Logophile's Daily Fix - Overdose

I know, I've once again been lax in my blogging in relation to these posts. Not to fear though, I'll be posting three words today to make up for Sunday and Monday. While I realize this may be somewhat of an overload, even compared to the last double dose, simply think of it as building up your tolerance for bigger doses. If you think this might be too much, you can always just read the first word and then wait a day to come back for the other two. Remember, only you can prevent overdoses.

The first word reminds me of reading pirate tales in my youth. Unfortunately, this grand word has faded from the common lexicon. Perhaps, someday, it will rise again from the ashes of R'lyeh[1]. Without further ado (not that there was much to begin with), that word of ancient epochs is skullduggery! It means:

1. dishonorable proceedings; mean dishonesty or trickery: bribery, graft, and other such skulduggery.
2. an instance of dishonest or deceitful behavior; trick.
Also, skullduggery, sculduggery, scullduggery.

[Origin: 1705–15, Americanism; var. of sculduddery, orig. Scots: fornication, obscenity?]

As you can see, it has many spellings, but my favorite has always been the version that contains a skull.

The next word, another gem long forgotten, is gimcrackery. It means:

1. cheap, showy, useless trifles, ornaments, trinkets, etc.
2. obvious or contrived effects, esp. in art, music, literature, etc.
[Origin: 1770–80; gimcrack + -ery]

Finally, I'll end this triple entry with another interesting word often unheard in conversation, gadabout:

1. a person who moves about restlessly or aimlessly, esp. from one social activity to another.
2. a person who travels often or to many different places, esp. for pleasure.
[Origin: 1810–20; n. use of v. phrase gad about]

Is it possible to use all of these interesting words in one sentence? Lol. It must be, but if you do I doubt anyone will understand you. For instance: Bob, after receiving a gimcrack degree due to the skullduggery of a traveling salesman, decided to become a gadabout, traveling around Europe. Now that didn't sound forced at all right?

Logophile's Daily Fix - Double Dose

I know, I know, I failed to post your daily dose yesterday. However, to make amends, I offer two words today. Try not to overdose.

I begin with a word that though is relatively unknown, is a figure of speech people often employ. The word is litotes, meaning:

–noun, plural -tes. Rhetoric.
understatement, esp. that in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of its contrary, as in “not bad at all.”
[Origin: 1650–60; NL Gk lītótés orig., plainness, simplicity, deriv. of lītós plain, small, meager]

The next word, when used in a litotes, describes me fairly accurately. I am not very laconic. The word means:

–adjective
using few words; expressing much in few words; concise: a laconic reply.
[Origin: 1580–90; L Lacōnicus Gk Lakōnikós Laconian, equiv. to Lákōn a Laconian + -ikos -ic]

I know I feel better. After all, this is no small dose. (Lol. That last litotes is horrible, I know.) If I do not throw up an additional post today, I'll see everyone tomorrow for their daily fix.

Construction Update

Well, I think I'm done tinkering with the blog's appearance for now. I'm happy with the new banner, but I'm not entirely thrilled with it. I love the drawing originally done by Simon Brisley of Conan, and wanted to include this "photoshopped" production of it as a dedication to what is probably my favorite fictional character. (I put "photoshopped" in quotations only because it does not seem to have officially entered into a dictionary, which I find surprising considering that it has been around for several years. The Wiki seems to suggest this may be due to the Adobe's resistance to the word being adopted for fear it may undermine their trademark.)

I chose the font I did because I felt it meshed well with the savagery of Conan's figure as depicted in the drawing. However, I realize it makes the word difficult to read. This is why I'm not entirely thrilled with the new banner. That, and I realize there is a lot of black space between the drawing and the title. I realize that banners can be too busy, but I just feel like there is something missing in that dark void. To paraphrase Nietzsche, I stare into the Abyss and it is staring mockingly back at me.

That stated, please let me know what you think of the new look. I'll probably be tinkering with it over the next month or so as I try to figure out what I want. One personal aspiration of mine is to get a scanner and start drawing my own artwork to use in the banners (I am a decent sketch artist and am hoping to learn to use Photoshop to color my work, though I tend to prefer the clean look of pen and ink or the subtlety of pencil).

Logophile's Daily Fix

As I believe I mentioned before, I am afflicted with a passion for words and could be properly labeled with that most horrible of aspersions, logophile. While I admit my own addiction, I am far from the road to recovery and have instead decided to feed my desires by starting this new series of posts. Each day I plan to pick a word that either appeals to me or that I had not previously known or that happens to suit my mood. I will also be willing to accept suggestions; however, please send them via email. Enough with the formalities, lets get to the good stuff.

Today's delicious dose is sesquipedalian, meaning:

ses·qui·pe·da·li·an /ˌsɛskwɪpɪˈdeɪliən, -ˈdeɪlyən/ [ses-kwi-pi-dey-lee-uhn, -deyl-yuhn]
–adjective
1. given to using long words.
2. (of a word) containing many syllables.
–noun
3. a sesquipedalian word.
[Origin: 1605–15; L sésquipedālis measuring a foot and a half]

Something told me this word was appropriate to start this series, partially because it has always been one of my favorites and partially because I have heard it used to describe me. (It was only ever used once though, by my brother - it is not exactly a common word.)

Hopefully that will satiate you till the morrow.

Undergoing construction . . . .

As anyone who has read this blog before can tell, I'm currently tampering with the appearance of the blog. I'm doing this for two reasons largely: first, as an attempt to rearrange the aesthetics of the blog into something more representative of my personal tastes; and two, to rekindle my own interest in blogging.

I have been meaning to post more often but have continually been postponing blogging for numerous reasons. However, I've decided that blogging is important enough to me that it merits setting aside a designated time for each day. I'm hoping that I can write a mixed batch of posts, some daily items that will hopefully go into effect either tomorrow or Friday, as well as some bi-weekly or weekly items. I'll probably just be messing around with aesthetics, formating, etc., for the rest of the day so there probably won't be anything of substance until tomorrow. Hopefully I'll see you then.

P.S. Oh, and the title is a reference to the days when Geocities was a popular host for personal websites and everyone who just starting their page would always post the "under construction" gif.




Update: I was wondering if anyone out there could help me figure out how to stretch an image to ensure it covered the entire length of the blog behind the title? Any help would be greatly appreciated (unfortunately that appreciation only extends to words of gratitude as opposed to any real action).

Update II: Construction will probably continue throughout the weekend, though I will attempt to occasionally post as I establish a usual routine for the blog.

Local yokels and 30 seconds of fame.

Just a short post, I read this tidbit in "30 Seconds" today:

Air America, the Democratic radio station, is going to begin airing an hour program a day on atheism. Apparently with Democrats "In God We Trust" is not your motto. And what's with the number one hypocrite in the country, Hillary Clinton, using 9-11 footage in her campaign ad? After all, it was this hypocrite that criticized George Bush for using 9-11 ads in his campaign. Certainly Hillary should use it. After all Bill Clinton was responsible. For the four and a half years while it was being thought out by bin Laden, Bill and Hillary did nothing to stop it. So, yeah, I guess Hillary is connected to 9-11 in a bigger way than you Democrats would like her to be. Thank you.
Bloomsburg man

Of course, I felt compelled to respond. Unfortunately, due to the 700 character limit for submissions, I was only only able to actually address the first part of the post. Here's my response:

10.16 Bloom man, simply because a radio station airs a program does not mean every democrat is an atheist, that’s a hasty generalization – a logical fallacy. “In God We Trust,” which became the motto in ’56 due to xenophobic McCarthyism, should be considered a violation of the Establishment clause and an insult to the Framers, who originally used the phrase, “E Pluribus Unum.” The ’56 phrase did not appear on money until after the Civil War. The patriotic stance is to support the Constitution and condemn the ’56 phrase. Were Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Madison alive today, they would not be viable candidates because of their religious beliefs.

The radio station, Air America, recently added Freethought Radio to their line-up. Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor, from the Freedom From Religious Foundation (FFRF), created the show. This is the same organization that was involved in Hein v. FFRF. I applaud them for their tireless defense of the Establishment Clause as well as their efforts to spread accurate information about atheism to the public (we aren't baby-eating monsters, some of us aren't anyway).

Local Yokels and 30 seconds of fame.

Let me begin by apologizing for my long absence from the blog, unfortunately life has kept me particularly busy lately. However, I have not been completely absent from the blogosphere. I've been arguing with anthropogenic global warming "skeptics" over at The Volokh Conspiracy - Harry Eagar has proven to be particularly resistant to things like peer-reviewed articles, quotes from scientists he supposedly respects, and evidence in general.

I've also been responding to my favorite hometown forum, "30 Seconds." I have had a few more exchanges with Benton Renaissance man, Bob Runyon. I will probably publish these when I publish the third and hopefully final installment of "Runyon's expertise, does it know no bounds." I'm hoping to put that up later this week.

This installment of "Local yokels . . ." focuses on another area hero though, on one brave man not afraid to stand up to the overwhelming forces of the homosexual agenda by crying foul whenever there covert agents undermine morality and decency. Meet PanAmerican Man! I present, from the Sept. 29, 2007 ed. of The Press Enterprise, his initial broadside against the homosexual agenda:

According to a recent coulumn by Maggie Gallagher, a Methodist organization in New Jersy has lost its real estate tax exemption because it refuses to allow homosexual marriages on its property. This action is based upon the absurd idea that one's free choice of sexual behavior equates with racial discrimination. One's race is genetically determined, one's sexual behavior is not; i.e., celibacy and abstinance. It should be obvious that homofascists and their enlightened allies are working to secularize American society by undermining the separation of church and state and religious freedom. What next? Will Catholic and Orthodox churches be forced to ordain female lesbian priests?

PanAmerican man was attempting to discuss this case. I know, he seems to have left some material facts out of his version. Here's my response, posted several days later (though I unfortunately forgot what day it was actually printed):

9.29 PanAmerican man fails to tell the whole story while reciting his homophobic rant. The Methodist organization lost their tax exempt status for a property on the boardwalk that they held out to the public to rent for events, usually weddings. The church is not losing tax exempt status, only the pavilion. The organization retains the right to refuse to allow unions at their church, and they do not have to officiate the civil union. However, to see the inherit bigotry in the church’s position, simply replace lesbian with black and have the church use the same argument that some Christians used to defend slavery during the civil war. Sexual orientation, like race, is a biologically determined, immutable characteristic. Distorted half truths are as bad as outright lies.

In his response, published in Oct. 14, 2007 ed. of "30 Seconds," PanAmerican Man took umbrage with my argument that homosexuality was biologically determined and uses that infallible source of knowledge to rebut me, Francis Collins.

Atheotatus: Where do you get your information? According to Francis Collins, PhD, MD, MPH, head of the Human Genome Project, the heritability factor for homosexuality is only 20 percent. The heritability factor for race is 100 percent: that is, a male and female of the Caucasian race will have Caucasian children, not Black or Asian. Understand? Also, the term homophobia is deceptive. Emperical research shows that persons with anti-homosexual attitudes do not show the clinical signs of phobias in general, and rather than being dysfunctional, are highly functional individuals (Sexual Orientation: Science, Education, and Policy, under sexual prejudice). Does name-calling substitute for fact?

I know, he's got Francis Collins! What am I going to do? How do I ever respond? Well, I'll post the response I sent in today - this should be published in the next week or so:

PanAmerican: Collins' conclusion is based on one study, ignoring other studies. The majority of scientists conclude that sexual orientation is caused by prenatal factors, making biology determinative. I suggest perusing PubMed (Behavioral Neuroscience, vol. 121, issue 5 has a nice article)? While homophobes can be highly functional, the only study on topic shows that homophobes tend to have repressed homosexual tendencies. Simply think of Haggard, Allen, Craig, and DiFatta and remember Shakespeare, "[thou] doth protest too much, methinks." I called your rant "homophobic," not you. I notice you aren't addressing the facts of Methodist case.

This could probably do with a little explication. I'm sure everyone is curious about what specific study Collin's used and what studies he's ignored and what study I'm citing that argues that homophobes express repressed homosexual tendencies. However, I think I'll save the exploration of the relevant material for a longer, more detailed post on the current state of research into the biology of homosexuality (may be coming out either this weekend or sometime later?). I will post a few of the studies at the end though. However, I will note that the study Collins relies on was preceded by another study by the same researchers that found over a 50% rate of heritability. Well Collins is a scientist of some note, he continually fails to take into account all the relevant evidence when attempting to confirm his own faith-based beliefs.

Back to PanAmerican Man, he apparently felt it was necessary to write two "30 Second" entries to respond to me, and here is the second one which was published Oct. 15:

Atheotatous ("the most atheist one") recently stated that "sexual orientation, like race, is a biologically determined immutable characteristic," but fails to cite any study that identifies a specific homosexual gene. Can anyone cite any study that proves that any complex form of human behavior, e.g., sexual behavior, is genetically determined? Why is it that identical twins, with identical DNA, are not always of the same "sexual orientation"? Archives of Sexual Behavior, Oct. '03: "...the author (Robert Spitzer, M.D. and homosexual advocate) became convinced of the possibility of change in some gay men and lesbians." If some politically incorrect truths are inconvenient, too bad.

He knows what my name means! I'm so honored, he must have shown enough interest to Google the word! Here's the response I submitted:

PanAmerican: Plenty of studies are available on PubMed, but citing them in “30 Seconds” would eliminate space for comment. Human behavior is directly impacted by brain physiology. Remember the case of Phineas Gage or how chemical imbalances can lead to severe depression, etc. About twins, one should remember that identical genetic material does not lead to identical physiology. Fine details, such as fingerprints, can differ and some studies have used the number of finger ridges as a predictability factor of homosexuality. Also, there are some limitations to using twins to determine genetic factors due to the large number of uncontrolled variables. If some truths are politically or religiously inconvenient, that’s too bad.

I'll touch on Robert Spitzer in my future post on homosexuality; however, if you are eager you can see what the APA thought of his paper on changing sexual orientation at the Wiki.

Some articles of interest:

Adams, Henry E. & Lester W. Wright, Jr., Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?, 105 J. of Abnormal Psychol. 440 (1996).

Abrams, Michael, Born Gay?, 28 Discover 58 (2007).

Bodo, Cristian & Emilie F. Rissman, Androgen receptor is essential for sexual differentiation of responses to olfactory cues in mice, 25 European J. of Neuroscience 2182 (2007).

Sven Bocklandt et al., Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men, 118 Human Genetics 691 (2006)

Keller, Julia C., Straight Talk About the Gay Gene, 16 Science & Spirit 21 (2005).

Murphy, Timothy F., The search for the gay gene, 330 BMJ 1033 (2005).

Hershberger, Scott L. & Nancy L. Segal, The Cognitive, Behavioral, and Personality Profiles of a Male Monozygotic Triplet Set Discordant for Sexual Orientation, 33 Archives of Sexual Behavior 497 (2004).

Brian S. Mustanski et al., A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation, 116 Human Genetics 272 (2005).

Runyon's expertise, does it know no bounds (Part II)?

I apologize for the long pause from blogging, but I'm afraid work and life, as they always do, interfered. However, I'm back now so let's dive right back into the completely credulous mind of Robert Runyon, Benton-area genius.

Let us begin with some developments that have occurred since my last post. In a submission to 30 Seconds, Prof. Lee pointed out that Runyon had largely plagiarized his legal argument from another source. Here is her post:

Had we any doubt about the competency of PV-Runyon to be a school board director, his 9/11 Op-Ed lays it to rest. Unable to distinguish between "the" and "thee," oblivious to the meaning of "in personam," making nonsense comparisons of "sow's ears" to "city halls," and confusing "god's law" with "common law," either he's writing to a secret audience (his UFO pals?), or he has no idea what he's talking about, or both. Plain truth? Runyon's Op-Ed is a poorly CRIBBED version of legal dilettante Howard Freeman's unintelligible take on Texas property law. No kidding. See www.landrights.com/UCC_1-207.htm and http://autarchic.tripod.com/dixon/chapter6.html.

Needless to say, I went to the websites to clarify that Runyon had indeed, stolen his argument from another author. The first URL she provides links you to the second URL, where a little exploration and a link to buy the author's book reveals this. I cannot say I am completely shocked that Runyon would plagiarize his legal argument from some theocratic wingnut who is not a lawyer and has never attended law school. But don't take my word for it, here is the description of the author from the same site above:

The author is from a small southern Christian Community where contracts were spoken aloud and hands were shaken in fellowship. Word is bond and few would dare transgress upon an agreement. This love of our Brother has been reduces to ‘summary’ contract.

The author failed the second grade in Louisiana and averaged out in several California High Schools. He did not get interested in any meaningful study until he attended college. He found a Constitutional Law class which taught Lawyers how to make elliptical, everyday words to mean whatever they presumed. He decided there was more to Law than “social engineering” and being a Reserve Deputy Sheriff.

He became an insurance agent in Tennessee and soon learned that he was up to his neck in Lawyers and Bankers. He decided to fall back on his limited resources and fled back to California. He is a self studied Administrative Law Consultant whom has found that words within the Bill of Rights are of God’s Law.

That's right, this brilliant legal mind has found "God's Law" in the Constitution, and I always innocently thought it was a completely secular document. Here's my most recent 30 Seconds entry, posted in today's Press Enterprise in response to Runyon's idiocy:

Theocrat and plagiarist (his Sept. 11 ltr. to the editor was taken from William Dixon's "Sovereign Covenant") Robert Runyon wrote that the Constitution was founded on God. Runyon is wrong. The Constitution is a secular document whose authority is derived from the consent of the governed. God is not in the Constitution. Moreover, the Free Exercise Clause directly conflicts with the First Commandment (Ex. 20:3), for which the punishment is stoning (Deut. 17:2-5). Historian Donald Lutz noted when the Federalists were defending the Constitution during the years 1787-88, they did not cite the Bible. The anti-Federalists, who opposed the Constitution, were the ones citing the Bible for support. Runyon should stick to plagiarizing his arguments.

Unfortunately, 30 Seconds is an extremely limited forum, only allowing for 700 character entries. However, I feel I accomplished my goal despite my normal verbosity. While Prof. Lee may have been wrong about the exact author Runyon plagiarized, she was certainly correct about the argument being taken wholesale from another, in this case, a man who is probably very much like Runyon - at least if his legal argument is any indication.

This post, like all my other posts, seems to be getting rather long. I'll end it here for now, and post the legal analysis in Part III, which will hopefully be posted either later tonight or sometime tomorrow (no promises though). However, if you are interested in actually reading a case that dealt with the constitutional issues Runyon was attempting to mention in his original argument, the name of it is Berwick Area Landlord Assn. v. Borough of Berwick. I apologize for not providing a link, but am afraid I was unable to find it available online for free.

Temporary pause in blogging . . . .

I wanted to apologize to anyone who has been reading this blog, but I'm afraid I've had to temporarily stop posting while I catch up on some work and do a few other things. I will hopefully be able to start posting again starting this weekend, perhaps earlier.

Thanks.

Runyon's expertise, does it know no bounds?

This post is going to be rather brief due partly to illness and partly to my workload. I simply wanted to present the brilliant legal mind of Benton genius, Robert Runyon. Here, he provides a clear and succinct argument to avoid a local landlord ordinance that has recently been passed in the area. For your enjoyment and without further ado:

How to recapture your flag

When I was a child growing up in Almedia, about four miles north of Bloomsburg, all the kids throughout the community used to get together in the fall and play a game called "Capture the Flag." We would divide into groups of five persons per flag, most times we would have four flags, sometimes enough kids showed up to have as many as 10 flags. Each group, or flag, elected a leader, whose job it was to remain with the flag to protect it against capture. The other four would go out to try to capture the opponents' flags and return them to hang from your flag pole. As a flag was captured, it lost its sovereignty and its players would serve its new master, under a new flag and became compelled to join in capturing other opponents' flags, bringing them under new sovereignty and the game ended when all flags flew under one sovereignty.

Kind of reminds me of WE THEE PEOPLE, born equally free and independent, with inalienable and indefeasible rights. Citizens of Article III jurisdiction, U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Pennsylvania Constitution, and upon closer inspection I must conclude WE THEE PEOPLE'S flag has been captured somewhere along the way.

Further study reveals that by THEE own hand with the final stroke of THEE pen we have set seal against our "Personam" and become "In Personam," as we have unwittingly placed ourselves and our children under a sow's ear; U.S. Constitution Article I and Article II jurisdiction and the inferior courts. Fear not! There is remedy and can be attained at "Without Prejudice" UCC 1- 207 and can be found in the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Uniform Commercial Code (Title 13) Chapter 12 § 1207 / performance or acceptance under reservation of rights.

Upon inspection of the new Landlord ordinance By the Borough Council of Berwick, I find it most funny if it weren't for reason that I see the horrible fact that more of THEE PEOPLE'S flags are being surrendered to the sow's ear (City Hall) by the simple fact of entering in and subjecting themselves to the unthinkable, without the protections of and securing for themselves their Article III rights by simply placing above their signature "Without Prejudice" UCC-1-207.

To the Landlords and tenants that hath any understanding, take note that becoming agents of the sow's ear (City Hall) or an agent thereof that acts in an inappropriate manner against an Article III jurisdiction citizen who has reserved his rights without prejudice will have the sow's ear at Title 18 law.

To those who wish to remain under the jurisdiction of the sow, go in peace as you have the right to do so. To those who wish to throw the chains of the sow and dwell in the land of Article III citizenship, where your inalienable and indefeasible rights are secured in the knowledge that the sow's ear will meet with God's Law (Common Law), where citizens are of right and not privilege and that the sow's ear to act can meet its fate at Title 18, I say welcome and learn to secure THEE flag!

"Without Prejudice UCC 1- 207"

ROBERT RUNYON

Nescopeck

The Patriot's Voice

Robert Runyon, Ltr. to the Ed., How to recapture your flag, The Press Enterprise (Sept. 11, 2007).

Armed with an unstoppable legal mind, I'm surprised this word-smith is not right now arguing cases before the Supreme Ct. for some objective, well-respected legal group, like the ADF, the ACLJ, or the Thomas More Law Center. I'll comment more on this later, but for now I will simply state that he did not completely butcher everything, though I would not trying appealing to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in any ct., since you instead have to check to ensure that those sections of the UCC that are being cited to have been ratified by the state in question. Thankfully (and surprisingly), Runyon did mention the correct statute that codifies this provision of the UCC, even if he butchered the citation. 13 Pa.C.S.A. section 1207 did ratify section 1-207 of the UCC.

I'll touch more on this tomorrow perhaps, needless to say there are certainly a few problems.