Between Dr. Rusty Shackelford’s research, posted at The Jawa Report, and Ace’s followup, it sure looks like it; Patterico says pointedly, “In the criminal law business, we call evidence like that ‘consciousness of guilt.’” Didn’t Barack Obama promise us a new politics that would move us away from partisan smears and character assassination?Looks like his campaign didn’t get the memo.HT: Hugh HewittUpdate: Ethan Winner is trying to fall on his sword, claiming he acted alone and without any involvement of the Obama campaign; as Ace points out, there are strong reasons not to believe him, especially given the existing relationship between Axelrod and the Winners’ firm. Certainly, everyone’s behavior here is highly suspicious.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Alienation, reconciled
And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless
and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed
in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.—Colossians 1:21-23 (ESV)Paul describes the effects of human sin and the work of Christ in a number of ways across his letters, to enable us to see it from different angles; unfortunately, the church has historically tended to pick and choose, to grab one description and lose sight of the rest. Thus, for instance, there are a lot of people who are quite fluent in the legal language which Paul uses elsewhere (which gives us the term “justification”) but miss the relational language which he uses here, talking about alienation and reconciliation. That’s too bad, because this is language which resonates with many people in our culture, and which helps us to understand ourselves and what Christ has done for us in ways that we might not otherwise catch.The truth is, the alienating effects of sin run in several directions. First, it alienates us from God; our sin separated us from him, breaking that relationship beyond our ability to repair—and indeed, beyond our ability even to desire to do so. Look at the old pagan religions, and you’ll see that they’re founded on fear; we take for granted this idea of a loving, caring God whom we can come to know on friendly terms, whom we can trust and on whom we can rely, but that’s not an idea people ever came up with. It took God even to give us the idea, because our sin had estranged us from him to that great an extent. Second, to be alienated from God is to be alienated from ourselves. It’s God who made us and who alone knows us as we really are; it’s God who holds us in his hand, and in his mind—we continue to exist only because he remembers us to ourselves. It’s God who is the source of all good things, including all the good gifts we possess. As a consequence, we cannot know ourselves truly, at least at the deepest level, if we don’t know him; we can figure out a great many things about ourselves, but we’ll always figure some of them wrong, whether just by mistake or out of our desire to believe ourselves better (or different) than we really are. What’s more, there will always be things about ourselves that we won’t be able to make sense of, and currents in our souls that run too deep for us even to see, though we may sense their effects. This is why we invented psychologists and psychiatrists and social workers, and why we conjured up Sigmund Freud so he could invent psychoanalysts, so they could tell us some of the nonsensical truths about ourselves that we would never have wit enough to see on our own; and even so, even at our best, we remain strangers in our own minds. Only God in Christ has the ability to reverse that alienation and restore us to ourselves; only in him can true healing be found.Third, since we were estranged from God, who is the source of all that is good in us, and since we were estranged from ourselves as a consequence, we were estranged from each other as well. We could build relationships across the divides between us as best we were able, friendships and marriages and families and business partnerships, and often, we did pretty well; but in our own strength, even the strongest relationships we can create are fairly fragile. The vagaries of life can break them, our own sinfulness can cause them to collapse, and even if everything else goes well, death brings them to an inevitable end. And even those who have the most and closest friends know far more people to whom they’re not close, some of whom may be rivals and competitors, and some of whom might even be true enemies. And beyond that, we divide ourselves up in myriad ways, companies and teams, political parties and ethnic groups, states and nations, and we fight with each other. War, of course, is one form of that—but economic competition is another, and sports yet a third, and politics a fourth.We as fallen human beings need reconciliation; we need peace with God, with ourselves, and with each other, and we can’t do it in our own strength. This world is never going to find a peace treaty to end all wars, and there will never be any such thing as a post-partisan political candidate, any more than there will ever be an economy where no company ever goes under or a sports league where every team ties for the championship. It’s just not in us. As Paul says, our wicked works prove that. It’s not just about life after death; Jesus didn’t just come so that after we die, everything would be good, though that’s certainly part of the gift he’s given us. More than that, though, he came to bring the reconciliation we need in this life. He came to remove the barrier of sin that isolates and alienates us, and to heal the breaches it created. He came to restore our relationship with God so that we could once again call him Father; he came to free us from the distorting burden of slavery to sin that warps and mars our souls; he came to bring reconciliation between us, that we might learn to love our enemies and do good to those who harm us. Indeed, he came to bring reconciliation to the whole created order, which has been broken and sent spinning off course and out of tune by our sin, to heal the damage we have done, to restore its harmony and set it right.He’s done this, Paul says, “in the body of his flesh by his death.” The one who is the image of the invisible God, the one who was God become human, the Lord of the universe and head of the church, in whom and through whom and for whom are all things, the one who holds all things together, hung bleeding on a cross in shock and agony until his heart stopped. This is the central fact of our faith, I think, taken together with the resurrection, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself by taking the overflowing cup of human sin with all its agony and draining that cup to the very dregs.This is what Paul wants the Colossians to understand, that there is simply no room for their delusions that they can contribute anything to their own salvation; the sacrifice of Jesus is so immense, in the awe-striking glory of who he is and the truly awe-full reality of the price he paid, that there is nothing we can add to it. The price he paid and the work he accomplished on the cross was sufficient for everything; it was truly an infinite sacrifice, the work of infinite love, the gift of infinite grace, and that sacrifice, that work, that gift, is sufficient. It is enough. Whatever may come, whatever may happen, whatever we may do, it is always enough; and it only is enough. It is Christ, by his work on the cross, who makes us holy and blameless in the eyes of God, able to stand in his presence with no reason for guilt or reproach; no matter how good we might be, we can’t live up to that standard, nor will we ever be able to on our own. We can’t earn our way there—and we don’t have to. In Christ, we have been given that status that we can’t achieve for ourselves; he took all our sin on himself on the cross and paid the price for it there, and gave us his righteousness in exchange.Now, you might have noticed that in verse 22, Paul says that Jesus has done this—“you who once were alienated . . . he has now reconciled in his body of flesh”—but then in verse 23, he says, “if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast.” What’s going on here? Does this mean that you can lose your salvation? There are those who argue that, of course, but no, that’s not what this means. The work of Christ on the cross is finished, it is completed, once and for all. At that moment, salvation was accomplished for all those who belong to him; it cannot be undone, and God isn’t going back on it. Paul isn’t turning around and casting any doubts on that, as if he were somehow lessening the work of Christ. Rather, what he’s doing is making a point that Jesus also made in Matthew 7 when he said, talking of false prophets, “You will know them by their fruits.” If we’ve been saved, if we’ve been reconciled through the work of Christ on the cross, if his Spirit is at work in us, that’s going to have certain clear effects in our lives; thus Jesus could go on to say, “Every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.” One of the good fruit that we bear if we’re spiritually healthy—which is to say, if we’ve received the new life of God in Christ by the power of his Holy Spirit—is perseverance: if our salvation is real, we don’t walk away from it. We may drift at times, but in the end Jesus always pulls us back by his Spirit. He is faithful, and he will not let us go.
Something to brighten up your Monday morning
Just because.
The incredible shrinking Obama?
So says Rex Murphy in today’s Globe and Mail, in a fascinating analysis of Barack Obama’s appeal (and one which tracks in some interesting ways with Shelby Steele’s analysis two months ago that I noted here).HT: Hot Air
To understand our economy, play Monopoly
So says Lawrence Lindsey, a former governor of the Federal Reserve, in a fascinating article titled “High Anxiety” that uses the rules of the game—and particularly, the comparison between the original rules and the modern variants by which most people play—to illustrate the current economic situation.
Reason for hope in Zimbabwe
I’ve been distracted enough the last little while that I missed the latest news from Zimbabwe—which is a shame, because there’s actually some good news for once: Robert Mugabe has agreed to share power. I suspect that if there hadn’t been a split in the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), he wouldn’t have agreed on these terms, because his party, ZANU-PF, will actually have a minority of the 31 cabinet seats, but because three of those seats will go to a breakaway faction of the MDC, ZANU-PF will still have a plurality. Mugabe will continue as president, but Morgan Tsvangirai, head of the MDC, “will become prime minister and chair a council of ministers supervising the cabinet” if the agreement goes through. That “if,” of course, is the silver lining to this cloud, because it’s a very real if; just because Mugabe has signed the deal doesn’t necessarily mean he intends to comply with it in any meaningful way. As always, the Devil is in the details; it’s one thing to agree to give up cabinet ministries to the opposition, and quite another to let important ones go, and the agreement could still come apart in consequence. The MDC, though, is clear on what they want:
The two political rivals met on Saturday and agreed to share out the cabinet posts. The powerful state security ministry was abolished while the justice portfolio was split into two and a new prisons department was created.The MDC wants to take control of ministries of home affairs in charge of the police, local government to oversee councils, one of the justice ministries, foreign affairs and the finance ministry—giving it responsibility for rescuing the shattered economy.In return, the MDC is ready to leave Mugabe’s ruling Zanu PF in charge of other key ministries, including defence.
Unfortunately, with Mugabe telling members of his party that the agreement is a “humiliation” and insisting, “We remain in the driving seat,” he’s trying to avoid ceding any of the major ministries to the MDC; his aim is to try to give the appearance of power-sharing without giving up any real power. The agreement was brokered by Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, and now that Mbeki’s party (the African National Congress) has forced him to resign, Mugabe might be thinking that he can break the agreement and get away with it. One thing is certain: the MDC won’t go along with a farce.
Nelson Chamisa, a spokesman for Tsvangirai’s MDC faction told the private SW Radio Africa Mugabe and Zanu PF wanted to take “all the key ministries, literally rendering the government exclusive . . . and we are not going to countenance that approach.”
No more they should. Yes, Mugabe can always refuse to cooperate, let the deal collapse and blame it on Tsvangirai, but not without consequences to himself. Inflation in Zimbabwe is over 11 million percent, and the country is in dire need of outside help—which it isn’t going to get if he goes back on this agreement. Keep praying for Zimbabwe, that the opposition would have the courage and will they need to stand strong, and that this time, Mugabe would fold.HT: Itayi
Another collapse is looming
According to a story on the Times website,
Four years after it was last cleaned and repaired Michelangelo’s statue of David in Florence is “at risk of collapse”, according to a restoration expert.
Apparently, the problem is partly the result of vibrations from traffic, both car traffic outside the Galleria dell Accademia and foot traffic within, and partly the consequence of Michelangelo’s decision to make a really big statue out of really bad marble. Here’s hoping they can figure out some way to keep David intact.
Barack Obama runs from his record
It appears that Gianna Jessen’s ad has really rattled the Obama campaign.
They’ve now come up with an ad in response (one which tries to blame John McCain for running the original ad, even though it was produced by a different organization):
There’s just one problem with the Obama campaign’s ad: his record. Here’s what he had to say on the subject when he wasn’t running for office (scroll down to p. 87):
[I]f we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as—as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.
Personally, I agree with Yuval Levin on this one:
So a child who has been born and is living and breathing outside the womb can’t get medical care because by some legal definition he or she is “pre-viable”? That doesn’t sound like always supporting medical care to protect infants.
And here’s audio of another statement by Sen. Obama on the issue:
The truth here is that
Barack Obama defended infanticide in the Illinois statehouse. He voted against protecting children who survive abortions—viable children were left to die in a Illinois hospital and he would not take legislative action to make that a clear criminal act.
In other words: Sen. Obama, Gianna Jessen isn’t lying—you are. Which is odd, because doesn’t the Left always tell us that pro-lifers are “extremists” who are “out of touch” and “out of the mainstream”? If that’s so, why wouldn’t you stand by your vote and your record, instead of running from it?
On the roots of the crisis and the way forward
Note: I don’t believe our economy is in crisis. To be sure, times are tougher than we’ve grown used to seeing them, but they’re still a long way better than the true crisis points this country has seen in the past. John McCain is right to say that the fundamentals of our economy are still strong; the cracks we’re seeing are real and significant and need to be repaired, but they aren’t going to bring the house down. Certain financial institutions are in crisis due to some very poor decision-making, and this is causing problems for the economy, but I think we need to be careful not to overstate the problem.Rather than panicking, I think we need to ask ourselves where this mess came from and how we’re going to get out of it—and, this being an election year, who’s likeliest to provide the leadership we need. Obviously, I believe that’s Sen. McCain; despite all the disagreements I have with him, he has a record of seeing problems coming and trying to address them, even when such actions aren’t popular. He did it in Iraq, with his advocacy of the surge beginning in 2003, and for all his deprecation of his economic knowledge, he did it in the area of economic policy as well.On my read, the biggest root of the troubles we’re facing has been maladept government involvement in the economy; this has produced a feedback loop in which lobbyists have used money to win passage for federal subsidies of their corporations which have, among other things, given them more money to expand their influence. In 2002, bipartisan legislation in Congress, co-sponsored by Sen. McCain and Rep. Dick Gephardt, would have created a Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission to address this issue. As Peter Wallison tells the story,
The purpose of this group was to eliminate what McCain called “corporate welfare.”In a statement at the time, he noted that “There are more than 100 corporate subsidy programs in the federal budget today, requiring the federal government to spend approximately $65 billion a year . . . These programs provide special benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries at the expense of hard-working taxpayers. In years past, Congress has insisted that it would eliminate the existence of this corporate welfare, but virtually no such program has been eliminated . . . This bill aims to remove the special treatment given to politically powerful industries . . .”
Though not aimed explicitly or solely at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they definitely stood in the crosshairs of this bill; thus Wallison can say that
as far back as 2002, John McCain realized that underlying what would ultimately become the Fannie and Freddie crisis was the willingness of Congress to provide financial support to private corporations. And he was willing to take on powerful interests to stop this process. If his bill had resulted in action at that time, the unprecedented steps that the Secretary of the Treasury and Congress had to take in the last two weeks would not have been necessary.
Though Congress refused to pass the bill, that wasn’t the end of such efforts; indeed, with respect to the government-backed lenders at the center of the crisis in our financial institutions, it was only the beginning. On September 11, 2003, the Bush administration proposed
the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt—is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
Unfortunately, Congress rejected this proposal as well; Congressional Democrats led the fight against it as an unwarranted threat to low-income and affordable housing programs.
Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.“These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. “I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
It’s worth remembering, as these old quotes point out, that it wasn’t all bad motives that created this mess; what people are now calling “irresponsible lending practices” were commended at the time as creative efforts to undo decades of racism in the lending industry and enable poor people to enjoy “the benefits of home ownership.” It worked fine as long as housing values continued to go up; it’s just that most people didn’t think about what would happen when housing prices began to drop.To give Sen. McCain credit, though, he recognized that there was a problem, and in May 2005 he and others took another whack at it:
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
They didn’t; in fact, thanks in large part to Christopher Dodd and his fellow Democrats, the bill never even came to a vote in the Senate. (NB: this was one of those issues the Obama campaign has been lamenting on which Sen. McCain “voted with Bush.” On this one, it doesn’t mean Sen. McCain wasn’t the maverick reformer fighting Washington business as usual—it means President Bush was.) This was highly unfortunate, because as Ed Morrissey correctly says,
In this speech, McCain managed to predict the entire collapse that has forced the government to eat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with Bear Stearns and AIG. He hammers the falsification of financial records to benefit executives, including Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of whom have worked as advisers to Barack Obama this year. McCain also noted the power of their lobbying efforts to forestall oversight over their business practices. He finishes with the warning that proved all too prescient over the past few days and weeks.
Still, Sen. McCain is never one to give up; and so the next year, he tried again; as the Washington Post pointed out,
In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—while Mr. Obama was notably silent. cIf Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole,” Mr. McCain warned at the time.
Unfortunately, Congress once again did not act, and Sen. McCain was dead right about the consequences.And what’s Barack Obama’s record in this area? Not great, as the McCain campaign has started pointing out:
As noted, Sen. Obama didn’t back Sen. McCain’s efforts to reform the system. Given what the Center for Responsive Politics discovered, this isn’t surprising. When they tallied up the contributions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have made to members of Congress over the last 20 years, it was no surprise whose name was #1 on the list: over the last 20 years, Sen. Dodd, the ranking Democrat (and thus current chair) on the Senate Banking Committee, collected $165,400 from the corporations’ PACs and employees. The surprise was who placed second: in less than four years in office, Sen. Obama had already raked in $126, 349 (most of that from corporate employees) to pass John Kerry and hit #2 with a bullet.
As well, Sen. Obama has made a place for ex-Fannie Mae CEOs Franklin Raines and James Johnson; according to the Washington Post, he’s been “seeking [Raines’] advice on mortgage and housing policy matters” (never mind that Raines “stepped down as Fannie Mae‘s chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal”), while Johnson was the head of his VP search committee. The Obama campaign didn’t like it when the McCain campaign pointed out this connection with Raines:
and I’m sure they won’t like this ad focusing on James Johnson, either:
but though they’re getting increasingly fond of calling any sort of criticism “lies,” even their allies recognize that that won’t wash. The Obama campaign has also tried to respond by distorting Sen. McCain’s record in this area, but even the Washington Post caught them on it:
TO LISTEN to Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain is a Johnny-come-lately to the cause of regulating financial markets. “He has consistently opposed the sorts of common-sense regulations that might have lessened the current crisis,” Mr. Obama said in New Mexico yesterday. “When I was warning about the danger ahead on Wall Street months ago because of the lack of oversight, Senator McCain was telling the Wall Street Journal—and I quote—‘I’m always for less regulation.’”But the full quotation from Mr. McCain’s March interview with the Journal’s editorial board belies Mr. Obama‘s one-sided rendition. The Republican candidate went on to say, “But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. I think we found this in the subprime lending crisis—that there are people that game the system and if not outright broke the law, they certainly engaged in unethical conduct which made this problem worse. So I do believe that there is role for oversight.”
The fact of the matter is, Sen. Obama likes to talk about himself as an agent of change, but when it came to efforts to bring change to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before it was too late, he was firmly ranged on the side of the status quo. When it comes to the AIG bailout, he seems to be trying to take both sides at once; one might be forgiven the sense that he doesn’t understand the situation well enough to take a position on it, given that his initial statement got the company’s name wrong. Unfortunately, the decision of the Democratic leadership of Congress to declare themselves incompetent to deal with the crisis and refuse to address it isn’t going to help that perception any; it will be hard for them to live down this opening from the Bloomberg News report:
The Democratic-controlled Congress, acknowledging that it isn’t equipped to lead the way to a solution for the financial crisis and can’t agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get out of the way.
Ouch. Under ordinary circumstances, now that Sen. McCain has started talking in more detail about his economic plan, you’d expect the Democrats to start going after him about it; but that abdication of their responsibilities is going to make it hard for them to do so. After all, at least he has a plan—and if the media can’t drown him out, the contrast alone is going to make him look like the real leader in this race.Update: I appreciate what the Anchoress has to say about the Congressional “leadership”:
If the Democrats have forgotten how to lead, then they need to look to NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani on 9/11, and pattern some leadership based upon how he responded to the challenges of that day. It’s the most basic lesson of leadership, but the one that matters the most: When there is a serious problem, you acknowledge the gravity of the situation, and then—even if you are discreetly looking for outside expertise to address the crisis—you STAY WHERE YOU ARE and you deal straight with the nation, and keep them apprised of the rescue and recovery operation. It’s okay to admit you don’t know anything . . . but you tell the nation, “we’re going to come through this, and we’ll be the stronger for it; we’re going to work together to make sure everything that needs seeing to is seen to. We are here; we know this is bad. Trust us to understand what you need. Yes, this is frightening for us, too, but we are here to lead; we will not abandon you.”The Democrats are saying they can’t do that. They’re saying they have not the tools to lead. To obstruct, yes, to vilify, yes, to blame, yes…but not to actually lead us out of an economic ground zero. They’re admitting they can’t lead us out of the hole; they’re just running to make sure they can stay safe.I am very glad to read Reid’s admission that “No one knows what to do” . . . except it’s not really true. . . . [John McCain] is showing leadership. He is not telling you “we don’t know what to do.” He is not telling you “there are no answers.” He’s telling you this is going to be hard, but we’re going to get through it. He is being Rudy Giuliani on 9/11.
And here’s a helpful analysis of where we need to go from here.
On a lighter note: McCain sings Streisand
This is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a while—which, considering some of the screwy things that have come out of this election season, is saying quite a bit.
HT: Eric Trager(NB: I’m going to try to find a copy of this video without the little ad for M90.org on it; apparently that’s not the sort of site I’d want to endorse, to put it mildly, so I recommend you not go exploring. Thanks to Tyler Dawn for letting me know about that; see her comment for more information.)