New CW Key!



The copy from the Morse Express website that completely and utterly sold me:

Variously known as the D-117, the K4, or just the "Chinese Army Key" these heavy duty straight keys were made for the Chinese Peoples' Liberation Army (PLA). The Chinese phrase "changshu dianxun qichai chang" translates as "Changshu Telecommunication Equipment Factory."

In 2000, Morse Express obtained remaining stocks which were purchased direct from the PLA as surplus. They are mostly in factory new condition, with some showing a bit of "warehouse wear" such as deteriorated packaging and dust. Supplies were limited, and apart from being a good heavy-duty straight key, they are also very collectable. See our Collectors' Corner page for some of the "varieties."

Late in 2003 we were able to get in touch with the factory, and were delighted to discover that the keys are still in production, and by going direct to the factory, we were able to get better prices. They are still expensive to ship from China, of course, but we are happy to pass the savings along to our customers.

The keys have chrome plating, machined needle bearings for the trunion, hard silver (K4) or copper (K5) contacts, and a felt pad on the base. They weigh around two and a quarter pounds each! Approximate base dimensions are 2-3/4 x 4-3/4 inches. They're 2-1/2 inches high and the center of the knob is forward of the base about an inch.

Of course the keys are "still in production", you silly American!

Hey Kids, What Time Is It??!!

Mary visited us for the holidays, reclaiming her room (alas, temporarily), which the rest of the world knows as radio station K4JSU.

She made some remarks about the number of clocks in the room.

I want everyone to know that my feelings are not hurt.

And besides, the number of clocks in that room is entirely normal.

Bad form, Wheaton!

Fr. Neuhaus will be very disappointed.

UPDATE: Macon pointed me to this post on the FT blog. Not only does this post have an intelligent discussion of the controversy, it also links to the complete WSJ article that initially got our attention over the weekend.

Good luck with that.
To Europe:

We wish you well in your faith that war has become obsolete and that outlaw nations will comply with international jurisprudence that was born and is nurtured in Europe. Yet your own intelligence suggests that the Iran theocracy is both acquiring nuclear weaponry and seeking to craft missile technology to put an Islamic bomb within reach of European cities — oblivious to the reasoned appeals of European Union diplomats, who themselves operate as Greek philosophers in the agora only on the condition that Americans will once more play the role of Roman legionaries in the shadows. . . .

You will, of course, answer that in your postwar wisdom you have transcended the internecine killing of the earlier 20th century when nationalism and militarism ruined your continent — and that you have lent your insight to the world at large that should follow your therapeutic creed rather than the tragic vision of the United States.

But the choices are not so starkly bipolar between either chauvinistic saber rattling or studied pacifism. There is a third way, the promise of muscular democratic government that does not apologize for 2,500 years of civilization and is willing to defend it from the enemies of liberalism, who would undo all that we wrought. . . .

The world is becoming a more dangerous place, despite your new protocols of childlessness, pacifism, socialism, and hedonism. Islamic radicalism, an ascendant Communist China, a growing new collectivism in Latin America, perhaps a neo-czarist Russia as well, in addition to the famine and savagery in Africa, all that and more threaten the promise of the West.

So criticize us for our sins; lend us your advice; impart to America the wealth of your greater experience — but as a partner and an equal in a war, not as an inferior or envious neutral on the sidelines. History is unforgiving. None of us receives exemption simply by reason of the fumes of past glory.

Either your economy will reform, your populace multiply, and your citizenry defend itself, or not. And if not, then Europe as we have known it will pass away — to the great joy of the Islamists but to the terrible sorrow of America.

From Victor Davis Hanson.

UPDATE: 5 minutes later, cause Stephen Green says it funnier. Read the whole thing here.
Also To Europe:

I know you think we're all religious nuts over here, but Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the real deal. We're trying, however imperfectly, to bring a little freedom to the Islamic world. Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel off the map. How's that for nuts? He's not making any idle threat, either, like launching "a thousand-year Reich" or promising "liberty, equality, fraternity." Iran wants nukes. Iran has an advanced nuclear program. We'd like to stop them, without using military means.

And we'd sure like some help, fellas.

There's another Holocaust brewing, and I don't mean your parlor-room talk about how America is killing brown babies for oil. Besides, we aren't the ones who committed the first Holocaust – that was your doing. What we're trying to do is prevent another one, and we'd like to think that you guys might be a little sensitive to that sort of thing. "Go forth and sin no more," and all that.

Well, here's your chance to right a wrong.

Looking at your atrophied militaries, maybe that's too much to ask. So instead, how about if you could provide a little multinational moral support to the endeavor? Then again, we've all seen what counts as moral backbone in Brussels and Paris and Berlin – so let's set our sights a little lower. How about you guys just sit back and shut the hell up while the pros do what needs to be done?

You guys have failed. As of right now, Iran can produce yellowcake. As of shortly after right now, Iran will have nukes. As of yesterday – thanks in no small part to Old Europe – Iran already has missiles capable of reaching Israel.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not some chickenhawk cowboy who wants to bomb the snuff out of Iran. I think there's still some slim chance that diplomacy might still work. But – and let's speak frankly here, as friends – your brand of diplomacy just won't cut it.

Your kind of diplomacy gave chemical weapons technology to Saddam Hussein. Your kind of diplomacy sells jet fighters and stealth-defeating radars to whoever has the cash to buy them. Your kind of diplomacy is the same kind of diplomacy you used to coddle a certain German tyrant 70 years ago.

Well. In the age of nukes, that kind of diplomacy just won't cut it.

We can muster "big stick" diplomacy, and Iran knows it. We have CENTCOM in Iraq. We have Special Forces in Afghanistan. We have Israel on a very loose leash.

Yours is the kind of diplomacy that pleads. Ours is the kind that threatens.

You've had your chance, and gotten nowhere. We'd like to see what we can do. All we ask is that you play to your strength and admit defeat already. We'll take it from here.

Microfinance.

On Thursday, the WSJ ran an article about "microfinance loans" and, specifically, about how one could invest in companies that help make those loans. The article has a table that lists some of these organizations. The table is reproduced on a blog called microcapital.org. The blog lists other organizations involved in microlending as well.

The body of the WSJ article also refers to organizations not listed in the table. The point of the article is that microlending is moving from the not-for-profit sector to the profit sector. (The WSJ website is a subscription site, as you probably know. My subscription allows me to email individual articles. Let me know if you would like me to email you a copy of the WSJ article. )

The blog I mentioned called the organizations that give you some return on your money or, at least, give you your principal back, as "ROI" organizations. "ROI" refers to "return on investment" or maybe "return of investment".

World Vision is one of several not-for-profits that have a microloan program. You simply make a contribution and they take it from there. Using World Vision for this sort of thing makes sense to me, because you have some assurance that the money will be used as promised. On the other hand, the presence of the blog I refer to above also gives one the opportunity to find out more about this innovative way to do good, whether its in the secular or Christian world.

[Footnote: I looked at the Calvert Foundation website, referred to in the WSJ article, where one can invest in "community investment notes" with a $1000 minimum. The site has a button that lists "our friends", meaning, I think, investors in their products. Among Calvert's friends is the "Gay Financial Network". That deflected my interest in this organization. Do you think it should?]

Nice Lines
First Things On The Square notes that Milton Himmelfarb passed away this week. I don't know who he is, but I really liked some of the things he said, according to FT:

“The trouble is not that religion in general has too small a role in American public life or American life simply,” he wrote in FIRST THINGS in March 1991. “The trouble is that a particular religion has too great a role—paganism, the de facto established religion.”

The powerful phrase “No Hitler, No Holocaust” began as the title of one of his classic essays in Commentary, and it was Milton Himmelfarb who first coined the phrase “argumentum ad Hitlerum” to describe the easy and false analogies that swirl around political debate.

Argumentum ad Hitlerum, the forerunner to Godwin's Law.

Trinogomous Hell.

The Miami Herald (where else?) considers three in the sack.

Sartre was all over this.

Note: I have modified this post. I really find the Herald article to be quite interesting. Its about a documentary and about the film maker - and about the subject of the documentary, the "trinogomous" relationship that went on for years and produced, apparently, at least one child, but finally broke up. Does the documentary necessarily invite emulation; does the newspaper article? If they invited emulation, then they are morally reprehensible. What we watch, what we read, what we listen to, where we spend our time, will tend to conform us to what we perceive. That's why we want to meditate on God's law, day and night. That's why we want not to walk in the way of the counsel of the wicked.

This kind of article makes the Herald's editorial policy so despicable. The Herald is in a unique and powerful position to build up, but it seems ever to tear down.

As to the demerits of the case presented in the article, is there a difference between "serial" polygomy and "trinogomy"? At least the former affirms the idea of one male/one female, while undercutting it with the temporal nature of the mariage/divorce/marriage cycle. "Trinogomy" simply ignores the natural state of things.

Daniel

Big date night last night. Our Publix rendevouz was particularly exciting because we are getting ready for Aidan's visit. And, as if that wasn't enough for late-yuppie style Friday night romance, we got home and channel surfed (if you can call what I do with a 17 inch tv with rabbit ears surfing) into the new NBC show Daniel. From what I understand from some of the Evangelical pundits, this show will push us over the edge into Armageddon and make a viewer go blind.

Its funny, though. It is a great satire on upper-middle/upper class American culture. The "Christianity" is spot-on liberal Protestantism. The prettiest actor plays Liberal American Protestant Jesus (hereinafter "LAP Jesus"), but nearly all of them are pretty, except for the characters of whom the writers disapprove.

The writers disapprove of Daniel's father, the bishop, but LAP Jesus, being LAP Jesus of course, says even the bishop is really a good guy. Of course, we know what LAP Jesus' problem is, my fellow Americans - he loves everybody, even Pharisees like the bishop. I don't exactly remember the Jesus of the New Testament (hereinafter "NT Jesus") loving the Pharisees. Maybe he loved them at some profound level, maybe like going to the cross for them (and me), but he certainly didn't like them. Would you call someone you liked a snake? But LAP Jesus likes everyone. I sort of like LAP Jesus, especially when he is as pretty as the one on Daniel, but I don't love him. In fact though he's a nice guy, he's sort of a, what's the word these days? a word of gentle contempt, something begins with a "w" or "wh", but I can't think of it. Anyway, he's one of those, this LAP Jesus. But good looks on a man or a woman go a long way - at least for however long that show went last night.

My favorite character was the RC priest. I've seen that actor before - playing Italian bad guys or Italian cops, usually ones that are just a little disturbed. He's just perfect for this part. If nothing else, he projects an aura of slightly malevolent strength. Frankly, the projection of strength by any male on this show, malevolent or not, is refreshing, because I saw it from none of the other male characters. (Speaking of male-strength-not, how about the father of the girl friend of Daniel's adopted, Asian son? Doesn't he sort of define TV American maleness?)

Every relationship in this show is "messed-up" and "abnormal" except, maybe, for Daniel's relationship with his wife and maybe his relationships with most of the other characters. Daniel, himself a priest, Episcopal variety, is the epitome of nice guy-ness, which is the character to which all of us should aspire, as the show teaches. That's obviously why LAP Jesus hangs around with him. (And why NT Jesus is nowhere in sight.)

The show sends-up all behaviors or "life-styles", but the writers make it plain of what they approve as they present the characters. The favorite character, other the Daniel, seems to be Daniel's gay son. This is the same same "gay" stereotype we see everwhere: gentle, sensitive, bright, reasonable, reasonably needy, reasonably giving, but, come to think of it, all the stereotypes are in this show. But its well put together, slick, and, when you crowd all those stereotypes in one fast moving TV show, it does offer even a NT Jesus follower a few moments of guilty pleasure.

Politics Summed Up
An interesting idea from the First Things blog:

Responsible political opinion runs only in a narrow range, from the liberal certainty that freedom is worth its risks to the conservative intuition that civilization is worth its costs. Everything beyond these boundaries is radical and irresponsible, in one way or another—usually in a denial that there actually are any risks to freedom or costs to civilization.

From a much longer post on abortion politics.

Can You Believe this Guy?

And at one time people seriously thought about him as President.

Choose to Save.

The WSJ reported Tuesday that in 2006 Americans spent more than they brought home, for the first time since the Depression. This is a little disturbing, but is this really news?

Anyway.

The article pointed to a website where you can estimate what you need to fund retirement. I don't think that a well funded "retirement" is the point of life, but saving for some imagined point in the future where you might want to do something that requires a little stored-up wealth is definintely a good thing.

P&P: near the end.

ELIZABETH'S spirits soon rising to playfulness again, she wanted Mr. Darcy to account for his having ever fallen in love with her. "How could you begin?'' said she. "I can comprehend your going on charmingly, when you had once made a beginning; but what could set you off in the first place?''

"I cannot fix on the hour, or the spot, or the look, or the words, which laid the foundation. It is too long ago. I was in the middle before I knew that I had begun.''

"My beauty you had early withstood, and as for my manners -- my behaviour to you was at least always bordering on the uncivil, and I never spoke to you without rather wishing to give you pain than not. Now be sincere; did you admire me for my impertinence?''

"For the liveliness of your mind, I did.''

"You may as well call it impertinence at once. It was very little less. The fact is, that you were sick of civility, of deference, of officious attention. You were disgusted with the women who were always speaking, and looking, and thinking for your approbation alone. I roused, and interested you, because I was so unlike them. Had you not been really amiable, you would have hated me for it; but in spite of the pains you took to disguise yourself, your feelings were always noble and just; and in your heart, you thoroughly despised the persons who so assiduously courted you. There -- I have saved you the trouble of accounting for it; and really, all things considered, I begin to think it perfectly reasonable. To be sure, you knew no actual good of me -- but nobody thinks of that when they fall in love.''

I just love a happy ending.

"A Stream of Things of Value"

According to the WSJ today, the criminal information (used in lieu of an indictment of Jack Abramoff) refers to a Congressman whom Abramoff is alleged to have bribed. The information cited this person

as having been "provided a stream of things of value" in return for official favors. It said the things provided included campaign donations, a lavish golf trip to Scotland, tickets to sporting events and other entertainments, and regular meals at a pricey Washington restaurant called Signatures that Mr. Abramoff once owned.

The stream metaphor made me think of Psalm 1, where the righteous man, who meditates day and night on the law of the Lord, is "like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season . . . "

What a contrast. God's "stream of value" that nourishes us, that makes our lives fruitful, that keeps us fresh and new, and that prospers us. Abramoff's "stream of value": ill-gotten money, travel, "entertainments", and rich food, all of which leads to such black denouement. It reminds me of those sweets that the White Witch gave Edmond, bribing him into betrayal. God on the one side. Mammon on the other. There is absolutely nothing new here. So totally banal.

Pure. Cullinary. Genius.

For lunch today I was making myself a peanut butter (creamy, 'cause we were out of crunchy) sandwich, when I had this mental dialogue:
"I wish I had crunchy peanut butter."
"Mmmmmmmm, crunchy peanut butter."
"What else could I put in here that crunches?"
"How about . . . Goldfish Crackers?"
"Well, that would crunch, but what about the cheese flavor?"
"Good question. . .Wait! Lance makes those Toast-Chee crackers: Cheese flavor crackers & peanut butter in the middle!"
"Mmmmmmmmm, Toast-Chee crackers."
"Allright! Goldfish Crackers in my peanut butter sandwich!"

And sure enough, it was a great combination: Peanut Butter and Cheese flavor crackers. And bread.

Macon Stokes: I didn't invent the Peanut Butter and Cheese Flavor Cracker Combination, just the Peanut Butter and Cheese Flavor Cracker Sandwich.

Black Monday at the U.

Larry Coker guns down the heart of his staff. Including Art Kehoe, the very soul of the assistant coach universe at UM, he among the staff that lobbied for Coker to be elevated to head coach when Butch Davis left for Cleveland. Blow, blow, thou Winter Wind!

This whole town is stunned - but at least it takes our minds off the LSU game itself.

Somebody suggested on the main Sportstalk show today that Saban be hired to coach both the U and the Dolphins, we all figuring that Nick can walk on water anyways. Last week he beat New England directly and the 'Canes by proxy.

"God and Man at Davidson"

First Things roving, critical eye alights on DC. In the January 2006 issue, Terry Eastland, publisher of the Weekly Standard and a Davidson parent, describes the sad erosion of Davidson's Presbyterian connection to the point last February where the Board of Trustees revised the mission statement and amended the by-laws to permit non-Christian trustees. (We've addressed the board's action before on this blog.)

Next month, the article should be posted on the FT website, but if anyone wants a copy now, let me know.

In summary, Eastland writes:

It is elementary that colleges exist to educate students, and Davidson students committed to "the historical understanding of Christian faith called the Reformed Tradition" will fairly wonder whether the college is any place to look for instruction in Christian theology or, for that matter, Christian ethics. Not that the college fails to do many things well. It is in the highest rank academically, with many outstanding teachers. But students who confess the historic faith cannot be faulted for looking elsewhere for guidance on such fundamental matters. Indeed, the deepest lesson of the Davidson story is that the Church of Jesus Christ is not to be confused with a church-related college, that a church-related college can go its own way. The Davidson trustees did not intend to teach that, but it is the accurate lesson of the college's last all-Christian board.

On Pride and Prejudice.

I'm reading P&P for about the third time; I read it once in high school, again in college, and now again at the mature age of 25. This time around, I'm enjoying it immensely as always, and am paying closer attention to what makes it such a good book, and in particular, why it is that so many well educated and thoughtful women seem to love it :)

I'm almost 2/3 of the way through right now, and at the point, for those of you familiar with the story, whether through reading it or through the film versions, where Elizabeth has visited Pemberley for the first time with her Aunt and Uncle, and has run into Mr. Darcy. She has not seen Mr. Darcy since his failed proposal. Since that time, Elizabeth has learned many important things: 1, that she was wrong about his dealings with Mr. Wikham, and Mr. Darcy is not to blame in that regard; 2, that she really does have a pretty ridiculous family, and not just because they don't have so much money; 3, that he's got a really, really nice house and grounds; 4, that his housekeeper thinks he's the most wonderful man ever; 5, that upon this next meeting at his house, he treats her and her aunt and uncle with the utmost care and respect; and 6, perhaps most important, she has realized her own pride and prejudice that caused her to make too hasty a judgment on Darcy's character. (see the following dialogue, that is omitted in all film versions, but which captures Elizabeth's developing self-awareness quite well:

And yet I meant to be uncommonly clever in taking so decided a dislike to him, without any reason. It is such a spur to one's genius, such an opening for wit, to have a dislike of that kind. One may be continually abusive without saying anything just; but one cannot be always laughing at a man without now and then stumbling upon something witty.)

Back to the love story--I think the reason that it's so attractive to so many of us is because of the nature of Darcy's love. It's full of grace. At first, he certainly doesn't get it quite right, but the grace is still there; he makes clear how ridiculous it is that he love someone like Lizzie, with her family and connections as they are, and indeed, given the times it is a pretty ridiculous and perhaps unmerited confession of love. Of course, her pride and prejudice and his own pride that comes out in his proposal make it fail miserably.

However, the love continues, and upon their next meeting, Darcy has softened considerably; Elizabeth wonders how it could be possible that he could still love her, given her earlier rejection of his proposal:

She certainly did not hate him. No; hatred had vanished long ago, and she had almost as long been ashamed of ever feeling a dislike against him, that could be so called. The respect created by the conviction of his valuable qualities, though at first unwillingly admitted, had for some time ceased to be repugnant to her feeling; and it was now heightened into somewhat of a friendlier nature, by the testimony so highly in his favour, and bringing forward his disposition in so amiable a light, which yesterday had produced. But above all, above respect and esteem, there was a motive within her of good-will which could not be overlooked. It was gratitude; gratitude, not merely for having once loved her, but for loving her still well enough to forgive all the petulance and acrimony of her manner in rejecting him, and all the unjust accusations accompanying her rejection. He who, she had been persuaded, would avoid her as his greatest enemy, seemed, on this accidental meeting, most eager to preserve the acquaintance...Such a change in a man of so much pride excited not only astonishment but gratitude--for to love, ardent love, it must be attributed.

That's as far as I've gotten this time around, but those of you who know the story will know that this ardent love will perservere through a bit more before it's all done.

Two conclusions from all this:

1. I think we young women like this love story because despite of our initial screw-ups and misconceptions, the man keeps his cool and presses forward with his life and with a purpose, not necessarily directly towards the girl, but towards a greater purpose and end which will truly demonstrate his worth and nature and love.

2. As I've seen the grace that's involved in this love, I'm of course reminded of the much greater love offered by our dear heavenly father. There's some real pursual. And despite our initial rejection or our pride or our misconceptions, that love presses forwards with its greater purpose and toward a greater end. And when the scales finally fall from our eyes, we see the wonderful, true nature of God and Christ, and we can't help but accept the love he offers.

p.s. Mr. Darcy, if you're reading this, do let me know.

"[A] terrifying, totalitarian and in Britain wholly successful putsch against truth itself, the weapon of subversion of a moral, political and social order."

Melanie Phillips reviews Anthony Browne's book on political correctness in Britian, the book entitled "The Retreat of Reason."

The New Criterion.

Here's a publication that may be worth keeping an eye on. It describes itself as follows:

The New Criterion, founded in 1982 by the art critic Hilton Kramer and the pianist and music critic Samuel Lipman, is a monthly review of the arts and intellectual life. Written with great verve, clarity, and wit, The New Criterion has emerged as America’s foremost voice of critical dissent in the culture wars. A staunch defender of the values of high culture, The New Criterion is also an articulate scourge of artistic mediocrity and intellectual mendacity wherever they are found: in the universities, the art galleries, the media, the concert halls, the theater, and elsewhere. Published monthly from September through June, The New Criterion brings together a wide range of young and established critics whose common aim is to bring you the most incisive criticism being written today.

The recent article entitled It's the Demography, Stupid, would be a good piece to start.

IPod?

Carol is definitely the techie at our house (and at the office). Desperately looking for a creative birthday gift idea last summer, I gave her an iPod Mini. With help from children, she's moved a lot of her favorite songs over, and she carries it and listens to it on the train and elsewhere. For Christmas, Santa put a JBL portable speaker system in her stocking, and I, in setting it up for her iPod, got to know the iPod itself a lot better. I'm hooked.

So I need some advice. Should I get the Nano or the standard iPod? Should I move away from Apple and get some other kind of MP3 player? I think I will be listening not only to music, but also to commentary. (For example, Walter and Morgan gave me a set of CDs of lectures by Francis Schaeffer on "True Spirituality". [Super lectures.] If I had a small MP3 player, I would transfer the lectures to the machine. I also get issues of audio "magazines" in CD form, and I could transfer them to the MP3 player.)

What think ye?