My guess is that it has a great deal to do with the difference with countries where there is a greater degree of Christian residue, and also with the difference between the degree of statism or socialism (government reliance) in countries. Look up the statistics sometime on the difference between the rates of charity giving in Democrats vs Republicans, blue states vs red states. Political liberals of the modern stripe who holler about how apathetic conservatives are toward the poor, etc. themselves give FAR less than conservatives. Some of the very poorest but politically conservative states in our Union, like Mississippi, have far higher rates of charitable donation than some of the richest and most liberal states like Massachussetts.

I think all that suggests a possible answer to why Americans are willing to donate more for a Radiohead album than Europeans. They have lost more of the sense of individual responsibility and are far more willing to just take what they can get without a corresponding willingness to see the responsibility they owe to the source of the blessings they receive.

What is the cultural significance of the fact that 40% of Americans who downloaded Radiohead's latest album paid for it, averaging about $8, whereas 36% of non-Americans who downloaded it paid, but averaging only about $4? A statistical margin of error might account for the different in percentage of pay-ers, but not the difference in price.

I think I can guess.

This website keeps up on late-breaking announcements: registering cell phones for reverse 911, when it's safe to go back to what communities, where to keep your horses, etc.

Here's a blog that's keeping close track of the Witch Creek Fire in north San Diego County.

Here's a paragraph from an article in today's news about charges brought against a famous performer: "[His] Las Vegas attorney, David Chesnoff, refused to give specifics about the charge. "If in fact those are the allegations, unfortunately false allegations are all too often made against famous individuals," Chesnoff said. "But we are confident the investigation will conclude favorably."

"IF IN FACT THOSE ARE THE ALLEGATIONS."

Remember your formal logic and, in particular, hypothetical syllogisms? They start with a conditional: "If A, then B." Those are followed by one of two valid conclusions: "A, therefore B," (modus ponens, or affirming the antecedent) or "Not B, therefore not A" (modus tollens, or denying the consequent). Denying the antecedent (not A, therefore not B) or affirming the consequent (B, therefore A) is invalid.

In Chesnoff's statement above, we are offered a conditional:

IF those are the allegations, (THEN) false allegations are often made.

Next, let's suppose confirmation comes from the FBI shortly that those are indeed the charges. Now we'll have this hypothetical syllogism (modus ponens):

IF those are the allegations, (THEN) false allegations are often made.
Those are indeed the allegations.
THEREFORE, false allegations are often made.

I really doubt that the reporters at the news conference were asking whether false allegations are often made. It's an irrelevant argument.

Or we have this one (modus tollens):

IF those are the allegations, (THEN) false allegations are often made.
It is not the case that false allegations are often made.
THEREFORE, those are not the allegations.

Was anyone asking whether those were the charges? I doubt it.

Perhaps the attorney is simply making a badly worded syllogism thus:

IF those are the allegations, (THEN) they are false.
They are false ("we are confident the investigation will conclude favorably"").
THEREFORE, those are the allegations.

That would be both dumb (no one was asking whether those were the charges) and invalid (it's affirming the consequent).

But perhaps the attorney only meant a simple (and valid) modus ponens:

IF those are the allegations, (THEN) they are false.
Those are the allegations(assuming confirmation from the FBI).
THEREFORE, they are false.

And of course, this is the obvious intent of the attorney, a simple denial of the truth of the allegations. But this is the dumbest of all. Why is the attorney reluctant to admit that those are the allegations -- why the conditional, why the hypothetical? Why not just say, "those allegations are false and we're confident things will turn out fine." Chesnoff admitted there was an investigation -- shouldn't he have said, "alleged investigation" if he's so reluctant even to admit to the existence of those allegations? What are the FBI investigating, if the allegations themselves are only alleged? What, the FBI has been called in to determine whether there are in fact some allegations? False allegations may be damaging to famous people but not as damaging as being represented by idiots.

Some news is just too, too horrible. But you know, at least the writers are strong and resolute, in spite of their great reluctance to inflict such inhuman cruelty on the world. I'm so glad to see some nobility, some greatness, some real strength, especially among such a necessary class of people.

This guy has forgotten what happens when you deviate from cultural orthodoxy. Even if (maybe especially when) that orthodoxy (like the one from which he's deviated) is irrational and groundless.

SERIOUS, NON-HUMOROUS, BORING, BUT PERHAPS NECESSARY EDIT:

My comment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Watson is right. I have no idea whether he's right or just a cockeyed lunatic, and I couldn't care less. I have exactly zero interest in defending him. My point is entirely about the inconsistency of atheistic evolutionists being angry with him. Their orthodoxy is one of radical egalitarianism -- everyone is the same -- which is an irrational and groundless position for an atheistic evolutionist to hold: if evolution is true, what's unreasonable about Watson's position? And their angry response at someone who denies radical egalitarianism is likewise irrational and groundless: if atheistic evolution is true, then there is no morality, and so what grounds are there for accusing anyone of wrong? 

I'm not saying I think they should be reasonable and accept Watson's argument; I'm saying that if they don't like his argument they should think about the fact that arises from their own premise.

All this presupposes, of course, that this angry response is coming from non-Christians. If it's coming from Christians, then my point doesn't apply, because Christians have grounds for moral judgments such as all these people are making about Watson (whether their judgments are right or wrong doesn't matter -- they have grounds for making them).

... A college course about YouTube. And they say the liberal arts are dead. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070914/D8RL6GTG0.html

Because, as the superintendent of schools in Sampson County says, calling the situation unfortunate, "educators didn’t want to be forced to pick and choose which flags should be permissible." This is in a public school. You know, one that's run by the U. S. GOVERNMENT?? And they dont' know how they would pick and choose which flag to allow???????????????????

http://www.nbc17.com/midatlantic/ncn/news.apx.-content-articles-NCN-2007-09-11-0027.html

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml