WOOOOOOAH! WE'RE HALFWAY THERE!

WOOOOOAH! We're living on a prayer! You know what, I actually had a good point about that song, but I forgot what it was, it's 1:50am and I have had too much beer to remember. Consider this a place-holder for some profound and clever multi-layered post.

EDIT: I can't for the life of me remember what my point was. I thought about it for several hours while riding back from Iowa because I had nothing else to do, but a day back in the grind made me lose it.

I think I'm turning unsatisfiable.

So I got my actual test results back from that professional exam, and when they implied I scored between 20% and 30% better than the passing grade, I was annoyed that I did not score higher. This is, however, unreasonable, since, given what the passing grade probably was, the highest attainable score, indicating 40+% better than the passing grade, may have been theoretically unattainable, and the next score, indicating 30-40% better than the passing grade, may have been simply ungodly. Given that only 40% of the people effectively taking the exam passed, I should be quite happy to have gotten such a good score. Before I got the actual score, I was glad to have passed at all. I just took a little listening quiz I saw on Dawn Eden and was annoyed that I "only" got 88.9 until I read the comments from a certain musician who reads this weblog saying that's what he got as well - and even then I was still slightly miffed. Good grief, I don't even really care about music, I think I'm just annoyed that I didn't get above 90% and earn the top designation.

Contrast with relative indifference to performance at work? I'm quite happy when I do well there and pleased to just scrape by - or even fail to scrape by but not get fired. I'm only annoyed when I completely strike out or get rained on.

Something to keep one's eye on, I suppose.

on politics

Not that I care very much, my only real political conviction is to be pro-life, but the elections are today and I love a good fight as much as the next man. I will be up front: I'll never be able to understand the appeal of Republicanism. The only thing they've got going for them is that many are vocally against abortion, though there are few pieces of legislation against abortion which could stand the scrutiny of a court challenge, and some are against stem-cell research, though I do admit that I haven't found one yet who is enthusiastically for it like some members of the Democrat Party. However ineffective I think their policy solutions are, however, I do admit that if one thinks, say, their fiscal and educational policies will obtain results -- which I doubt and is the reason I can't see the appeal -- one could broadly identify with the party. Really, party identification is less about ideology, since American parties are not ideological parties, but about class and social identification.

But I want to comment on this mutual incomprehension. Though I do not understand the appeal of Republicanism, I couldn't go so far as the typical sort of tripe thrown out at dKos -- I'm not talking about the BUSHITLER school of trash talk, but the sincere people who think anybody who votes for a Republican is an evil and deluded fool or the sort who jokingly yet earnestly can ask if there is any reason to vote Republican at all. Though I admit I don't see the appeal, I can certainly find reasons. On the other side, the web-loggers for some rag could not see the parallel between Clinton-bashing and Bush-bashing, taking paragraphs to draw a distinction between the two that I am not convinced the removal of ideological blinders could preserve. I must admit, the obscene villification of the current administration beyond mere disapproval of its policies is the second most off-putting aspect about liberalists [the first being enthusiastic support for abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, etc], but it is common to both sides. What a great falling-out there was? Ah, political difference. What joy.

Anyways, I do not see how a man of good conscience could vote for either candidate for governor of Illinois. One of the current debates is using state funds for embryonic stem-cell research. Both are for embryonic stem-cell research, the only difference is that the Republican may not be sure it is the best use of state resources, though she has stated she wants Illinois to be a "hub" for such research.

Anyways, I'm taking a week off work starting today because I'll be travelling from Thursday to Monday and I somehow decided that mandated taking Tuesday and Wednesday off.

EDIT: Democrats for Life has a helpful listing of pro-life races to watch tonight for those who are interested in pro-life Democrats. The Republicans don't provide a similar service.

Scientific progress!

Obstetricians are calling for debates about the possibility of euthanizing the sickest of babies, the sort, to paraphrase, the mothers would have aborted if they had known how sick they would be. In the Netherlands, babies born at 25 weeks are already not given medical treatment and can be euthanized in certain cases. This is real scientific progress.

on good news

I heard from a conservative web-log for peace that a Lutheran pastor whose work I had thought was quite "nifty" decided to convert to Orthodoxy. Now, that's awesome news, I'm very glad for it, but it raises a point about Protestantism. It seems less possible every day for a Protestant to earnestly step towards historic Christianity without abandoning Protestantism. Now, I'm an ideologue and really can't even see how Protestantism is possible, much less desirable [as if desire were important when seeking truth], but it always gave me some hope for dialogue to see some Protestants respecting the first 1500 years of history. And it seems every one of the people who does that whom I like quits being a Protestant as I watch. Now, there are some Protestants who purport to do that whose work I don't like at all [Touchstone, that rag, recently wrote about a number of them], such as the "Ancient-Future" folks, and for all I know they'll always be Protestant or they may convert tomorrow, but the people whose work I really do dig just keep jumping ship. It's disturbing. One possible set of exceptions: Anglicans whose work I dig, but they wiggle about whether they're really Protestants or not. And seriously: who do I look to as a good example for Lutherans now? Certainly not the seminary down the road with a rainbow flag and women in training for the pastorate.

EDIT: Though I can see how most Protestants wouldn't have a problem with women in the pastorate, as there doesn't seem to be much about what they have the pastor do that could not be or is not already done by a woman by their own admission if not for a debatable scriptural proposition to the contrary, though, with the sacramental views of Lutherans, I would not think they generally fall under such arguments. The fanatics, as Luther called them, however, should have no principled objection, though it seems they are the only ones still objecting.

At least the dark don't hide it.

I had some ideas for a post to write, but I've forgotten them all. But let me just say that 4:49 sunsets are pretty lame.