The Ark and The Dove

It's called "ShowerShock," apparently

James Lileks reports,

A few months ago we revealed that a scientist had invented the caffeinated doughnut. I don't have the column at hand, but I fear I went the Way of the Hack, and said "What's next, caffeinated shampoo?" or some such grindingly unfunny observation. If that's what I said, well, I was close. Caffeinated soap has been invented.

No, really.  I don't think he's kidding.  You're supposed to absorb the caffeine through your skin.

Out the airlock

NASA's "Ask an Astrophysicist" answers one of those questions you've always wondered about when you see it in the movies but is unlikely to have any immediate importance in your life: what would happen to a person who was exposed to the vacuum of space without a space suit?

Italian flag color symbolism?

I noticed that in Dante, the colors red, white, and green represent the three theological virtues.  Coincidence?

Re: Filling up

I liked Peter's comment-post.  I know what he meant.  Just to make sure there was no confusion for readers, I was not arguing that marriage is equally perfect as celibacy for the Kingdom.  Go read St. Jerome contra Jovinianum if you're open-minded and need convincing.

What I am trying to get at is that marriage isn't merely a consolation prize for people who can't live up to perfection; it has a real and important role in saving the world in an eternal and transcendent way.  So also, doing every human action in a really human (i.e. sin-free) way plays a part in helping to redeem every aspect of human life (though most of these things are not nearly so central to human life as marriage).

Whose View Anyway?

So it appears Rosie O'Donnell might be stepping out of the View (via Drudge). Talking about this with Isabel, it led me to think about why they gave Rosie jurisdiction to be on the show in the first place. I'm not talking about what possessed Barbara Walters to bring in an inflammatory hate-monger to boost ratings in the short-run...but rather, why Rosie in particular was allowed to be the hate-monger they brought on the show. For instance, Imus seems to be good at getting media intention for spewing bad language. Why not make him a regular feature? Obviously, the answer is that Rosie is a woman and Imus is a man. The View is inherently discriminatory in that it only features women as host(esses). But wherein lies Rosie's womanhood? She certainly isn't very feminine. Thus, her womanhood must reside in her physical being, not in her psychology or behavior. There are a lot of male talk show hosts who are far more womanly than she is. Indeed, for Rosie to be a lesbian, she must be attracted to other women -- not people who think in a feminine way, but people who have female bodies. If Rosie is not blind to gender, why should the rest of us be? More importantly, isn't it hypocritical of people who benefit from physical gender differences and make choices based on physical gender to condemn the Church or government from also recognizing physical gender? Discrimination, in the proper context, is a necessary part of life. Why do we think it should only occur on a microcosmic, personal scale rather than on a macrocosmic social scale?

From the "They Needed to Research This?" Files

Via Foxnews.com, apparently researches have discovered (gasp) that there appears to be a correlation between a child's behavior and parents' religious habits. Children with religiously active parents who agree on important religious issues end up being better adjusted, possessing more self-control, and playing well with others. Children whose parents disagree on important religious issues or neglect worship often misbehave. Of course, while the reasons for this correlation seem obvious enough, one researcher points out that it might be that misbehaving children cause the religious problems for the parents. Riiiiiight.

Ouch of the Day

From Mark Shea:
"You know, Judas Iscariot was the first Catholic to receive a government grant"

Vonnegut on Pretenders

15. "We must be careful about what we pretend to be."

In Mother Night, apolitical expatriate American playwright Howard W. Campbell, Jr. refashions himself as a Nazi propagandist in order to pass coded messages on to the U.S. generals and preserve his marriage to a German woman—their "nation of two," as he calls it. But in serving multiple masters, Campbell ends up ruining his life and becoming an unwitting inspiration to bigots. In his 1966 introduction to the paperback edition, Vonnegut underlines Mother Night's moral: "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." That lesson springs to mind every time a comedian whose shtick relies on hoaxes and audience-baiting—or a political pundit who traffics in shock and hyperbole—gets hauled in front of the court of public opinion for pushing the act too far. Why can't people just say what they mean? It's a question Don Imus and Michael Richards—and maybe someday Ann Coulter—must ask themselves on their many sleepless nights.

15 Things Kurt Vonnegut Said Better Than Anyone Else Ever Has Or Will

There's a reason why we use the phrase "habit of virtue." If you pretend to be a virtuous person long enough you might just become one. The same goes for pretending to be a vicious person.

Also, I recently read Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. Check it out if you want a fun 5 minute distraction.

Oh Well

I would get stuck on a planet with kryptonite but no Superman.

"Towards the end of my research I searched the web using the mineral's chemical formula - sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide - and was amazed to discover that same scientific name, written on a case of rock containing kryptonite stolen by Lex Luther from a museum in the film Superman Returns."

I Wholeheartedly Agree

link