What is surprising is the latest Gallup generic party poll.  Gallup has been performing that poll since WWII, and is now registering a 10-point Republican lead – by far the largest in history.  Historically, Republicans are under-represented in that poll, so a 1-2 point Democratic lead usually means a wash.  Even in 1994, with the Contract with America class, the lead was only 5 points.  What’s more, up until August, the distance between the two parties on the poll was fairly close, with Democrats and Republicans switching places every couple of weeks.  The entire month of August, however, has shown the Republicans with a sizable lead over Democrats, and that it’s widening.

Traditionally, political voting patterns begin to set in late August, as the primaries finish and candidates begin open campaign season.  By the end of September, voting trends are pretty much locked into place, with the ability of politicians (barring an October Surprise) to shift the electorate usually limited to just a couple of percentage points.

As such, it’s now that we look for indicators that the voting populace is breaking one way or the other for a given election cycle.  I’d say a historic lead for Republicans in the Gallup poll qualifies for just such an indicator.  With such an advantage, even Republicans that shouldn’t have a chance (running in historically Democratic districts), assuming they run a competent campaign, move into the “toss-up” category.

But the advance of technology that put Hotline in such demand also signaled it’s decline.  Now, up to the minute news from Washington can be had from dozens of websites.  Still would like a subscription to it.

Net Neutrality, at it’s most basic idea, is the idea that bits should be considered bits only – that bits shouldn’t be treated differently based on where they are from, where they are going, or what they are carrying.  Now, any techie will tell you this is unreasonable – the very underlying technology that provides for the Internet violates this (Time To Live field in IP).  And I’ve used quality of service (QoS) settings in my house to great effect, which would be verboten under such a regime.  Ditto for network protection measures.

So it’s not about treating all bits the same.  Fair enough, that was a simplification.  The real fear regarding the issues of Net Neutrality is this: some people are worried about corporations cutting deals to lock out people from the Internet and it will become a gated community (usually with political connotations).  Others are worried that the government will take control and turn the Internet into a political football and regulate away the dynamic nature of it.  Depending on which you worry about more generally determines where you end up on the divide.

There are a couple of points I’d like to make here:  First, we currently have de facto if not de jure Net Neutrality.  No service provider I’ve had blocks me from going to the many sundry and controversial parts of the web.  As such, arguments for Net Neutrality are based on a perceived threat, and not an actual one.

Second, the most likely means of Net Neutrality is through FCC oversight.  In response to a point my friend made about with government oversight, at least “we can vote the bastards out”, the members of the FCC are appointed bureaucrats and not elected.  In fact, I honestly couldn’t name any member of the FCC beyond Michael Powell, who (rather infamously) oversaw the FCC during the surge of decency complaints following Super Bowl XXXVIII.  As such, the oversight of the FCC regarding the Internet would be controlled by people appointed to the position, and reflect the political winds of the time but insulated from voter retribution.  Unless you believe your political ideology will rule from here on out, this should be a worry for you.

Third, consider the primary broadband provider in any given area – the cable provider.  Sure, DSL exists, but it’s much narrower than cable.  Cable is building on top of an infrastructure that allows it to provide TV and other services.  This combined infrastructure gives it a much larger revenue stream than just broadband.  And that revenue stream means that they are able to pursue the costs of meeting the regulatory requirements necessary to move into a given market.

Now, admittedly, my knowledge in the area of municipal telecom regulations is somewhat murky, but what I’ve read seems to backup my general belief that most corporate unseemliness is either enabled or caused by government regulation (and the manipulation thereof).  For instance, a couple of years ago, the FCC forced a relaxation in the requirements for entry into the cable market.  In ruling in favor of the FCC’s action, a US court noted, “For example, Verizon’s comments indicated that, of its 113 franchise negotiations pending as of March 2005, only ten resulted in franchise grants after one year.”  Additionally, “[C]omments submitted by service provider Qwest indicated that it withdrew franchise applications in eight different regions due to economically burdensome build-out requirements.” (See here, pages 19 and 20).

Now, this situation has me a bit conflicted.  On the one hand, as a big believer in federalism, I feel that it’s, as a general rule, proper to devolve authority to the lowest levels possible.  But at the same time, when it’s the actions of the local community that make it too burdensome to enter into the market, I hardly feel it’s right to complain about the lack of competition.

These three points lead me to the conclusion that there is not a clear and present danger to the spirit of the Internet as it’s existed, that the granting to the government of additional oversight in the way the Internet is run brings with it new and unnecessary hazards, and that the best way to preserve de facto Net Neutrality is to further ease the regulatory and bureaucratic requirements on companies wishing to enter into the market.

Starz last knockoff, Spartacus (basking in the afterglow of Rome) turned out to be a decent series despite the rocky start, but it emphasized the wrong things in Rome.  Instead of focusing on history, themes and culture, it emphasized sex and violence.

I worry about Starz taking a similar tact with The Tudors, and focusing on personality disorders and sex at the expense of history and themes.  But the cast looks to be top-notch, with Ian McShane (Lovejoy, Deadwood, Kings), Matthew Macfadyen (MI5, Pride & Prejudice), Rufus Sewell (Dark City, The Illusionist, Tristan + Isolde).  Most promising, however, is the fact it’s creating a beautiful package to present a murky and relatively overlooked period of English history known as The Anarchy.

My knowledge of English history has fits and starts until Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror, and then fades into the background until Henry II and the Plantagenet dynasty, nearly 100 years later.   Pillars of the Earth tells the story of the turbulent decades that make up that gap in knowledge.  That is historical docu-drama at it’s best – even if it takes liberties with history, it will provide context and interest to learn about that time period.  I’ll be able to put images, voices, faces to the events.  When I read about them, I’ll be able to better understand the context.

I can’t wait.  July 23rd.

He now has throat cancer.  He was well known for his fondness of cigarettes and drink, and unfortunately those vices that helped to define him now appear to have caught up to him.  I hope he’ll forgive me if I wish him godspeed in recovery.

The problem is that wasn’t the finding of any of the doctors on the panel.  It was language inserted by Elena Kagan, serving as a political adviser to Clinton.  The draft document said that the panel “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”  Kagan said that this language was politically disastrous, and had to be changed, which it subsequently was in the official statement from the ACOG.

If you have ever complained of political meddling in the affairs of science under Bush, I do not see how Elena Kagan, after these revelations, can be considered acceptable.

The argument about literal interpretations of Genesis are, in reality, a proxy argument that both sides frequently don’t see.  Those who support literal interpretations of Genesis aren’t anti-science – in fact they desperately search for scientific proof for their arguments.  If they were truly anti-science I doubt they would so trouble themselves with trying to find scientific proof for their position.

No, the problem is fundamentally a theological one.  The plain-reading of the Bible indicates that the world was formed (or at least populated) in six days, and the the genealogical of the Bible indicates that it has only been some-odd six-thousand years since the first man and woman.  The moral authority of the Bible is that it is the sanctified word of God – that it is a coherent message from God to man.  You can’t simply ignore parts of it, because at that point it looses cohesion, as people pick and choose which parts to adhere to and which parts to ignore.

Now, you can say that is already the case – no one (or at least very few) adhere to Mosaic law after all.  To which I respond, yes, but that is because of the theological framework created to rationally explain the change (a lot of the laws were rendered obsolete in the New Testament with the death of Jesus).  That is why I find it perfectly acceptable for Christianity to have abandoned the animal sacrifices of the Old Testement (pure animals are no longer needed to stand in the place of men for their sins, as Jesus has done that for all mankind), but the Episcopal Church’s ordaining of gay priests outside of any theological rational isn’t.

Which is what most secularists don’t realize about Christianity is that it is a rational religion.  It is a religion that went through the Enlightenment, and even the more fundamental aspects of it bear the imprint.

And so, going back to Genesis, the average Christian is faced with a dilemma where Creationism is concerned – do they adopt a position that supports the cohesion of the Bible, or do they abandon the Bible for scientific theories?  For many, the choice is obvious – science can and has been wrong in the past.  It is human, and therefore fundamentally open to error.  The errors simply need to be found.  Secularists argue in terms of science, and dismiss the creationists as irrational, which is flawed on both accounts – this is a theological argument, not a scientific one, and the creationists are being rational to a fault.

St. Augustine hit the problem on the head in his The Literal Meaning of Genesis.  The correct answer to the problem is not that the Bible is wrong, or even that science is necessarily wrong, but that the human interpretation of the Bible can be wrong.  Adherents of Creationism are missing the point.  As St. Augustine said, “We should remember that Scripture, even in its obscure passages, has been written to nourish our souls.”  The point of the Bible isn’t to teach us science, it’s to “nourish our souls”.

We can’t simply ignore what the Bible says, but we can take away the correct message.  The Bible was written for all of mankind, over all the ages.  It has need to appeal to a vast array of cultures and backgrounds, with all assortments of knowledge and ignorance.  Some of the most brilliant and wise men in history have been devout Christians, as have many ignorant and wretched souls.  The Bible was written to nourish all these souls, not just the intelligent or the simple.  It is truly a miracle that it can do both.  But it does mean that it needs to be comprehensible to a pauper in 4th-century Antioch, and I think it’s more reasonable to explain God’s creative majesty in the terms laid out in Genesis than attempt to explain modern evolutionary science.  After all, what is the point of the Creation story?  That God is all powerful, and He created the Earth and it’s inhabitants with much care and consideration.  Sometimes simpler is better.

In truth, this argument weakens both sides.  The Creationist blinds himself to a superior understanding of God’s word, instead descending into legalisms that make him and Christianity look foolish to the outside world.  The secularist becomes dismissive of knowledge that goes beyond what science can tell him, and ignores the wisdom that can be found from Christianity.  St. Augustine realized this, and implored both to be more humble sixteen hundred years ago.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

“In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture. “

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.”

“If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

“We should remember that Scripture, even in its obscure passages, has been written to nourish our souls.  With these facts in mind, I have worked out and presented the statements of the Book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better.  I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of under-standing, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. Where he cannot understand Holy Scripture, let him glorify God and fear for himself. “

“But since the words of Scripture that I have treated are explained in so many senses, critics full of worldly learning should restrain themselves from attacking as ignorant and uncultured these utterances that have been made to nourish all devout souls. Such critics are like wingless creatures that crawl upon the earth and, while soaring no higher than the leap of a frog, mock the birds in their nests above.”

“But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up. Turning away in disgust from the unattractive wheat field, they long for the blossoms on the thorn. For they are not free to see how sweet is the Lord, and they have no hunger on the Sabbath. And thus they are idle, though they have permission from the Lord to pluck the ears of grain and to work them in their hands and grind them and win-now them until they arrive at the nourishing kernel.”

Excerpt From:
The Literal Meaning of Genesis
St. Augustine
Circa 415 AD

Hint:  look at the women.

Nevertheless, to make the boss look like he’s in charge, his administration keeps threatening BP with thuggish language (“We will keep our boot on their neck”) and made public a criminal probe — something the Justice Department doesn’t normally do until it actually files charges.

“If we find evidence of illegal behavior, we will be extremely forceful in our response,” Attorney General Eric Holder said.

Tough guy. But look at his mild comments about the Times Square bomber on “Meet the Press,” where Holder never expressed even the mildest rebuke of the terrorist: “Well, you know, the evidence develops, and I think we have to always try to be careful to make sure that the statements that we make are consistent with the evidence that we have developed,” he said, adding that his people were going “to try to understand what is it that took him over the edge and that converted him from being a person who seemingly was an average American to somebody who was bound and determined to kill Americans.”

So when it comes to terrorists, understanding is the main goal. With corporations, it’s punishment.