The Attorney General, as head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government, represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. The Attorney General appears in person to represent the Government before the U.S. Supreme Court in cases of exceptional gravity or importance.
And this is the guy who had the boobies covered up in the Capitol rotunda while he addresses the press? How bout he censors those pipes of his instead? I'm wondering when my seizure will start. Someone keep me from biting my tongue off.
While my ovaries aren't petrified, I don't ovulate, and therefore, no genetic spawn.
So I won't have any widgets exactly like me (though I'm SO COOL!!)... but I will raise kids one day, and I /so/ don't want them to "rebel" to the right. :)
It's a good thing he was singing that at a seminary. If he started singing that in a regular political meeting or press conference, I'd be up in arms. The message is okay but "Only God, no other King?" Give me a freakin' break.
He didn't mean it in a political sense. He means it in a spiritual sense. What about Allah? What about Buddha? I just think it's a bit inconsiderate for one of America's political leaders to insert the phrase "Only God, No Other King" in a song that he shares while serving in his official capacity. On his own time? Write it! Sing it! Take it to church with you! But he wouldn't have been speaking at that seminary if he wasn't the Attorney General, and I think it's a bit non-inclusive to suggest that "Only God" is appropriate for an American society.
Officially, the government doesn't define that God. I didn't hear him excluding Allah, or Zoroaster, or Cthulhu. I found the song horribly Masonic, personally. It didn't strike me as particularly Christian. Us Presbortholicostals would be pleased as punch if he'd just come on out and say "JESUS!," especially considering that he was at a blatantly evangelical seminary.
I bet there's not a few students who were there at that graduation from BOTH extremes (that is, yours and mine) who were a little peeved.
I'm ashamed to admit this, but I actually liked John Ashcroft (poor guy...as an INCUMBENT he LOST to a guy who'd been dead for several weeks!!), and Gordon-Conwell was one of the seminaries I considered attending.
Now I've lost all respect for both.
Ugh...nothing ticks me off like religious songs disguised as patriotic anthems. I don't think God really gives a rip about this country. I really don't. People, yes. Countries? I don't think so. If he did, I think he'd be running for President.
And why is it that fundamentalists seem to think that if you can't sing, vibrato will cover over a multitude of sins?
My logic professor was fond of telling us that he could solve the problem of the weatherman being so often wrong by giving a report that would ALWAYS be correct. "It is either raining, or it is not raining," he would say.
Example : "It will rain today, and there will also be rain during some part of the day." [both of the clauses express the same idea, within the understanding of natural language.]
In logic tautology usually means you have postulated the conclusion you are trying to get. Your example is different, because the two parts are understood as being contradictory -- the "error" is due to them being NOT the same. So you have what I might loosely call an all-inclusive statement, A + not-A, which tells us "nothing." (Or rather it tells us that rain exists, that a universe exists, even that a person capable of generating propositions exists, but nothing about rain in that universe, nor if it will rain today.)
So while it's "true" that the answer to a yes/no question will be "either yes or no," most people don't find such an answer particularly helpful. It's a well-formed statement (synthetic truth) that can't be used to determine any analytic truths.
End philosophical English major moment.
And I just narrowly avoided an ubergeek moment where I stated the information theory equation by which a prediction of an event least likely to happen contains the "most" information and is the most "interesting."
Good thing I gave up on being a math prodigy when it turned out I wasn't one.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Ummmm..
Re: Ummmm..
Date: 2002-03-05 12:44 pm (UTC)The Attorney General, as head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government, represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. The Attorney General appears in person to represent the Government before the U.S. Supreme Court in cases of exceptional gravity or importance.
That would be John Ashcroft.
*BUH-LINKS!*
Date: 2002-03-05 12:45 pm (UTC)That John Ashcroft.
Now I'm going to have nightmares.
Re: Ummmm..
Date: 2002-03-05 12:58 pm (UTC)ickynastyAttorney General.no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 12:48 pm (UTC)My.
Goddess.
And this is the guy who had the boobies covered up in the Capitol rotunda while he addresses the press? How bout he censors those pipes of his instead? I'm wondering when my seizure will start. Someone keep me from biting my tongue off.
no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 12:49 pm (UTC)please...
Date: 2002-03-05 12:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 12:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 01:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 02:18 pm (UTC)could it be... Satan?
no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 02:41 pm (UTC)But she's still a demon.
no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 01:12 pm (UTC)Last three paragraphs in this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,661458,00.html
no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 01:19 pm (UTC)My golly!
no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 02:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 01:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 02:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 02:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 02:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 07:01 pm (UTC)EEK!
no subject
Date: 2002-03-06 06:45 am (UTC)*smile*
Date: 2002-03-06 06:54 am (UTC)So I won't have any widgets exactly like me (though I'm SO COOL!!)... but I will raise kids one day, and I /so/ don't want them to "rebel" to the right. :)
no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 01:46 pm (UTC);-)
no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 02:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 01:54 pm (UTC)http://www.ripebastard.com/fluffykittens.jpg (http://www.ripebastard.com/fluffykittens.jpg)
no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 03:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 02:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 03:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 03:36 pm (UTC)We don't have a monarchy.
no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 06:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 09:07 pm (UTC)I bet there's not a few students who were there at that graduation from BOTH extremes (that is, yours and mine) who were a little peeved.
no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 03:49 pm (UTC)Now I've lost all respect for both.
Ugh...nothing ticks me off like religious songs disguised as patriotic anthems. I don't think God really gives a rip about this country. I really don't. People, yes. Countries? I don't think so. If he did, I think he'd be running for President.
And why is it that fundamentalists seem to think that if you can't sing, vibrato will cover over a multitude of sins?
no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 07:02 pm (UTC)Which is simply not true.
no subject
Date: 2002-03-05 09:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-06 05:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-06 07:54 am (UTC)I feel really bad about that. I forgot completely about it until 9:30 PST, at which point I assumed you'd be fast asleep.
Your phone number is burning a hole in my pocket.
(I hope it burns through to the OUTside!) :/
no subject
Date: 2002-03-06 08:03 am (UTC)(Actually, I crashed and burned at 11pm EST, so you did the right thing!)
Tonight is another night, you know. ;)
no subject
Date: 2002-03-06 08:14 am (UTC)Tautologies are so interesting.
My logic professor was fond of telling us that he could solve the problem of the weatherman being so often wrong by giving a report that would ALWAYS be correct. "It is either raining, or it is not raining," he would say.
Tautologies are interesting, but uninformative.
no subject
Date: 2002-03-06 08:59 am (UTC)"You are either crazy, or not crazy."
Hee.
no subject
Date: 2002-03-06 11:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-06 09:28 am (UTC)Example : "It will rain today, and there will also be rain during some part of the day."
[both of the clauses express the same idea, within the understanding of natural language.]
In logic tautology usually means you have postulated the conclusion you are trying to get. Your example is different, because the two parts are understood as being contradictory -- the "error" is due to them being NOT the same. So you have what I might loosely call an all-inclusive statement, A + not-A, which tells us "nothing." (Or rather it tells us that rain exists, that a universe exists, even that a person capable of generating propositions exists, but nothing about rain in that universe, nor if it will rain today.)
So while it's "true" that the answer to a yes/no question will be "either yes or no," most people don't find such an answer particularly helpful. It's a well-formed statement (synthetic truth) that can't be used to determine any analytic truths.
End philosophical English major moment.
And I just narrowly avoided an ubergeek moment where I stated the information theory equation by which a prediction of an event least likely to happen contains the "most" information and is the most "interesting."
Good thing I gave up on being a math prodigy when it turned out I wasn't one.
no subject
Date: 2002-03-06 11:12 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-03-06 11:15 am (UTC)