Ellen,

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of your posts. But I have to ask...

What is the significance of the weird word order in the phrase "... does not a make."

I see people using it pretty frequently, but what does putting the verb at the end signify versus the more conventional word order? Is it just some antiquated bit of phrasing that somehow made it to the modern age, kind of a linguistic Coelacanth?

Thanks

Posted at July 16, 2008 3:21 AM in response to Scheunemann Watch

Criteria, not criterions.

Someone had to point it out. Sorry it was me.

Posted at July 8, 2008 2:55 PM in response to Associated Press: Pet Owners Prefer McCain To "Petless" Obama

John McCain has more than a dozen pets? This article

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272835,00.html

says he has 22 animals. "Sam the English springer spaniel, Coco the mutt, turtles Cuff and Link, Oreo the black and white cat, a ferret, three parakeets and 13 saltwater fish."

That is starting to get to the point where you wonder what dysfunction has lead to getting that many pets.

How about we run another internet poll. Let's ask pet owners this question:

John McCain spends all of his time in Washington or on the campaign trail, away from more than a twenty pets he is supposed to be caring for. Barak Obama has lived up to all obligations to his pets. Which candidate do you prefer?

Posted at July 8, 2008 2:49 PM in response to Associated Press: Pet Owners Prefer McCain To "Petless" Obama

Tonalli --

I give up. You are a master of argument shifting well beyond my desire to follow.

Posted at June 30, 2008 11:18 PM in response to Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion confusion

Tonalli --

"Doesn't matter."

Really, risk factors don't matter? If I have an illness that has a 1 in 10 chance of killing me, doesn't it make a profound difference whether the remedy has a 1 in 3 chance of killing me vs a 1 in 100,000 chance of killing me?

"If it's a risk, don't you think it should be the recipient's choice to make."

You are changing the point. Nobody said anybody should be forced to take a blood transfusion against their will. The original article was decrying the JW belief system that precludes giving their children adequate medical care, and the thorough brain washing that prevents adults from making informed decisions.

Posted at June 29, 2008 1:18 PM in response to Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion confusion

Why pick on this issue in particular?

Although most American Catholics ignore the edict (and so technically are not Catholics, even if they might deny it), worldwide most Catholics adhere to the Pope's "no condom" policy.

This has resulted in far more deaths than any JW blood issues: death from STDs, deaths of women during childbirth, and of course the eventual death of each person who is born.

Perhaps worse than the deaths are the births of millions of children whom the parents are incapable of nourishing properly, incapable of parenting due to their own immaturity, or simply neglect the children because they were unwanted.

Yes, plenty of healthy, well cared for children result as well; nevertheless, millions fall into the prior categories.

Just say "no" to ritual superstition of all types and think for yourself.

Posted at June 27, 2008 9:24 PM in response to Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion confusion

Ripper McCord -

You don't know what you are talking about.

Hydrogen fuel cells are batteries. They may be more or less efficient than lithium ion batteries (the current best technology), but they are batteries all the same. There is no "reserve" of hydrogen waiting for us to tap.

Hydrogen is generated commercially via stripping it from methane or via reformation of coal. Hydrogen can be produced via electrolysis of water (and other compounds), but $1 worth of electricity will produce 20 cents worth of hydrogen. Yes, people are working on techniques to produce hydrogen more efficiently, but it is research stuff.

But the point is: fuel cells are just batteries. They are a means of storing and recovering energy that was invested in producing the hydrogen.

They toyota Prius achieves a real 45 mpg fuel rating using NiCad (nickel cadmium) batteries. They don't use Lion yet because of cost. If improved batteries were available at a lower cost, the mpg rating would be even higher.

Yes, ideally there would be no need for fossil fuels. Realistically, there will be a transition, not a cold turkey conversion. The first good step is to reduce the number of miles we drive. The second good step is to incrementally improve MPG ratings. The third step is to switch to more radical drive trains.

To get informed of daily developments in this area, check out http://www.greencarcongress.com/

Posted at June 25, 2008 2:27 AM in response to McCain's $300M Battery Prize: Dumb & Dumberer

If this ad isn't a composite, then they went out of their way to make it look like one.

I suspect at the moment his wife is being quickly ushered to minnesota to shoot some outtakes post-facto to prove that the ad is real. :-)

Posted at June 20, 2008 8:01 PM in response to Did GOP Senator Fake An Ad Showing Him Cozy With Wife?

Ben,

The article clearly states what you are ranting about:

"and, of course, none of the apes, Hominoidea (humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangs and gibbons) are technically monkeys at all."

Titles can hardly capture the nuance of the full article, often intentionally so in order to get the reader's attention. You know this, I'm sure.

In the larger scope of things, there is a shocking ignorance among Americans, at least, of what "science" is. Many think it is just a belief system, and take umbrage that science claims the high ground. What they are missing is that science is based on transparency and verifiability, so yes, in the areas where those conditions exist, it is superior, thank you very much.

With leadership like Mike Huckabee stating that when the Bible and science don't agree he sides with the Bible, it is no wonder we are in trouble.

By the way, why are we talking about monkeys?

Posted at June 13, 2008 6:38 PM in response to We are monkeys, all

Ellen --

I'm sure it wasn't John McCain's idea to get captured; if possible, he would have avoided it. It is also doubtless that nobody can endure sustained torture indefinitely, if it is intense enough.

No, what gives John McCain the right to be called courageous are two things. First, simply he was there, performing a very dangerous job. Second, as POW he was given a free pass to go back home to the US, as a PR move (his father was the naval admiral of pacific operations at the time). McCain said: sure, I'd love to go back home, but only if all the men who have been held prisoner longer than me go too.

My understanding is that this wasn't McCain's own idea, but an explicit code of conduct expected of officers. Nevertheless, many men would have taken the pass and worried about the fallout later.

So I'd say McCain certainly gets to be called courageous. Whether it makes him qualified to be president is another matter. It certainly makes him more qualified to understand the horrors of war, and to understand torture when he sees it, but for everything else, we must look at his history as a senator to form an opinion.

Trivia: at Annapolis, McCain graduated 894th out of 899 students.

Posted at May 5, 2008 12:37 PM in response to The Real McCain (National Security Edition)