Year: 2004

SDG here with excerpts from the the agreement worked out for the Presidential debates (courtesy of NewYorker.com) [my comments in blue]:

• Paragraph Two: Dress.
  Candidates shall wear business attire. At no time during the debates shall either candidate remove any article of clothing, such as tie, belt, socks, suspenders, etc. Candidates shall not wear helmets, padding, girdles, prosthetic devices, or “elevator”-type shoes. Per above, candidates shall not remove shoes or throw same at each other during debate. Once a debate is concluded, candidates shall be permitted to toss articles of clothing, excepting underwear, into the audience for keepsake purposes. [Hey, if there’s no chance of getting their underwear, what’s the point?]
• Paragraph Six: Hand gestures.
  “Italian,” “French,” “Latino,” “Bulgarian,” or other ethnic-style gestures intended to demean, impugn, or otherwise derogate opponent by casting aspersions on opponent’s manhood, abilities as lover, or cuckold status are prohibited. Standard “American”-style gestures meant to convey honest bewilderment, doubt, etc., shall be permitted. [Language buffs like Jimmy may say that all human languages have approximately equal expressive power, but when it comes to obscene gestures European gesticulation has it all over standard American.] Candidates shall not point rotating index fingers at their own temples to imply that opponent is mentally deranged. Candidates shall at no time insert fingers in their own throats to signify urge to vomit. Candidates shall under no circumstances insert fingers into opponent’s throat. [I’m pretty sure this is allowed in European political debates.]

• Paragraph Seventeen A: Bodily fluids – Perspiration. [If there’s a Paragraph Seventeen C, I don’t want to know about it.]
  Debate sponsors shall make every effort to maintain comfortable temperature onstage. Candidates shall make reasonable use of underarm deodorant and other antiperspirant measures, subject to review by Secret Service, before the debates. [“Place your hands on your head… POTUS is clear for entry.”] In the event that perspiration is unavoidable, candidates may deploy one plain white cotton handkerchief measuring eight inches square. Handkerchief may not be used to suggest that opponent wants to surrender in global war on terrorism. [Hm, wonder which campaign felt it necessary to stipulate THAT point?]

• Paragraph Forty-two: Language.
  Candidates shall address each other in terms of mutual respect (“Mr. President,” “Senator,” etc.). Use of endearing modifiers (“my distinguished opponent,” “the honorable gentleman,” “Pookie,” “Diddums,” etc.) is permitted. [Any candidate who has the guts to call his opponent “Pookie” automatically gets MY vote.] The following terms are specifically forbidden and may not be used until after each debate is formally concluded: “girlie-man,” “draft dodger,” “drunk,” “ignoramus,” “Jesus freak,” “frog,” “bozo,” “wimp,” “toad,” “lickspittle,” “rat bastard,” “polluting bastard,” “lying bastard,” “demon spawn,” “archfiend,” or compound nouns ending in “-hole” or “-ucker.” [How many proscribed terms can YOU identify as having been stipulated by one or the other campaign?]

• Paragraph Fifty-eight: Spousal references.
  Each candidate may make one reference to his spouse. All references to consist of boilerplate praise, e.g., “I would not be standing here without [spouse’s first name]” or “[Spouse’s name] would make a magnificent First Lady.” Candidates shall not pose hypothetical scenarios involving violent rape or murder of opponent’s spouse so as to taunt opponent with respect to his views on the death penalty. [And we don’t want any OTHER hypothetical scenarios involving the opponent’s spouse, either (cf. Paragraph Six).]

• Paragraph Ninety-eight: Vietnam.
  Neither candidate shall mention the word “Vietnam.” [And both candidates said “AMEN.”] In the event that either candidate utters said word in the course of a debate, the debate shall be concluded immediately and declared forfeit to the third-party candidate. [Contingency: In the event that a questioner refers to Vietnam, candidates shall put cotton in their ears, join hands, and sing all four verses of “Kum Bah Yah.”]

The original story

SDG here with part one of some musings related to an apologetical discussion I’m having in another forum.

One of the most helpful insights I’ve ever gotten into the nature of divine truth comes from one the 20th century’s most interesting theologians, Henri de Lubac. It has to do with the sense in which all of the great theological questions could be phrased as “or” questions — and how these questions inevitably falsify the issue. For example:

• Is Jesus human, or is he divine?
• Is Jesus both God and man, or is he one person?
• Is the Father God, or is Jesus God, or is the Holy Spirit God?
• Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit one, or are they three?
• Are human beings noble, created in God’s image, or evil, steeped in sin and corruption?
• Is salvation by grace alone, or do we cooperate in our own salvation?
• Does God predestine, or do men choose freely?
• Is the author of scripture God or human beings?
• Is God all-powerful, or is he all-good, or is evil unreal?

And so on. And of course everyone knows that historically Christian orthodoxy has always said “Yes” to BOTH sides of all these questions, while all of the great heresies involve pitting the two sides against one another and affirming one while rejecting the other.

For this reason, heresies often come in ordered pairs of opposites, each of which affirms one truth while denying the complementary truth, while catholic orthodoxy affirms what is affirmed by each heresy, but also affirms what the heresy denies.

For example, if you affirm Jesus’ humanity but deny his divinity, you wind up with a form of Arianism; if you affirm his divinity but deny his humanity, you wind up with Docetism. OTOH, if you affirm that he is both God and man, but deny that he is one person, you wind up with Nestorianism; if you affirm that he is one person but deny his dual natures, you wind up with Monophysitism (though whether historically the groups associated with Nestorianism or Monophysitism actually materially denied the oneness of Christ’s person or his dual divine and human natures is another question).

Again, if you affirm only the human aspect of responsibility and working out our salvation, you end up with some form of Pelagianism; if you affirm only the divine aspect of predestination and sovereignty, you end up with some form of (hyper?) Calvinism. Likewise, if you affirm only God as the author of scripture, you wind up with Fundamentalist hyper-literalism; if you affirm only human beings as its authors, you wind up with modernist relativism.

This is why the very word “heresy” is derived via Latin from a Greek word meaning to take or to choose, suggestive of the English idiom “picking and choosing,” while truth is always seen as “catholic” or universal, pertaining to the whole. Catholic orthodoxy is always defined in terms of affirming BOTH the truth that each heresy affirms AND ALSO the truth that the heresy denies (but is affirmed by some other heresy that denies the first truth).

The essence of catholic orthodoxy is in this “both / and,” this repudiation of the heretical “either / or” alternative. Catholic orthodoxy always involves fidelity to the whole, the ability to maintain both this truth over here and that truth over there, and not to allow any element of the truth to be pitted against any other element. Catholic orthodoxy insists that the truth is always larger, more comprehensive, more complete, more catholic than any heretical alternative; heresy always essentially involves denial of one aspect of truth — not adding some novelty to the sum total of Christian truth.

There is a tendency, therefore, for Christian truth to have a paradoxical appearance to finite, mortal creatures. And this is not the case because God has a fondness for sending us doctrine in neat ordered pairs of alternatives, but because divine truth is too large for us to apprehend in its totality, or understand how it all fits together, and so the most we can do is to affirm both this aspect of it and that aspect, and to distinguish the sense in which (say) God is One (i.e., in substance) from the sense in which he is Three (i.e., in number of persons), so that we see that there is no formal logical contradiction — though no one pretends thereby to have made the mystery comprehensible.

More later….

SDG here with part one of some musings related to an apologetical discussion I’m having in another forum.

One of the most helpful insights I’ve ever gotten into the nature of divine truth comes from one the 20th century’s most interesting theologians, Henri de Lubac. It has to do with the sense in which all of the great theological questions could be phrased as “or” questions — and how these questions inevitably falsify the issue. For example:

• Is Jesus human, or is he divine?
• Is Jesus both God and man, or is he one person?
• Is the Father God, or is Jesus God, or is the Holy Spirit God?
• Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit one, or are they three?
• Are human beings noble, created in God’s image, or evil, steeped in sin and corruption?
• Is salvation by grace alone, or do we cooperate in our own salvation?
• Does God predestine, or do men choose freely?
• Is the author of scripture God or human beings?
• Is God all-powerful, or is he all-good, or is evil unreal?

And so on. And of course everyone knows that historically Christian orthodoxy has always said “Yes” to BOTH sides of all these questions, while all of the great heresies involve pitting the two sides against one another and affirming one while rejecting the other.

For this reason, heresies often come in ordered pairs of opposites, each of which affirms one truth while denying the complementary truth, while catholic orthodoxy affirms what is affirmed by each heresy, but also affirms what the heresy denies.

For example, if you affirm Jesus’ humanity but deny his divinity, you wind up with a form of Arianism; if you affirm his divinity but deny his humanity, you wind up with Docetism. OTOH, if you affirm that he is both God and man, but deny that he is one person, you wind up with Nestorianism; if you affirm that he is one person but deny his dual natures, you wind up with Monophysitism (though whether historically the groups associated with Nestorianism or Monophysitism actually materially denied the oneness of Christ’s person or his dual divine and human natures is another question).

Again, if you affirm only the human aspect of responsibility and working out our salvation, you end up with some form of Pelagianism; if you affirm only the divine aspect of predestination and sovereignty, you end up with some form of (hyper?) Calvinism. Likewise, if you affirm only God as the author of scripture, you wind up with Fundamentalist hyper-literalism; if you affirm only human beings as its authors, you wind up with modernist relativism.

This is why the very word “heresy” is derived via Latin from a Greek word meaning to take or to choose, suggestive of the English idiom “picking and choosing,” while truth is always seen as “catholic” or universal, pertaining to the whole. Catholic orthodoxy is always defined in terms of affirming BOTH the truth that each heresy affirms AND ALSO the truth that the heresy denies (but is affirmed by some other heresy that denies the first truth).

The essence of catholic orthodoxy is in this “both / and,” this repudiation of the heretical “either / or” alternative. Catholic orthodoxy always involves fidelity to the whole, the ability to maintain both this truth over here and that truth over there, and not to allow any element of the truth to be pitted against any other element. Catholic orthodoxy insists that the truth is always larger, more comprehensive, more complete, more catholic than any heretical alternative; heresy always essentially involves denial of one aspect of truth — not adding some novelty to the sum total of Christian truth.

There is a tendency, therefore, for Christian truth to have a paradoxical appearance to finite, mortal creatures. And this is not the case because God has a fondness for sending us doctrine in neat ordered pairs of alternatives, but because divine truth is too large for us to apprehend in its totality, or understand how it all fits together, and so the most we can do is to affirm both this aspect of it and that aspect, and to distinguish the sense in which (say) God is One (i.e., in substance) from the sense in which he is Three (i.e., in number of persons), so that we see that there is no formal logical contradiction — though no one pretends thereby to have made the mystery comprehensible.

More later….

…for email newsletter usability, that is.

SDG here. In my day job, which is Web development, usability occupies a significant part of my focus and energy. It began with a seminar at a computer conference a number of years ago, after which I gave a couple of presentations at the company I work for, and before I knew it I had become the usability guy in my Web development department.

So one of the things I do is periodically comb through the biweekly “AlertBox” column of usability guru Jakob Nielsen of the Nielsen Norman Group. Nielsen is full of helpful tips and perspectives, and is famous for saying such things as “Users spend most of their time on OTHER sites” and “Zero learning curve or death.”

Anyway, I was interested and amused to see in his last column an analysis of the usability of the official email newsletters of the Bush and Kerry campaigns. Nielsen gives low scores to both services, with Bush scoring particularly low in “subscription maintenance and unsubscribing” and Kerry weaker in “subscription interface” and “newsletter content and presentation.” In the end, though, Bush comes out ahead by a single point, with a 58% score over Kerry’s 57%.

On newsletter content, Nielsen finds that Bush’s content is mostly “positive campaigning” and “announcements and instructions,” while Kerry’s is mostly “negative campaigning” and appeals for readers to “volunteer and donate.”

On the battle for inbox attention and differentiation from spam, Nielsen writes:

Subject lines were universally lame, with Kerry having the most user-repellant subjects, like “Tonight,” “Don’t stop now,” and “Deadline almost here.” Why would anybody think that those messages were anything but spam? Bush had somewhat better subject lines, like “Kerry’s Flip Flop Olympics,” and “Participate in W ROCKS in Alameda County,” though he also had content-free subjects like “Brace Yourselves.”

Interestingly, Kerry has something like twice as many subscribers as Bush.

Finally, Nielsen closes with what I assume is an at least partly tongue-in-cheek warning to candidates who ignore his recommendations at their own peril:

In 1996, I wrote a review for The New York Times on the campaign websites for Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. I concluded that the two sites scored about even in usability, and I provided several recommendations for improving each site. Two weeks after the article ran, Clinton’s site had been updated to incorporate all of my recommendations. In contrast, Dole’s site stayed the same throughout the campaign. We all know who won the 1996 election, so maybe this example will motivate the campaigns to pay closer attention to usability this time around.