If he will agree he'd like to quit, tell him you'd like to help, the same way Toastmasters teach speakers not to say UH: drop a 4" nail into a bucket each time it happens. He'll soon learn to realize he's doing it, and he'll stop.

But, do it lovingly. And not with your toddler in the room.

The Saints conceded long ago that God cannot do what is paradoxical. Like make a stone immovable, and then move it.

I press my first finger against my thumb, and I cannot imagine either force exceeding the other. F12=F21. Any force, all force, all kinds of force, can act only given a reaction member. I lighten the force; the flesh recovers on both digits. I cannot remove one pressure without removing the other. I cannot exert one without exerting the other.

To think otherwise would be paradoxical. I have a choice, then, to accept either the homely evidence of Action=Reaction, or deny it so as to grant God his immaterial means of lordly action on material things.

It was a struggle, but this is truly what finally convinced me to be an atheist. Not that I can prove the nonexistence of God; only that I cannot accept the effectiveness of anything purportedly not-natural, on the natural. Or, on me.

Not a proof? Perhaps not. But, it convinces me.

"His parents paid for everything and mine did not." OK, but did it matter at all if her parents were "innocent" about saving money? Did they squander what they should have saved? Apparently not. So, was it her father's fault his income never matched her father-in-law's? No way; they just got by, and those are the breaks. And this is the aftermath: prior to their marriage she was in debt and he was not.

But, now they are married. Does it follow now that "I'm in debt and he isn't"? Didn't they marry "for better or worse"? Doesn't that mean, at least morally, a pooling of their resources as of the "I do"?

Forget the blame game. He pays now what she owes now, and the couple's net worth is unaffected. It just moves the total money available from one pocket to another. No one is losing any money, and both are loosing worry about money.

Bury the argument, not the marriage.

McCain: Stupid (like a fox)? Obama: Dumb, dumb, dumb to have ignored it!

Obama's Planetarium Projector Earmark Explained

The Huffington Post | October 8, 2008 04:26 PM

John McCain accused Barack Obama of a seemingly outlandish request for Chicago's planetarium during the second presidential debate Tuesday, saying that the Democratic candidate backed a "$3 million [earmark] for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Ill. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?"

The AP fact-checked the claim:

McCain's phrase suggests Obama spent $3 million on an old-fashioned piece of office equipment that projects charts and text on a wall screen. In fact, the money was for an overhaul of the theater system that projects images of stars and planets for educational shows at Chicago's Adler Planetarium. When he announced the $3 million earmark last year, Obama said the planetarium's 40-year-old projection system "has begun to fail, leaving the theater dark and groups of school students and other interested museum-goers without this very valuable and exciting learning experience."

But McCain's remark was enough to make Adler Planetarium officials issue a statement defending the scientific validity of the request:

To clarify, the Adler Planetarium requested federal support - which was not funded - to replace the projector in its historic Sky Theater, the first planetarium theater in the Western Hemisphere. The Adler's Zeiss Mark VI projector - not an overhead projector - is the instrument that re-creates the night sky in a dome theater, the quintessential planetarium experience. The Adler's projector is nearly 40 years old and is no longer supported with parts or service by the manufacturer. It is only the second planetarium projector in the Adler's 78 years of operation.

Science literacy is an urgent issue in the United States. To remain competitive and ensure

national security, it is vital that we educate and inspire the next generation of explorers to

pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.

Senator McCain's statements about the Adler Planetarium's request for federal support do

not accurately reflect the museum's legislative history or relationship with Senator Obama.

Sen. Dick Durbin and six Chicago-area Congressman, three of whom are Republicans, also agreed to sponsor the unsuccessful $3 million earmark.

Planetariums in New York and Los Angeles recently replaced their Zeiss projection systems with federal funding, the Tribune reports.

That black and red dress was a very bad choice for a predictably dark background. (The planners surely knew.) The black disappeared, and she was just two red splotches with a face floating above. Figure had nothing to do with it. Erogenous zone emphasis had nothing to do with it. Race had nothing to do with it. It would have made anyone look ridiculous.

I was in a group of about 20 when Barrack was interviewed on 60 minutes, and her dress got a re-play. One guy promptly asked the group, "How many of you women like that dress?" He got no takers.

The all-red dress, a bit later on the same show, showed her figure for what it is. Nice, I agree. But, not in that dress, anywhere where the background may be black. Give it to charity, Michelle!

Obama has set us up for true inclusiveness --- including a humanist invocation (no mention of God) at the earliest opportunity. Fair enough?

Not only is the bible irrelevant to the oath, but of the first six presidents -- 6, count'em, 6 -- refused to ever take communion! They were deists, and did not believe in the power of prayer.

Sadly, I cannot confirm this by Googling, except as to our first president:

http://www.adherents.com/people/pw/George_Washington.html