All I can say is, “JESUS CHRIST.” Invoking God to defend a war. How…papal. advance advance cash company heir,advance cash company scams,cash advance companyno fax cash advance,advance cash fast fax no,advance cash fax loan no paydayadvance cash loan overnight,overnight cash advance,advance cash overnighteasy fast cash advance,fast no fax cash advance,fast cash advanceno credit check loan cash advance,advance cash cashing check tallahassee,tallahassee,check cash advanceadvance cash chicago settlement,pre settlement cash advance,advance cash settlementcash advance loan illinois,5 advance cash illinois loanadvance cash company,scams on cash advance companyfast cash advance payday loancash loan payday tiladvance cash check credit noadvance advance america cash,advance america cash advance,advance advance america cash centeradvance cash day loan payadvance cash overnightcash advance new yorknational cash advancecash advance loancash loan payday tillinstant online guaranteed cash advance credit card,free cash advance with credit card,cash advance credit cardadvance cash lawsuit loan,lawsuit settlement cash advance,lawsuit cash advanceadvance cash fast loan paydaycash advance servicesbusiness cash advance,cash advance business opportunity,cash advance business for salecash international loan payday servicesadvance cash loan onlineadvance cash cash loan loan payday quick,advance cash loan payday,advance cash loan payday todayadvance america cashcash fast loan paydayadvance cash faxing loan no required,advance cash faxing loan no,no faxing cash advanceadvance cash loan payday quickadvance cash line loan,advance cash on line,budget line cash advancefirst southern cash advance,first cash advance,first time cash advancecash advance servicecash advance detroitace cash advanceadvance cash faxing magnum,magnum cash advanceadvance cash loan online paydayadvance cash check credit no online,cash advance no credit check,advance cash check credit no1000 advance cash faxing no,advance cash faxing no,no faxing required cash advancequick cash payday loanpay day loan cash advance,pay day cash advance payday loanadvance advance america cashno fax faxless cash advance payday loan,advance cash faxless loan,faxless cash advanceadvance cash day pay,cash advance until pay daysame day cash advance loan,same day cash advancefast cash payday loan,payday us fast cash loancash advance loan no faxing,cash advance loan with savings account,cash in advance loancash advance nowaccount advance bank cash instant without,advance cash instant loan taxesrefunds using,instant cash advanceadvance america cash company,bank of america cash advance,cash advance america

• That’s OK, I Wasn’t Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
• Let’s Fix Democracy in this Country First
• If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
• If You Can Read This, You’re Not Our President
• Of Course It Hurts: You’re Getting Screwed by an Elephant
• America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
• Whose God Do You Kill For?
• No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
• We’re Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
• Republicans Don’t Care About White People, Either
• Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
• The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
• 2000: Embarrassed. 2004: Horrified. 2008: Terrified.

Senators Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton share a common liability. In Obama’s case, it’s having to run a race against Bill and Hillary. In Hillary’s, it’s having to put up with Big Bill not staying on message, and making such grimace-causing comments as these, made in Blackwood, NJ, today:

With a nod to his own economic record while he was president, moving the country into surplus territory with good job and wage growth, the former president said: “We can bring America back. We have done it before and she will do it again.”

We? She? Oh, ouch.

“More than half the world is mad at us,” Clinton observed. “We have to send a different message to the world and she is uniquely qualified to do it

“And the message goes like this,” he continued, and not without some irony:

“We’re back.”

Wait–”we,” the United States, or “we,” The Clintons ™?

Jesus, Bill–you were a damn fine president; even the right-wingers will give you that the domestic product kicked ass and took names when you were in office. But you need to back the hell off. If Hillary’s handlers had any brains, they would have locked Bill in a basement somewhere and brought him out two or three times in the primaries at strategic moments, then, during the national convention, brought him out to speak. That would have been spectacular.

Instead, he’s coming off like a that mouse creature thing on Jabba the Hut’s shoulder, ruining his legacy and what respect he had garnered in the 90s, and becoming a Democratic Dick Cheney attack dog. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

And here’s one final clue, Bill.

While I’ve always held that the entire Monica Lewinsky “thing” was an engineered scandal, and that your private life was your own, you might consider NOT doing the finger-wagging thing. The last time you did that, you were lying out your ass. Granted, about a completely non-political and utterly unrelated topic that the press, nor Ken Starr, nor the Congress had any business asking you about in the first place, but lying all the same. You were a great president, but you have no right to chastise, methinks.

Babbage: Our senior Unix admin. Babs is one of the few individuals with whom I’ve ever worked that knows the significance of the IBM 701. This can either be described as reassuring or frightening as hell, depending on one’s point of view. Besides being a top-notch Unix guy, he’s also a bit of a philosopher-king; in addition to having 30 years under his belt as a geek, he’s taken classes at the University of Heidelburg. In German. Key attribute: Sangfroid.

Sarge: Develops and maintains all server and security monitoring services for the company. In his prior life (geek for the Air Force) he handled sensitive communication for various departments, so he’s already well-versed in such machinations, although he’s oftimes hamstrung by the goofy lack of hierarchy our company has. (it’s flat as a pre-Magellanic worldview) Takes no shit from no body, and therefore occasionally finds himself gently at odds with his more mossbacked or less accomplished colleagues. To date, no blood has been shed. Key attribute: Whoop-ass.

Lore: PHP developer. Named not, as might assume for the Lore of Star Trek fame, but rather after the talented Lore Sjöberg of Brunching Shuttlecocks and Bad Gods fame. Not because he’s in any way like him, but because he looks like him. Lore is tremendously skilled, but has no safety valve. If he were a locomotive, he would go from “standing immovable on the siding” to “hurtling down the track at 240 mph with no deadman’s brake” almost instantaneously. Good man to know, especially in a crisis situation, but don’t…stand…in…front…of…him. Key attribute: Attaque à outrance.

Roebling: Our resident software engineer. He serves in the necessary “prophet on the rock,” preaching the gospel of good software design to those who have yet to accept the Good News into their hearts. In many cases, the ultimate doom of some of our more crack-brained hastily thrown together crisis management hacks work has been correctly ascertained by Roebling as being destined to fall apart under its own weight. Basically stated, from a good-design point of view, he’s almost always right. Conversely, however, we don’t have anything better to replace any of the crappy software yet, either. Can’t stop the business, don’t you know. Key attribute: Loathing.

Doodlebug: Big D is our boss. He’s been in technology for about has long as I have, but much more of his time has been spent as a manager and executive than have I. Smart guy, basically a good guy, but as they said in the Victorian era, a deep old file. Quotable quotes: “It is what it is.” (Used to close a topic.) “Take it offline” (shut the fuck up and fix it) and while not quotable, his cherubic, unsettling, and vaguely Pope-like grin. Dress him in red with a little hat, and he’s Richelieu. Key attribute: Management by fractal mathematics.

In my reading this week, I found this interesting quote by Barry Goldwater. For those of you too young to remember, the intellectual fuel which powered the Republican party through the 50s, 60s, and 70s can be traced to Goldwater’s ideas. Rejector of the New Deal, Major General in the Air Force Reserves, he was often referred to in the press as “Mr. Conservative.” While his influence after the late 60s began to wane, he was the arch-conservative in the Senate all the way through 1987.

Here’s Goldwater in 1981:

“I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that, if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, or D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism’”

And again, from the same Senate speech:

“The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now…To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.”

And this final fillip, from a Goldwater press conference in early 1980:

“I think every good Christian should line up to kick Jerry Falwell in the ass.”

All this, from “Mr. Conservative.”

Republicans of the universe, especially those who are in favor of the new, tight relationship between the religious right and the Republican party: What happened? I could have easily voted for a Goldwater in the last election–if anyone in ANY party even remotely like him was running. (Of course, a fiery, unapologetic liberal spirit like Hubert Humphrey would get my attention, too; it simply seems that all political figures these days are lukewarm, and therefore I spew them from my mouth.)

Is this new fundamentalist-Republican alliance a marriage of convenience, or are their groups who really wish to break down the customary separation of church and state? (We’re halfway there already, with Bush’s ‘faith based initiatives.’)

I ask without rancor, but as a passenger on a train about whose destination I have grave, grave concerns.

Pete
1998?-October 5, 2007

Friend and pet. He will be missed. Really, really, lots.

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite.
Bertrand Russell

Science is evidence in search of a solution.  Creationism is a solution in search of evidence.
Anonymous

Aye, and there’s the rub.

I don’t believe ANYONE, regardless of party affiliation, who runs for elected office today, whether in the US or abroad, can possibly ever win if they create their election platform from their personal views on the issues, as unfortunate a situation as that may be.

It’s honest, it’s ethical, it’s moral, it’s correct–and it’s unelectable!

Y’see, today’s politics–and to a great extent, all politics, ever–is just like class elections in high school. It’s a popularity contest, and always has been, save for George Washington’s election. The hoi polloi likes it this way. No thinking required.

And no matter how much John Q. Public personally likes or admires any candidate, or even, upon examination, should he find that a majority of their planks conform to his own ideas, there is bound to be one serious issue on which each candidate and John disagree. If it’s a big enough plank (abortion? Iraq? Church and State? etc., etc.) then it will matter not one whit how fine a mayor, senator, or president they’ll make; based on Mr. Public’s one pet issue, he’ll find someone else who may be a much worse choice overall, but with whom he is in agreement on his pet issue.

Thus, we end up with elected officials who compete for votes based on how honeyed their words are. Fuck truth!  We can’t HANDLE the truth!  (Well, actually, we can, but, as with our dear friend Bartleby, “we would prefer not to.”)

To complete the popularity contest analogy: The above example, my friends, is a microcosm of only those who actually care about the issues–call it 15% of the voting electorate, generously. The vast majority of the voting public, as best illustrated by the idiotic and feckless Mr. Lamar Alexander in a recent interview regarding Fred Thompson’s candidacy, for instance–are more concerned with how “presidential” a candidate looks on TV. Or how craggy their face appears, how photogenic they are or the size of their boobs, and so it goes.

Truth be told, as a nation, we are a superficial bunch of moronic ninnies, and we get just what we deserve–superficial and moronic public servants.

It’s easy to say Al Gore would have been a “better” president (I happen to think our cat Stirling would have been a better choice, but I digress) but without the 2000 election, the latent statesman in Gore never would have made an appearance. (don’t believe me, have a look at his record on issues pre-2000 and post-2000; he’s MUCH more of a true leader now). Even folks who are dyed-in-the-wool conservatives at least respect Al Gore now, which is a story unto itself.

Looking at the current crop of Democrats, I see no current candidates that I truly endorse. I like Barak Obama, but more because he’s a literate man of African-American descent who stands a chance than for any other reason. Hillary, as polarizing as she may be, has bigger ‘nads than Bush OR her husband, but as an acquaintance of mine so aptly illustrated recently by declaiming how much he “hated Hillary Clinton!”, the media and religious-right conservatives are so in the habit of disbelieving anything she says that I doubt she would be effective. (note: most people that say they “hate Hillary” cannot offer one solid reason WHY they hate her, which should make us all triple-wary of the media. Generally when I hate someone, I at least am capable of offering an immediate, concrete reason!)

In short, we’re probably screwed again, and will get some lukewarm dungball–and who will care or even notice if s/he is a liberal, moderate, conservative, or religious nutbag–who parrots what his/her advisors put in the 2 page brief.

Hurray for us. America rocks.

Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.

Karl Popper

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Galileo Galilei

The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.

Albert Einstein

 

Exalt Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer through a safe, wholesome, family-friendly center for learning and discovery that clearly presents major biblical themes from Genesis to Revelation.

Well, it certainly does that. The problem is that it goes well beyond its mission statement. We call that “scope creep” in IT. The problem isn’t the presentation per se; it’s referring to the information presented as “well-researched science.” The Creation Museum isn’t even presenting a hypothesis, because one of the bits that makes a hypothesis valid is being able to test it. Rather, it’s presenting a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch (or the Heptateuch, or even the Hexateuch, depending on your particular flavor), and the version used, KJV, traces its basic literary genealogy from KJV –> Vulgate –> Septuagint, with many side-roads ‘twixt wind and water in the translation process.

I don’t think anyone–I certainly wouldn’t–would have had any problem with the place if it had billed itself according to its mission statement, and constructed its PR machine accordingly. The problem is in presenting itself as science. We have a scientific method that is followed to test, retest, and ultimately prove a scientific idea. That’s what makes it science. What religion and religious beliefs require, as any religious person will tell you, regardless of demonimation, is faith. That’s what makes it religion.

The phrase “creation science” is a contradiction in terms. We certainly don’t want our doctors practicing “faith-based medicine,” do we? We have a name for physicians of that ilk: “witch doctors.”

The entire Creation Museum strikes me as making as much sense in its current incarnation as “eating about dancing.”

Humans, in their infinite curiosity, have always wanted to have the “how did I get here” satisfyingly answered. The first way we bipeds did this was by myth. However, the entire thrust of being sentient is that we should be questing for more information–reference the Galileo quote at the top of this post.

Let’s have a look at cosmology through the ages, shall we? Initially, the Greeks believed that we were surrounded by a sphere of fire with the earth at the center. Note: I’m leaving out all the early mankind cosmological instances, such as the early Chinese belief in Phan Ku the Giant Creator who hatched from an egg, the Krachi people’s blue god Wulbari, the West African Yoruba tribe’s Olorun, Owner of the Sky, etc., etc. The fire sphere idea matured into an earth-centered solar system, followed by the Copernican heliocentric theory, until now we have a theory of the universe shown by the image to the right.

The question that is necessary here is now did we get from our early ideas about the universe to the detailed timeline we have now?

Easily–by observing. We’re humans–we like to know how things work. And here’s where science and religion diverge. Religion is about faith–believing in things not seen (or proven). Science, conversely, requires proof. In fact, a valid theory must not only be descriptive–fitting the facts which exist–but also be predictive–fitting facts which are not yet known, but will be discovered. In short, a scientific theory can be proven, or disproven. If a theory doesn’t fulfill both of these requirements, then it is, simply stated, wrong, and must be reformulated.

What separates today’s “creation scientists,” intelligent design, and dogmatic proponents of a God-created universe from those of the past is their absolute adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible as a science text. I find this bizarre–but then again, I find much about today’s religions bizarre.

Once upon a time, tolerance was a byword. This no longer seems to be the case; in fact, simply wishing to make one’s own choices today is viewed by the masses of fundamentalists as an attack on their faith (e.g., “Why are you always persecuting us Christians and depriving us of our rights”) Please note that this militant, arrogant political presence of Christian fundamentalists and fundamentalist politics is a relatively new phenomenon. Lest we forget, one of the most brilliant 20th century cosmologists was Monsignor Georges Lemaître, who posited the Big Bang theory–and the ancientness of the universe–before Einstein. And he was a Catholic priest. Lemaître had no problem at all with an ancient earth, nor did he have a problem with evolution; his stance–and the stance of most devout Christians in the early 20th century–was that the Bible was chock full o’ parable, not an instruction manual.

Religion isn’t the same any longer. A exceptionally strident, deafening minority of Christian leaders now traffic in political power and influence, not spirituality of any flavor. In fact, several of today’s Protestant denominations refer to the Catholic church as a cult. Go figure. I was told by a distant acquaintence recently that the Constitution of the United States guaranteed me freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, and that I had to pick one. No, really.

The primary difference, then, between scientific cosmologists and religious cosmologists is that science is always attempting to improve itself. When theories don’t fit data, they’re thrown out or rewritten. When new facts come to light, new thinking reigns. However, in today’s right-leaning, narrow-minded, religious, literal-Bible cosmology, the stock answer is–and I’m not making this up; visit religioustolerance.org, or the new kid on the block, answersingenesis.org–”When God created the pine trees which are now dead, he may have created them complete with tree rings as if they had been alive before they were created.”

Here’s a depressing quote right from Ken Ham’s site. He’s explaining how to handle us silly bastards who want some kind of proof before we believe, believe, believe. Unintentionally, this quote highlights why Christians like this are dangerous, rabid animals who will ultimately rend reason, logic, and common sense to shreds, then burn the entrails before our eyes:

When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me…Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition.

Whoa, Kenny! Presuppositions? FACTS DON’T REQUIRE PRESUPPOSITIONS! You line up the observational data, perform calculations and make graphs and shit! You don’t need the presence of a Higher Power to do arithmetic! Then again, the Church condemned Kepler and Brahe for using parallax, so I guess you stack up favorably with other narrow-minded boobs throughout history. (I’m not making any of this up, Gentle Reader: visit his site to read yourself how if your scientific observations don’t match God’s Word then your science is bad. Here’s a tidbit: “If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality?” Well, um, because I’m typing this blog entry, sir? That’s the anthropic principle, in case you were wondering.)

Or, in other words: Christians have all the right answers because God told them. If you disagree, then that’s because you just aren’t up to the Christian level yet. Here, drink this Kool-Aid so that you may better be taught, and, by the way, suspend all disbelief and shut yore mouf. The current mainstream Christian stance on the origins of the universe and the origin of the species is the height of hubris and arrogance, and lockstep fascism at its finest.

And why do some people respond to this mindless drivel? Because it’s easy, requires no mental labor on their part, and presents the philosophy, theology, cosmology, life, the universe and everything in a neat, gift-wrapped box, with batteries included. No thinking required, just follow the Charismatic Leader and shut that brain off. Because, Gentle Reader, most of humankind is as lazy as a fat hog. Surely you’re not surprised!

I close with a few quotes:

Compare the consequences [of your theory] to experience…if it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it… Don’t invent elaborate calculus to make your guess seem right, or claim intervention by a higher power. Just admit you’re wrong.
Richard Feynman

Science is the disinterested search for the objective truth about the material world.
Richard Dawkins

And, one from the other side:

‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.
Ken Ham

Yes, you read that right: if you’re a Christian, you need the bible to “interpret” facts. If you’re an “opponent,” then among your evil weapons are logic and reality.

The tragedy is that this is not, nor has it ever been about Christians vs the world; most Christians consider the bible to be allegorical. As mentioned above, it’s a vocal, shrieking subset that have lost their senses–but they’re the ones with the torches, nails, and stakes.

This argument is about fact vs myth. None of my Christian acquaintances mention that “mute servitude” is part of their creed. To those of you who do count yourself as Christians, I implore you: Do something about Ken Ham. He’s making you all look like idiots. Recall 1st Corinthians, 15:33: “Bad associations spoil useful habits.”

Succinctly, science is about learning. Right-wing fundamentalism is about following. I know which I prefer.

However, the religious establishment’s view of what’s true and what’s not has changed markedly over the centuries, usually under overwhelming factual weight–but NEVER until the weight became utterly unbearable.

Remember our friend Galileo; the apocryphal E pur si muove quote (which, while it is debatable if he actually uttered, still makes a point) certainly didn’t cause the Catholic Church to change its view on the structure of the universe. However…and stick with me here, as I’m attempting to use the Galileo trial as an object lesson with regard to *all* excursions of organized religion into hard science.

At Galileo’s second trial in 1633, the concern was not about the doctrine of a heliocentric universe as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active teaching of a scientifically proven theory. (Note: Remember, several years earlier, Galileo had been threatened with some pretty heinous consequences if he didn’t keep his cake-hole shut and stick with the literal reading of the book of Joshua with respect to the earth being the center of the universe. Again–the LITERAL INTERPRETATION of a Biblical story as hard science.)

Now follow this: The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature.

So, in a neat semantic trick, the Catholic Church condemned the MAN, without having to actually go on record condemning what he was teaching. Mr. Galilei was told he’d be burned alive for teaching science–but the science itself wasn’t actually condemned! The Pope *did* put the Copernican publication on the banned Index, and it didn’t get removed until 1758, LONG after a heliocentric universe was accepted as fact. That’s 218 years after its publication, boys and girls, and over 125 years after Galileo’s trial.

Lesson to be learned: Darwin (Wallace, Lyell, Hooker, et. al.) published On the Origin of Species in 1858. Using the publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium as a model, then, we can possibly expect the fundamentalist, literal readers of the Bible to accept evolution–and all the explanations for fossils, the age of the earth, etc.–as a viable model for the origin of life around 2073.

The promulgation of reason, proof, and fact over mythology and anthropological folk-tale (Gilgamesh, anyone?) is a hobby of mine.

My advice to those of you who are irritated at the wrong-headedness of the Creation Museum and the mythology which it very slickly purports to be science, is to simply wait. You can lead a fundamentalist to evidence, but you can’t make him think–until enough evidence accrues that continuing to insist on a literal interpretation of whatever scripture is their Final Word starts to make them look idiotic. Then, and only then, will an avenue to compromise be built.

Remember, friends, we’re talking about people who suggest that their God built the Earth, fossils and all, just to fool us poor humans. What kind of narrow-minded folks would believe in their own creation myths so deeply as to turn the very God they worship into a mean-spirited Loki figure? Just approaching them with provable facts doesn’t stand a chance.

See you in 2073!

(part II tomorrow)

I don’t even know how to properly address the level of stupidity in this Wonderful News Item, but here are a few quick points.

a) If it’s so damn secure, why didn’t MS have a third-party evaluate the security of the operating systems in question?
b) Are they so fucking stupid at MS that they expected this to be heralded as Good News after being corporate piranhas for 25 years?
c) Given the level of Open Source loathing for MS, was this supposed to be something to celebrate?

Furthermore, someone at Microsoft needs to give Jeff Jones some basic training in how to write PR blurbs (let’s face it, that’s what this is. Real techies won’t be touching Vista seriously until the first service pack anyway). His tone is arrogant, insipid, and quite foolish. According to him, Vista is Chateau Galliard. Perhaps he should remember that Richard I’s “impregnable fortress” fell to the Muslims less than a year after it was constructed.

I swear, I can’t figure these wonks at Microsoft out. Their reputation is shit most of the time anyway; why poke a stick in the eye of everyone who would loooove to have a go at hacking Vista, knowing that with any true evaluation of the operating system, all their claims would fall flat?

If MS had any brains at all, they’d be trying to get the OSF guys on their side instead of continually antagonizing every IT professional in the world by making outlandish claims. Vista may be good, but to say it’s better than everything else right out of the gate, when history has sadly and painfully taught us that MS products have always been dogs until they’ve been in true production environments, hacked to bits, and patched out the ass is breathtakingly microencephalatic.

You wanna impress us, Jeff? Put a server out on the internet and give us a time limit. You’ll get your ass blown off, and you know it.

While I am certainly no bass trumpet expert (who is, for goodness sake!) I have played in performance situations a Bach, a Conn, a Getzen, and a Lidl, so I do have some frame of reference.

I really don’t know what kind of shape these come in to Ferguson Music; I do know that as a matter of course, Steve packs them off to Robb Stewart’s repair shop as soon as they arrive.

As Steve says on his website, TOSS the mouthpiece that comes with it. It has no brand or size on it, but it looks like a Wick 4BS (roughly equivalent to a Bach 4G) which I would categorize as a large-bore tenor mouthpiece. Of course, the one that comes with the Jin Bao is a small shank, but it’s a larger cup and rim.

I tried it with a Bach 12C and 6.5AL, a Schilke Dorsey mouthpiece (I think that’s a 42) a Stork T1 and T2, Greg Black 1.25G, 2G, 3C, and 3G and two of my custom setups from Doug Elliot (larger rims, shallow cups). Also, a couple of my vintage mouthpieces, one if which simply reads “Innes” and the other “Conn-Innes,” both dating from the 20s.

General observation: Use as small a mouthpiece as you can. A larger rim or deeper cup immediately leads to HEINOUS intonation problems and paucity of tone. With larger ‘pieces, it doesn’t slot at all and unless you really do a Valsalva maneuver, the timbre is airy and lackluster. Of course, that’s partially true of ALL bass trumpets–which really has to be the comparison control here. Bass trumpets are strange creatures, period, so please note I’m comparing this fellow to the “best” bass trumpet I ever played, an older Bach piston several years ago.

I started with simple long tones and scalar exercises. Using the smaller range of ‘pieces (the ones that worked best for me were the Dorsey, humorously enough, and the Black 2G and 3C) and really keeping my embouchure firm and consistent, I got a nice, pointed trumpetesque sound from the Eb on the staff up to the C an octave and two-thirds above that. Here’s something I noticed, though–with my Edwards bass and my new 3B+, it usually feels like all I have to do is hold the horn in front of me and blow, and voila, a nice timbre. (Author’s note: I am a firm, passionate believer in making the hardware work for you, not against you. That’s why I play an Edwards bass and a 3B+, not a 2B, not a 3B; I discovered during trials when I was purchasing them both that they “fit” me well, and that even with a cold, stopped up nose, and a headache, I sounded decent on those instruments) By contrast, playing the Jin Bao–and in my case, the Getzen bass trumpet as well–it’s a constant battle to keep the sound right. To contrast, the Bach in my experience is a much “friendlier” horn. With the JB and the Getzen, I feel as if I need to keep a constant monitoring process aimed at my breathing, my embouchure and mouthpiece positioning. I can’t remember the last time I had to concentrate that hard *just* to get a good sound. Very humbling!

However, with the JB, as long as I “kept mah mouth right,” as dad would say, the sound was passable, and from mf up to ff, very impressive! MUCH harder to get a good sound at the softer volumes for me.

I’ve noticed several comments about Chinese horn tuning problems and bass trumpet tuning problems, generally. As anyone who has had to play a bass trumpet for any amount of time will tell you, possibly while screaming, tuning is a problem on these instruments, period. The kicker is to get one that has as few inherent acoustic problems as possible. When using the “correct” mouthpiece, I didn’t notice any real clunkers, save with all three valves depressed, which was then horrible–but it’s horrible on most horns with 1-2-3 down. It’s lippable, but unless you’re into gut-turning alternate fingerings, I can’t imagine using 1-2-3 in the upper register on a bass trumpet, anyway. Generally, the horn is in tune with itself and there’s enough slide on the three valve slides to maneuver the tuning around. I checked all notes from the Eb to the C noted above and they’re all within tolerances given the native problems with any air column brass instrument. No worse than my Bach cornet, in other words.

As far as mechanical work goes–and I don’t know how much of this is Jin Bao and how much is Jin Stewart–it was quite good. Solid feel, well-soldered, no blemishes or solder-drops, and I was actually pretty impressed with the short-throw rotary valves. I’d gotten out of the hang of holding those darn side-saddle European-style horns, but once I got that feel back, I was very pleased with the mechanics. Valves are quick and solid and lie well under the hand.

Moving on to orchestral excerpts (yes, of COURSE I played the Valkyries on it!) all I can add is that, as stated above, *I* had to continue to pay close attention to my “set” as I played it. After three sessions with it, this became somewhat easier, but the fact of the matter is that a trumpet ethos is NOT the same as a trombone ethos; they are very different instruments. Approach the bass trumpet like a marching trombone and you will be mightily disappointed. I was happily surprised at the response of the horn in playing a few excerpts, some Rochut and some Arbans, although I would NOT describe the instrument as “nimble” in any respect.

So, in conclusion, it is my opinion that the Jin Bao/Robb Stewart horn that *I* got gets a good, solid C+. Not great, but not awful. (By contrast, I give a Conn Director trombone a B and a King Sonorous a B+, and a Blessing B88 a B-) The biggest beef I have with it is that compared to other bass trumpets I have played I feel as if I have to work inordinately hard to get a characteristic sound. The JB is also VERY VERY sensitive to mouthpiece size.

Would I recommend it to a professional? Christ, no. Would I use it if I got a slap-shot last minute symphony gig with a regional group? Sure. However, if I knew 2 months in advance that I’d be doing the gig, I’d find a Bach or a Conn piston horn, myself. It’s worth the $450 bucks Ferguson is charging for it, anyway, so I’m happy. In a sick way, I rather enjoy playing it because it FORCES me to pay REALLY close attention to brass fundamentals to get a good sound–and the sound, when thus approached on the Jin Bao, IS a decent timbre.

My two shillings.

Silverlight is a cross-browser, cross-platform plug-in for delivering the next generation of Microsoft .NET–based media experiences and rich interactive applications for the Web.

Okay, check me on this, fellow geeks.

It’s a dot-Net gizmo to deliver media-based content. Let’s see–what other platforms, some of which aren’t Microsoft-owned–exist to do this?

• Flash
• Some PHP plugins
• The Windows Media platform toolkit
• Java (antiquated)
• etc.

I freely admit that I am not a Microphile. However, I’m not a rabid MS-hata, either. The cold truth is that Bill Gates has simply played the game much, much better than his competitors. None of the Microsoft products are perfect, but let’s face it–they are better than anything else, especially with respect to office productivity. Everybody bitches and moans about Word and Excel, but everybody uses them.

My principal problem with Microsoft is the exorbitant fees for licensing that are charged. If you have 90% market share, you can afford to quit ass-raping your customers. However, that does not seem to be Microsoft’s business plan, more’s the pity. And don’t get me started on the 31 flavors of Vista.

But I digress–this is about Silverlight.

I run an information technology company. It is populated with a group of very senior engineers in systems, networks, and infrastructure that are all at the top of their form. Let me take one example from one of these departments as an object lesson: Infrastructure. First their was thick coax, and it was good. Then there was thin coax, 10 years later. It, also, was good. Cat 5, cat 5e, Cat 6, fiber…all good. But in those two sentences, I’ve covered the last 50 years of data communications. In short, engineers come up with a faster, bigger, meaner pipe when circumstances demand it.

Let’s transfer this simple, sound logic to Silverlight.

ANYONE who has ever had the painful, wrenching opportunity to code applications using dot-Net will at least agree on the fact that this platform has always had problems, whether these take the form of “more bugs than a decomposing murder victim” or “as insecure as US telephone records.” Furthermore, with the ubiquity and relative stability and security of Flash, is this simply another effort by Dr. Gates to horn in on another market with a substandard, but very familiar product?

I tend to think “Yes, it is,” but other opinions are welcome. Enlighten me.