Reformation Day and Halloween
Boy, I could go one of two ways with a post on a day such as this. In fact, I think I'll just cover both ends by linking to things.
Regarding Reformation Day, as I've said before, it is useful to see it as a reminder of what we should do today, not as a day of remembering old dirty laundry between parts of the one, catholic Church. I may not agree entirely on doctrine with my (big C) Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, but I don't dwell on today as a way to further divide us. The division is an unfortunate part of the story of this day, and one that we are at least repairing somewhat as Protestants and Catholics continue to work together more. Today, the Reformation is a reminder that we should always be reforming our doctrine so as to avoid, to use a favorite term among my English Lit friends, “the signifier slipping from the signified.” The ever thoughtful Ed writes to that end on OFB.
For Halloween, check out this morbidly amusing video, entitled “the Life and Death of a Pumpkin.”
Happy Halloween and Happy Reformation Day!
Science, Truth and Stem Cell Research
I wrote an article on my take concerning Missouri Amendment 2 (the embryonic stem cells “cures” initiative), which is now published on OFB. I'm going to doing something no big name writer will offer: I will offer a quality guarantee on this article. If you can find fault with any of the major premises, I will do my best to defend my answer with hard, cold facts. If I cannot, I will make a retraction of the article. How's that for a guarantee?
I'm mostly preaching to the choir on my blog, I suspect, but hopefully this article might prove useful to someone (if nothing else, if somehow you've missed the whole debate on the issue). I don't claim to say anything new, but I do think this article is unique thanks to my guarantee. In fact, maybe in the future I'll guarantee all of my articles with this guarantee.
Apple and Intel
I should probably work this into a larger piece sometime, but I think a quick observation is worthwhile. I've noticed with the Intel switch, some Mac advocates have suddenly realized that Dell does make a cheaper computer than Apple, while many PC users who would never have considered an Apple now find Apple enticing.
It is amazing how a little CPU could inspire people to swap positions. Yes, Apples with Intel processors do not have the mystical quality that Apples with PowerPC did. PowerPC was a RISC processor and that made Apple seem a bit more exotic. I liked it well enough. But, I care more about my apps and speed than I do about how “cool” my processor sounds. If, as most will now admit, Intel's Core microarchitecture blows the consumer variants of POWER out of the water in most ways, why not enjoy that and keep on using your beloved OS? Frankly, if I wanted to go with Dell's $399 special, it was just as valid to do so against a PowerPC G4 PowerBook as it is against a Core Duo MacBook. And anyway, if you compare Apple against other premium brands with very thin metal enclosures, lighter weight units, etc., I think the MacBook family still comes out favorably.
The reverse switch to being intrigued by Apple is a lot more explainable. Macs are now the only computer that can run the three biggest desktop OSes legally. With Parallels well designed virtualization, they are also really decent at running Windows applications. And, since Windows can replace Mac OS X if desired, there is far less risk in taking the plunge than before. I think that helps a lot. Even die hard Mac haters like how Apple is squeezing the latest PC technology into sleek, small machines.
The latter group does not mystify me, the former does. Personally, I think the days of processor brands defining how much awe a system should get are fading away quickly.
Back to Normal
Well, I don't have any more scores to report, so expect my normal type blog postings to return tomorrow. I can't promise that one more baseball post might not wander in, but don't let them scare you away. If anything, let the possibility of my upcoming political musing scare you instead! 
GO CRAZY FOLKS, GO CRAZY!
Wow! Woohooo! What else can I say? WOOOOHOOO!
SOURCE: STLTODAY.com
How amazing. And an amazing team — Molina, Rolen, Eckstein, Pujols, Edmunds, Reyes, Weaver, Carpenter, Wainwright and the rest performed amazingly. How wonderful for them to allow Cardinal Nation to see a World Series win in the brand new Busch Stadium — the first time since Yankee Stadium in 1928 that a team won a World Series in its own stadium during that stadium's inaugural year, I am told.
It's only been a few years since we lost Jack Buck, but I'm sure he'd be proud of the team and his son, Joe Buck, who did an amazing job too. Slam-a-lama-ding-dong indeed!
But, to again quote the senior Buck, “GO CRAZY FOLKS, GO CRAZY.”
The best team, with the best fans, in the best city. Yup, once again St. Louis is Perfectly Centered, Remarkably Connected. Woohoo!
Oh, a question to Mark: you correctly reined in my enthusiasm in calling the 2004 NLCS victory of the Cardinals a “trouncing.” I think I can use it completely justifiably now, right?
Could It Be Tonight?
So far so good, we have one nothing in the bottom of the third. Let's Go Cardinals!
That's More Like It
OK, so now it is 3-1. I don't want to get too excited yet, but would one more win tomorrow night be too much to ask? Apparently, it has been since the New York Yankees in 1928 that a team won the World Series in its own stadium during the first year of that stadium. With this being the Busch Stadium III's first year, that'd be an interesting record to break.
It was quite a game — far more eventful than the last few, but I'm not sure I really need it that eventful. Hopefully the Cards can beat the Cheat-ahs tomorrow by taking an early lead or maybe doing another shutout like they did in Game 3.
Waddya think?
Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head
Well, Game 4 of the World Series was delayed because of rain tonight. With more rain on the way, I wonder if the Cards will get to play tomorrow? I hope this doesn't hurt the momentum that has allowed them to get a 2-1 lead so far…
Liar: McCaskill and the Cloning Amendment
There is no doubt that senate hopeful and State Auditor Claire McCaskill (D-MO) knows how to play dirty. After her attack campaign that allowed her to beat Gov. Bob Holden in the 2004 Democratic Primary, my dad — a dyed in wool Democrat — refused to vote for her in the general election, instead going Republican. McCaskill has been and continues to be willing to bend the truth to the breaking point for her politics of personal gain. I've been pretty calm on politics lately, but I just felt sick this morning listening to McCaskill.
She, like others promoting “Amendment 2 - Life Saving Cures,” has been trying to fool those who do not know better into thinking voting yes on this amendment will not protect cloning in Missouri — that it will actually ban cloning. I knew she's been saying that, but hearing her say it live on KMOX 1120 with Charles Brennon this morning just made me want to scream through the radio.
FACT: The bill protects Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. This is cloning. When you create an embryo that has identical genetic information to the person who wants the “cure” (if there is such a thing to come out of this research), what exactly do you call that other than cloning? If you do not think SCNT is cloning, then be prepared to say Dolly the Sheep was not a clone.
FACT: The bill is both anti-life and anti-choice. Once the clone has been produced, it must be aborted. That not only proves disturbing for pro-lifers, but it should also bother pro-choice abortion proponents who normally advocate this so-called “right” out of a desire to promote freedom. If that is really the case, how do you support this?
FACT: None of this research is presently banned in Missouri, this bill only rolls out the red carpet to cloning research. By voting on this bill, you insure that scientists will be able to get better at human cloning, making it more and more likely a human clone will be born in the future.
(Incidentally, I liked the new commercial for Senator Talent that had him explain his rejection of Amendment 2, but I'd urge anyone on the fence not to see this as a Republican vs. Democrats issue. Even if you insist on voting for Auditor McCaskill for senator, you can still reject Amendment 2.)
Happy Birthday, iPod
It is hard to believe that it has been five years since Apple launched the iPod. When I first heard that Apple was going into the music player business, I thought maybe Steve Jobs had finally gone off his rocker (hear Jobs launch the product over on Engadget). Although he had guided the struggling computer maker back into the black, ironically, with colorful computers, did he really think Apple had any place in the music player business? I was among the group that was hoping that day's announcement was to be the return of an Apple PDA, but no such “luck.”
Five years later, I cannot think of a more brilliant move by Jobs. Using the iPod as a launching pad while the Mac continued its slow progress toward ditching Mac OS Classic for Mac OS X, suddenly Apple became the cool brand again. And more than just what it did for Apple, consider what this product launch did for the consumer electronics industry? Suddenly, it was desirable to have an “MP3 Player,” something that previously had simply seemed geeky — portable CD players were now so 1990's. Suddenly a new business in making iPod accessories appeared. Suddenly, a word as strange as “iPod” would be part of everyday language. Notice the key phrase “suddenly:” the iPod's growth has been “steady,” but it has been anything other than “slow.”
Few product launches have single handedly altered a market as much as the iPod did. The iPod is to electronic music storage what the Model T or the Beetle were to cars — something that redefined the industry. And just as those two illustrious models are unlikely to be passed up in single model sales ever again, I suspect that if the iPod brand ever falls, it will be unlikely that there will be such a clear dominance in the music player market again.
Really, the iPod is a lot like the Beetle. Like the Beetle, it looks a lot like it did at its launch. Things keep changing to keep it competitive with flashier models, but it never really rejects its essential look and feel that makes the iPod an iPod. And what could be better than a New Beetle + iPod?
I wonder what we will be using to listen to music fifty years from now?
