Other newly-discovered rights: the pleasure of eating irrespective of desires for nourishment; the right to breathe without respiration; and the freedom to jump off cliffs without falling.

Simply put, it is a premise of the culture of death that everyone has a right to sex without babies. From here, it is easy to see how you end up with the right to abortion. If you have a right to actions without consequences, when the consequences occur, they are interfering with your rights. It's also easy to see why they think that pro-lifers are "denying a woman her rights".

This is important, because any pro-life argument that fails to address this mentality is doomed to failure. Any argument that starts with the humanity of the unborn is a futile argument. What a fetus is does not matter to a woman's right to "sexual freedom". If stealing candy from African AIDS orphans was necessary for sexual freedom, that would be justified by this premise.

This explains the cognitive dissonance exhibited in other places in the document. For instance, on page 8, IPPF defines all human rights, as universal, inalienable, indivisible, interrelated and interdependent, and impose obligations, then goes on to define inalienable:

INALIENABLE: Everyone is entitled to human rights simply for being human [NB: "for being human". Not "person". This undercuts the "the fetus isn't a person" objection]. Human rights cannot be taken away or given up from anyone, irrespective of their age [So... a 10-week gestational human being cannot have its rights taken away?], gender, ethnicity, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, disability, HIV status or health status.

Then, on page 19, while listing human rights, they state:

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and to be free from harm."

There are, of course, implications to these two statements. But the ladder of inference can prevent someone from seeing them.

Ever Get the Feeling that You're Being Watched?

Is This the Line for the Apple Store?

I don't normally recommend the webcomic Least I Could Do, but when I do, it's freaking hilarious.

The "Occupy Wall Street" protests bring three things to my mind:

1. Why should I care if my neighbor makes a million times more money than I do? Anytime I see some statistic like "the discrepancy between rich and poor is the greatest it's ever been in history" or "the wealthiest 400 Americans have as much money as the poorest 150 million," my reaction is "so?" This is nothing more than a red herring. If the poor have the necessities they need to survive, then it doesn't matter how much money the rich have. If the poor don't have the necessities they need to survive, then it doesn't matter how much money the rich have.
2. The anger and rage seems to be aimed at "bankers" and "Wall Street". If the protesters could name names and deeds of people who have committed crimes, they may have a point. But to blame "Wall Street" or "bankers" seems to blame a class, rather than a person. You might as well just blame the Jews.
3. "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, his male or female slave, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." (Ex. 20:17)

Also, this was interesting, for those who haven't seen it:

Chesterton Quote of the Day/Week/Month

For you mothers.


Supposing it to be conceded that humanity has acted at least not unnaturally in dividing itself into two halves, respectively typifying the ideals of special talent and of general sanity (since they are genuinely difficult to combine completely in one mind), it is not difficult to see why the line of cleavage has followed the line of sex, or why the female became the emblem of the universal and the male of the special and superior. Two gigantic facts of nature fixed it thus: first, that the woman who frequently fulfilled her functions literally could not be specially prominent in experiment and adventure; and second, that the same natural operation surrounded her with very young children, who require to be taught not so much anything as everything. Babies need not to be taught a trade, but to be introduced to a world. To put the matter shortly, woman is generally shut up in a house with a human being at the time when he asks all the questions that there are, and some that there aren't. It would be odd if she retained any of the narrowness of a specialist. Now if anyone says that this duty of general enlightenment (even when freed from modern rules and hours, and exercised more spontaneously by a more protected person) is in itself too exacting and oppressive, I can understand the view. I can only answer that our race has thought it worth while to cast this burden on women in order to keep common-sense in the world. But when people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they mean. When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.


--G.K. Chesterton, What's Wrong with he World, Part 3 "Feminism, or the Mistake about Woman", III "The Emancipation of Domesticity".

Some Much Needed Perspective

Ok, let's get something straight. I've seen a risible idea circulating lately and I cannot let it stand, so I have come to set the record straight.

You ready?

Steve Jobs Did Not Change The World.

Blasphemy! I hear you say.

But get over it. He did no such thing.

To prove my point, here's a list of 11 things that Changed the World:

1. Christianity
2. Islam
3. The Roman Empire
4. Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy
5. The scientific world view (that material causes can explain empirical observations without invoking supernatural causes, not that everything can be explained scientifically, I mean).
6. The Protestant Revolt
7. The Enlightenment
8. The steam engine
9. The industrial revolution
10. The automobile
11. Electrification

Here are 5 things that have not changed the world, but have made life slightly more convenient for those living in the first world:

1. The graphical user interface
2. The portable MP3 player
3. The online music store
4. The smartphone
5. The tablet PC

The personal computer probably has changed the world (although since it's less than 50 years old, it's hard to say how much those changes will matter in 1000 years), but Steve Jobs did not invent it. Speaking of which, here is a list of 5 things Steve Jobs did not invent:

1. The graphical user interface
2. The portable MP3 player
3. The online music store
4. The smartphone
5. The tablet PC

Nope. Nuh-uh. Not a one. What he did is best summarized in this Basic Instructions: Steve Jobs is the kid who copies off your test, then gets a better grade than you.

What Steve Jobs did is shape the development of one world-changing device, and several minor conveniences. All would have developed without him. They might not have developed in the same way. Some ideas may not have been implemented, or taken longer to refine. Maybe the wouldn't have caught on and been as widespread, But they'd still all be there. 

If Steve Jobs never existed, you would still own a personal computer. You'd still be reading my writing on your color rasterizationator through the intertubes. E-Commerce would still exist. You could still listen to music you purchased online on your portable MP3 player. You could check email on your phone. You might do it all differently; you might not do any of it at all, but you still could do it all.

Contrast this with Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. As Mike Flynn points out, without them, there may never have been a scientific revolution. Universities may not have put such an emphasis on natural philosophy. Middle Ages and Renaissance scientists may never have said "what if" and asked how the world worked. Copernicus, Brahe, and Kepler may never have seen a need to update Ptolemy (it worked; why fix it?). No science, no industrial revolution, no modern life. To be sure, those things may have come, but it may have been centuries later. We might be living in the technological equivalent of the 17^th century.

Introducing a fundamental change to the way people view the world, whose echoes still shape thought 2000 years later. That's changing the world. Not making a device that allows rich people to listen to music on the go.

Photodump

Totally Looks Like

Anthony totally looks like Perry the Platypus.

Damien totally looks like Anthony

Therefore, Damien totally looks like Perry the Platypus

Come to think of it, why has no one ever been able to take a picture of both Damien and Anthony at the same time?

There we go.

On the Occasion of the Resident Toddler's Second Birthday.

This is inaccurate. Two weeks later, the pediatrician measured him at 37".

According to the Baby Center Height Predictor, this puts him within 2.1" of 6'4" at age eighteen, with 90% confidence.

Chief Engineer Smiles O'Brien, Reporting for Duty.

Polite Babbies Always Drink their Milk with Pinky Fingers Extended.

All I Ask Is a Carrot to Ride and a Cake Wreck to Steer Her By.

A reference to the infamous "Carrot Jockey" cake wreck.

Catholicism on Public Television

Father Robert Barron's Catholicism will be airing on PBS stations nationwide, as well as on EWTN. You will want to catch this one. It's inspired by Kenneth Clark's Civilisation and looks to be amazing. You can find out more (and watch clips from it) here.

You can also find out air dates for your area here.

For those of us in LA/Orange Counties, episodes 1, 3, 4, and 5 will be on KLCS (channel 58) Mondays at 9pm, starting October 3rd. KVCR (channel 24) will air it Tuesdays at 8pm, starting on the 11th. Those in Lake Elsinore, I assume, can get KVCR (Riverside/San Bernardino).

If those in Bakersfield can get Fresno stations, KVPT will air all four PBS episodes on October 23rd starting at 11am.

In the Tampa area, you can catch it on WEDU on Wednesdays at 11pm, starting October 5th.

In Chicago (Fr. Barron's home diocese), it will be on WTTW Thursdays at 8pm starting October 13th, with encores the following Sundays at 4pm.

In South Bend (I think I have readers there?) it will be on WNIT Thursdays, October 13th and 20th, from 9-11pm.

If those in the DC area weren't so busy trying to raise well-adjusted children, and still had access to on-air television, they could have watched the first episode on Maryland PTV this past Thursday at 8pm, and the second this coming Thursday, the 29th, at the same time.

If I missed anyone, check here for your market.

The remaining episodes (2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) will air on EWTN on November 16th-19th, repeatedly.

And if you can't catch it on TV, potentially because you're lame or because you live in a stone-age commune and don't have TV, you can buy the DVD box set for a kingly sum of $150 (I know what's going on my Birthday/Christmas list this year!). Or you can wait for your parish to host a showing, unless you go to some hippie new-age parish.

There's also a book to go along with it. Again, you will not want to miss this.

How to Make a Kia Commercial

(With apologies to Shamus Young)

How To: Install an App from the Apple App Store™ to your iPhone

The great thing about Apple products is how easy they are to use. This is no less true of the iPhone. Installing apps on Android is so hard, what with the choice of vendors. Do I want to buy something from the Android Marketplace or the Amazon App Store? So many decisions. It just makes the process so complex.

Well, Apple doesn't have that problem. In fact, they make it so easy to download and install a (free) app. How easy, you ask? Well, it's so easy I can explain it in 82 simple steps.

Step 1: Locate the app you wish to download on the App Store™. To do this, enter the app name in the "search" tab of the App Store™.

When that doesn't find it, as it probably won't, try every conceivable spelling of the app you want. Try boolean search operators. Then finally give up and pray that the app is easy to find in the Top 25 or in Categories.

Step 2: Tap the "Install" button and enter your Apple ID account password. 

Note that this guide assumes you've already created an iTunes account and linked it to your iPhone. If you have not, you will need to read the 453 page manual on how to accomplish that.

Step 3: If it has been a week or more since your last download from the App Store, Apple will have locked your account "for security reasons". This is because they assume that if you don't purchase something from them at least once a week, something is Wrong with you. Tap "Reset" to reset your account.

Step 4: You will be taken to "iForgot" which assumes you are a stupid idiot who has forgotten his password. Enter your Apple ID to unlock your account, then tap "Next".

Step 5: You may either unlock your account by email or by answering your security question. For this example, we will answer the security question.

Step 6: Verify your birth date.

Step 7: Answer your secret question.

Step 8: You may now unlock your Apple ID.

Editor's note: since these screenshots were taken, Apple has removed the "Unlock your Apple ID" option. You must now reset your password to unlock your account. You may not set the password to one you have used within the last year.

Step 9: To unlock your account, re-enter your Apple ID account password, then tap "sign in".

Step 10: Congratulations! Your account has been unlocked!

Step 11: Repeat steps 1 and 2. Re-enter your Apple ID account password.

Step 12: Before proceeding, you will need to verify your payment info. This step is necessary even to download free apps.

Step 13: Re-enter your Apple ID account password.

Step 14: Confirm your credit card information. Tap "Done" when finished.

Step 15: Repeat steps 1 and 2. Re-enter your Apple ID account password.

Step 16: It is likely that the iTunes terms and conditions have changed. Apple changes them about every month. You will need to agree to the new terms to continue.

Steps 17-78: Read the 62-page Terms and Conditions and Apple Privacy Policy, in their entirety, on the screen of your phone. We'll wait.

Be sure not to skim or skip, because it would be a lie to say you've read and agree to the terms when you haven't. Apple doesn't want you to lie.

Step 79: Tap "Agree", then tap "Agree" again. Remember: no lying.

Step 80: Thank you for accepting the terms. Please try your purchase (of a free app) again.

Step 81: Repeat steps 1 and 2. Re-enter your Apple ID account password.

Step 82: Congratulations! You're done! The app will now begin to download. Please make sure to connect to a WiFi network for faster download, or suffer the fickle and arbitrary AT&T 3G network. Also, be sure to tap the screen at least once per minute, otherwise the device will enter standby mode and the download will be interrupted.

See how easy that was?