 |
||||
| . | ||||
|
"Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves." –- Norm Franz My Stuff Safe in the Fire Swamp Amazon Profile Old Silver Articles Blogger Profile Blogs of Friends and Heroes 3 O'Clock AM A Tenor's Tale Code Monkey Ramblings Elusive Wapiti Giraffe in a Compact Car Hart's Heart Jayhawkers and Red Legs JD's Evolution Jedi for God Jim Sinclair John of Argghhh! Kawaika Magic Negro Watch Metal Dad Mish Roland Drake Rollin' Like Sisyphus Something Feral Vox Popoli Vikings Blog ...will not be televised Required Reading 7 Lesson Schoolteacher Aliens Cause Global Warming Fire and Ice Is the USA Bankrupt? Neutral Power FTW On the Reading of Old Books The Subprime Primer The Toledoth of Genesis Archives November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009
 |
Some contradictions are just silly As I was preparing for Quinno's next uberfantabulous popology post - which series has (d)evolved into a comprehensive study of first century Roman JIT networks (and we're not even to Acts yet) - I came across a "contradiction" from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Usually, such entries are pretty good and require a bit O research to understand the cultural background or document transmission process. In other words, they are great study guides for the mundane minutia that pass for my commentary and make study valuable.But this one is just absurd: Does the gospel of Luke contain everything that Jesus did?Even leaving out John's hyperbole that to record everything Jesus did would fill the world with books, to call Luke out here is just rubbish. One must simply ask, did Luke take himself literally when he said that he recorded every single thing Jesus did and taught? Of course not. He doesn't record anything Jesus did from shortly after his birth until he was twelve or from when he was twelve until he was thirty. Did Luke truly believe that Jesus did *nothing* (get dressed, throw stones, eat, sleep, sneeze, make boxcar derby racers, eat paste) during those years? Of course not. He doesn't record Jesus breathing - are we to assume Luke believed that Jesus never inhaled? PQ - who is a fair and intelligent non-believer - said that, "There is a rational case for disallowing the whole Canon, but I've yet to encounter a critic who is prepared to impose those rational standards on all _other_ figures from antiquity." And he's right. The scriptures must be respected in the same way *all* other literature from antiquity is respected: with an understanding that the authors were real people who lived in real cultures, wrote to real audiences who really understood them, and who used real figures of speech, as a bare minimum. To force a literal interpretation onto what is obviously a figure of speech is not only not serious, it's not even honest. And if one wouldn't treat Livy - who wrote lines like "though the fleet was not actually submerged by the waves, it was exposed to every possible danger from sea and sky" (even undersea volcanoes? How about meteor strikes?) - that way, one shouldn't do it to Luke, either. Labels: bible  Consider my day madeDrinkmixer.com apparently has a drink for everyone: El Borak  Treat me like a black guyA few days after a Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D- JimBeamistan) got a ride home from officers rather than a night in detox, he asked - with typical Kennedy deference and gallantry - rather than the preferential treatment he received, that he be treated like a black guy. I can't be sure, but perhaps he meant this black guy: The Minneapolis Police Department is investigating whether two officers neglected to issue a ticket for suspected drunken driving to a Minnesota Timberwolves player who crashed into a parked car in March.After all, Kennedy and Griffin have a lot in common: One-car accident, check. Wee hours of the morning, check. Officers don't perform a sobriety test, even though there's evidence one is necessary, check. Officers drive their charge home instead of to the clink, check. If there truly are "secrets of the rich and famous," how to talk a night-shift cop into acting as your chauffeur has got to be one of them.  Choose your fate and dieI've got hundreds of these things in my warehouse from at least four series. The original Choose Your Own Adventure books were pretty decent, though the lame factor increased with the number of titles. The Time Machine books were really cool, Endless Quest less so. The Which-Way books sucked. Hard. Honest to God, Nick and I would read them aloud on book-buying trips and laugh at how bad they were, while lamenting the fact that someone, somewhere, got paid to write these abortions of literature. "The hallway goes either left or right. If you go down the left hall, go to page 21. If choose the right hall, go to page 22." Page 21. "You fall in a hole and die. The End." Castle of No Return from the Which-Way books was that bad. But no matter how many books were published and how bad they were, there had to be some rejected. Something Awful introduces us to a few that might-have-been. At least they might have been if the authors of children's books had a penchant for magic mushrooms and swear words. Language warning.  A quick lesson in inflationCNN.com reports on how frequent flier programs have changed: The first frequent flier program began in 1981 with American Airlines' AAdvantage as a way to keep profitable business travelers flying the same airline. Other major airlines like Delta quickly followed...Think of frequent flier miles as a currency, because that's exactly what they are, just like the US dollar. And like the dollar they started off small. They worked so well that the airlines kept issuing them, more and more, trillions of the things. Inflation. Eventually people start trying to spend them, and there are so many that there's no way they can be honored at current rates. First class seats become smaller, the good seats become scarce, blackout dates expand, prices for upgrades and trips and prizes climb higher. Scarcity. And now several of the largest airlines are in bankruptcy (and all but a handful are bleeding money), yet together they still owe millions of people free trips. It's hard to keep your promises to the future when you can't pay your bills today. Then people get scared and start dumping them as fast as they can. Then, eventually, they become worthless. Default. The laws of economics always work. Over-issuance of currency (inflation) leads to scarcity leads to default. Always. Even in America. If apes have rights, can they be indicted for murder?   Brother can you spare a...never mind.The best thing about the invention of the online auction is that for the first time, people who pull long-neglected items out of their drawers - so to speak - now have a worldwide market to dump them on. I mean sure, if you were looking for a coin purse made out of most of a dead frog and you lived in Bammer, you could probably find one by hitting a few yard sales, and for a lot less than $5.50. But trying to sell a coin purse made out of most of a dead frog was a problem, because everyone on your road already had one that his pappy gave him. And they last forever. Thank God for ebay, that's all I've got to say. Some things are just too valuable not to share with the rest of the world.  Tax the Lilliputians!The world's second-richest man, Warren Buffett, has asked Sen. Ken Salazar to vote against repealing the estate tax...If that's not an argument for keeping the estate tax, I don't know what is. Buffett's support of the tax has been used by any number of eat-the-rich tax raisers to show that if the world's richest people - just the kind of big people the supporters of the tax assure us this tax is for - love it, then we little people who oppose it are both greedy and ill-informed. Buffett's support has been so complete and so public that occasionally I wonder if he just can't wait to fall over dead so he can pay it himself. But what's this? Buffett, 75, is chairman of Omaha-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. On Sunday, he announced plans to donate the bulk of his $44 billion fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and four other philanthropies starting in July.Buffett supports the tax, but he has no intention of paying it himself. In fact, since he's donating Berkshire Hathaway stock, he has never paid tax on any of that wealth. Never income tax, never capital gains tax, and now that he's worked the current law by giving much of it to Gates' Foundation - tax-deductible, of course - his children won't pay taxes on what they inherit from him, despite his vocal insistence that the children of other people do just that. I give Buffett full marks for being a businessman without equal. However, his hypocrisy in regards to taxation is as fine an illustration as you'll ever see of what always happens when taxation is used as a tool of social engineering: the big people who love the big taxes don't pay them and have no intention of paying them, no matter the good they promise those taxes will deliver. Taxes, we find sooner or later, are for Lilliputians.  The blind leading the blindDr. Susan Roberts, who teaches among other things "The Politics of Feminism" at Davidson College in North Carolina, explains how the Constitution might be found unconstitutional: Adding credence to the idea that a flag-burning amendment is a calculated addition to the Republican agenda is the history of flag burning itself...What Professor Davidson doesn't know (and therefore presumably fails to teach those learning feminist politics) is that the Supreme Court has no authority to find a flag-burning amendment unconstitutional any more than it can throw out amendments banning slavery or protecting women's suffrage. Amendments are, in the words of the Constitution itself, "valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution." Therefore the court can neither uphold nor overturn them. There is not even a review process. When an amendment is passed, there is no appeal. Now one might be willing to believe that Professor Davidson simply misspoke, confusing an amendment with simple legislation, except that the entire point of her article - illuminated in the very title "No, proposal is political gesture that courts are not likely to uphold" - means that she managed to get a Phd, and what's worse, teaches the next generation of PoliSci PhDs, and yet misunderstands the basic political structure of our constitutional republic. Can I get a huzzah for higher education? (hat tip: BOTW) Labels: feminism  A guided tourMADRID (Reuters) - Spain's parliament is to declare support for rights to life and freedom for great apes on Wednesday, apparently the first time any national legislature will have recognized such rights for non-humans...Welcome to the Liberal Slippery Slope. I can see by your incredulous smirk that this is your first time taking our tour, though if I remember correctly, your parents enjoyed the Tobacco Slippery Slope back in the 1960s. It was a rather crude tour, I'm afraid. But now that the trail has been blazed, I'm sure we can cover far more territory in a shorter time. Increased efficiency and all that. Let's get started, shall we? You will note to your left we have the great apes, who because they are close to us genetically, enjoy the same rights as us. Aren't they beautiful? Just remember not to leer. No, I can't define leering: only the subject can, based on how she feels, how hot you are, or how much money she thinks you're worth. Leering is always harassment and a violation of her rights. Thank you. Moving onward and downward, we have the lesser apes, spider monkeys, and some koala bears. Because they are close to apes genetically, they have received the same rights as the apes, which coincidentally are the same as us. No, sir, the spider monkey does not have to "Respect your authoritah!" Please put the stick down. Further down the slope we have dogs and cats, which as we know are close to the bears genetically, so they have the same rights as bears, which are the same as apes, which are the same as us. In the past, many were enslaved by humans to make up for their own deficiencies, such as being born visually-challenged, but in this more progressive era, humans serve them. For example, one whimper and many dogs of the poodle variety find themselves dressed warmly while their valets don identical apparel. This is to demonstrate to those they encounter on their semi-daily constitutionals which humans belong to which dogs. Call it "reparations," if you will. Finally, here at the bottom are the cows and pigs, who are genetically close to the dogs and cats, and the chickens, included in this group because they share the dishonor of having been enslaved for millennia with the former, and because they display a great evolutionary similarity to humans by walking upright. No sir, you can't have some chicken wings, what are you, some kind of a cannibal? There are soyburgers for sale in the lobby if you're hungry. What do you mean soybeans have rights, too? Don't be ridiculous! "We were born into a society where humans alone are the sole focus, and we begin to expand to the non-human great apes. It isn't easy for us to see how far that expansion will go, but it's very clear we need to expand beyond humans," Waldau said.It isn't easy to see how far the expansion will go, but it's going to be damned entertaining all the way down.  Just in case you're worriedAs a precautionary measure, I have added a notification from the International Earth Destruction Advisory Board on the left side of my blog (the green banner). In the event that the Earth is destroyed, that banner will be replaced by a red one, so be sure to check back frequently.  Is it 1914 already?
I have in my office a book called "The Time is at Hand," (1908 edition). On page 101, we read the following words, "...the ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced." The book, published by the Watchtower Tract Society - the corporate headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses - gives all the biblical reasons that Armageddon would occur in 1914. Of course, WWI gave the JW's a respectably close run. But even then, the prophecy had to be re-dated, first to 1925, then 1975. I thought the JWs had learned to stop fixing dates, but I was wrong: apparently we're dealing with another round of false-prophetic indulgence. In all fairness, there have been plenty of non-JW attempts to set the date as well...various Millerite groups of the mid 1800s (which spawned both the Seventh Day Adventists and the JWs) expected the Second Advent then. Following Hal Lindsey's hugely popular books of the 70s and 80s which postulated an imminent return of Christ, an entire cottage industry arose in books claiming a date for the Second Coming, from "AD1991, the Genesis of Holocaust" to "99 Reasons the Rapture will occur in 1999." The only things they had in common were that they ignored Christ's admonition that "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put under his own authority," and that they were wrong. So is the end coming this year? Next year? I have no idea: it's not for me to know. But I will give you 100-1 odds against. If it doesn't come, I'll still be accepting Paypal. If it does, well, I guess I'll just have to owe you. * BOTW asks a good question: If deliverance is at hand, why are the Witnesses holding a "yearly" convention instead of a "final" one?  The Adventures of Suicide BunnyOk, so they're completely sick. I laughed anyway.  Jon Stewart, HereticThe Washington Post names Jon Stewart an enemy of the people: This is not funny: Jon Stewart and his hit Comedy Central cable show may be poisoning democracy.Oh, come on, it's at least a little funny? When students who watched the Daily Show were compared with those who watched the CBS Evening News, the former "expressed less trust in the electoral system and more cynical views of the news media" than those who watched CBS. Stewart's crime, of course, is pointing out naked emperors. And that's heresy indeed under the modern civil religion.  Too little, too lateEl Presidente belatedly discovers fiscal responsibility: WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush is pushing Congress to give him more authority to slice and dice the budget, an idea that's popular with conservatives who think the White House needs more muscle to restrict federal spending...This week's radio address resurrected the line-tem veto, a previously-passed, previously-rejected-by-the-Supreme-Court scheme that allows the President to veto portions of bills rather than whole bills. In theory, it would allow the President to cut the wasteful spending (earmarks) that cling like barnacles to every bill that allocates your tax dollars. In reality, it might do that, a bit. But it's funny to see the President drag his shot-up old bucket to the "conservative hot button" well once again. Seriously, this guy's been president for 6 years - spending more money than LBJ on Medicare-subsidized Viagra since Day 1 - and now he's concerned about the $250k a year Jerry Lewis earmarks for swimming pools in California? Bush worrying about earmarks is like Kenneth Lay worrying about Enron employees pilfering staplers. Yes, Congress is full of petty thieves, but they are, in the end, just petty thieves. After watching this President add literally trillions of dollars to the debt our children will carry, pardon me for not taking his bloviations about budget control seriously - one might as well listen to Xaviera Hollander extoll the virtues of chastity.  On feminists and antsIn her lone entry thus far, the Kafkaesque K wikis up some difficulty: Well, I took it upon myself to test out El Borak's statement (that "feminism" has a sufficiently robust definition that one can talk about it without defining it - El B). I typed "feminism" into Google, and opened up the first link: Wikipedia, a source that Vox himself has turned to in this debate. Wikipedia's definition begins:Unless, of course, one is not talking about specific "types" of feminism at all. The question K forgets to ask in her shock at the discovery that feminists don't all look alike is this: why then are these diverse groups all considered feminists? What essence do they share that this blanket term applies to each of them? 'Feminism' must have a meaning outside the specific subgroup(s) using it, because they are relying on it to define who they are. And that meaning might be found precisely where I said, the dictionary, for those who are so unfamiliar with the political landscape that they do not recognize feminism when they see it. When one is talking about a contemporary social movement *in general terms*, then the specifics of the subgroups within that group don't come into the argument. It is the very thing they have in common that is under discussion, not the attributes which differentiate the subgroups. Insisting that one need know what subspecies of feminist is being 'invoked' is like demanding that before you can do anything about the ants in your kitchen, you must determine which of the 12,000 species you are having trouble with. The truth is that it doesn't matter which: once you note that what is crawling across your counter is an ant, it's not necessary to wiki before you reach for the Raid. UPDATE: K follows up on the discussion: I might also point out to El Borak that an important difference between ants and feminists is that he wouldn't reason with an ant before exterminating the ant. No matter now many times you tell an ant that it does not belong in your kitchen, the ant is still going to come back.And no matter how many times I tell a feminist she DOES belong in my kitchen... I'm kidding, okay? Sorry. Sometimes I just can't help myself... But she makes a good point: "Feminism is more than just a word, and we need more than just a dictionary definition to understand its compexity." This is absolutely true, but one does not need to understand or reference its complexity to talk about it in general terms any more than one needs to understand the complexities of the bat mitzvah to talk generally about Judaism. Then she makes my point, by quoting a Fox News article about something called Christian Feminism: "Feminism can be defined as the belief that women should be liberated as individuals and equal to men. It is only natural for there to be disagreement over what a personal ideal like "liberation" means and how a basic concept like "equality" should be defined. Indeed, it would be amazing if every woman who cared about liberation and equality came to exactly the same conclusions." What's that? It's a pithy one-line definition of feminism - showing it can be done - followed by an admission that going deeper than that will get you no further. If the feminists themselves cannot agree "how a basic concept like equality should be defined" - while accusing Ole' El B of thought crimes for not agreeing with the something they cannot define - if they are broken into a plethora of competing subspecies arguing over definitions and means for accomplishing their general goal, then talking about that general goal in general terms and summing it up with the general title is a reasonable way to get to the argument rather than arguing endlessly about definitions. Which was the origin of my refusal to define feminism any more than my dictionary does in the first place. Labels: feminism Just a bunch O links Given today's discussion of feminism, I would be remiss if I didn't share Mike Adams' excellent series on why he doesn't take feminists seriously. Seldom do I agree so totally with a columnist (especially a Republican) but Adams shares an understanding of practical feminism the depths of which are generally unseen by those who don't work in a college setting. Glad to say my college is small enough that the infestation is still manageable. Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII (NOW and THEN) Those of you who wander over here from Lawrence.com know Patrick Quinn, AP reporter and all around great guy. He's one of my favourite nemeses and a guy whose disagreements I take very seriously indeed. PQ is currently running a series using 1st century Christianity to illustrate his thoughts on Popology, the theory that all of culture is referents competing for audience. No, it's not as boring as it sounds, and though he and I are on completely opposite sides theologically, I think the discussions are downright fantastic. Whatever respect I retain for the press after serving my sentence as a political PIO is solely a result of PQ's intelligence and integrity (well, and Joel's too, but don't tell him or he'll get a big head). Popology 15: NT Notes, Philipians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians Good background material: Intro to Popology, Popology II, Popology III, Popology IV. Those interested in more can click his link to the left (World is all that is the case) and check the archives. If one wants to understand practical economics, there is no better teacher than Walter Williams of George Mason University. His home page and archives are here. What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Find out here.  A weekend benderEvil Bender tries out on Vox Day the logic he received for his 10th birthday: I just find what you say to be bigoted, poorly argued, and lacking in actual thought. You've created an imaginary world in which cause and effect run something like this: women fight for the idea that they are human beings, equal to men and worthy of respect. The world is a fucked up place where bad things happen to people. Some of these people are women. Therefore, feminists brought this on themselves.Actually, when you recast someone's argument and then attack that, it's known as a straw man, but I'm sure our master logician knows that. Try this for Vox's real argument: The world is a "fucked up place" and people do bad things to one another. Since law cannot make people be nice there needs to be an internal societal compass (e.g. Vox's "Judeo-Christian culture") that keeps them from doing what the external cage cannot prevent. Feminism, by undermining the internal compass, allows the bad things to happen while trying desparately to strengthen the ineffectual cage. Ergo, when the bad things that are allowed to happen happen to feminists, they brought it on themselves. You read that right: because I don't find SLAVERY funny, I must be a total morning (whatever that means - El B). Well argued, Vox! Here are some other things I don't find funny: war, oppression, genocide, and people who take delight in others suffering because they are bigoted, illogical thinkers.Not surprisingly, since Evil Bender ignores Vox's point, his response that HE doesn't find something funny misses the point. Post-Chrstian Feminists have created a Germany where all are supposedly equal. Yet the society they create finds a growing trade of sex slavery within it. That's called irony, and when Vox uses that irony ("A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect") it is funny even if Evil Bender doesn't think so. When I am not paying attention and hit myself with a hammer, I don't think it's funny, but my opinion doesn't subdue the laughter of those around me. What's best about this is that Vox challenges me to find a solution. I would challenge him to even suggest one.[TAG] You're it. And he's making one of the most basic logical errors of all: slavery happens in "post-Christian" Europe, therefore it must exist because people aren't Christians. Never mind that in the Old Testament the Israelites were keeping slaves and that the New Testament can be read as endorsing slavery insofar as slaves were exhorted to obey their masters."Can be read" is a nice way of ignoring Vox's historical point that the elimination of slavery worldwide was driven by Christians, primarily in England but with the help of American Quakers. His point that Christians owned slaves is well-taken, but Christianity never demanded that anyone hold slaves. It was precisely *because* of their Christianity that abolitionists fought against the world-wide norm of slavery, and no other philosophy/religion stamped out slavery before them. Now that Christianity is a rare beast in continental Europe, the re-emergence of slavery there is just a coincidence, I'm sure. I'm not as simple-minded as Vox, so I don't believe that a solution to the problem of global slavery is a simple matter, but I know that...(a) solution for slavery starts by building a world where bigotry, intolerance, and hatred aren't acceptable.Yup, all we have to do is rebuild the entire world and the desires of everyone in it. Sound familiar? But again, Evil Bender proposes the wrong solution. Sex slavery is not based on bigotry, intolerance, or hatred. It is based on a) a desire for sex, and b) a desire for money. Ridding the world of intolerance will just ensure that women are enslaved in properly defined racial and ethnic ratios. You've got to find something designed to counteract the greed and lust built into human beings. My money's on our Lizard Queen. It's a safe bet, like betting Vox will say something disgusting and bigoted and back it up with "logic" that has more holes than a shot-up stop sign.The original Lizard Queen is Hillary Clinton, and the fact that Evil Bender does not even know enough about Vox's writing to know that means his calls to "give me a definition of 'feminism' or whatever it is you think is causing the global slavery problem" is just asking for someone else to do his homework. Vox doesn't need to define feminism - it already exists and any political atlas or even a dictionary might answer his query. The biggest problem with feminist "logic" (which Evil Bender defines as "the idea that (women) are human beings, equal to men and worthy of respect") is that it is rubbish. No one denies that women are human beings, people are worthy of respect to the extent that they, individually, act respectably, and women are not equal to men. If they were, we would not be discussing this issue because there would be no sex slavery. The existence of a traffic specifically in women because they are women proves that men and women are not the same, and no amount of law will change that fact. UPDATE: Evil Bender answers the argument here, for those interested in following along at home.  Much of the nation still takes stock in the book of Genesis.This is exactly why the Kansas Evolution Wars are so futile. Every few years, the moderates (there are no liberals in Kansas, to hear the press tell it, only conservatives and moderates, and they are opposites) manage to take back the state school board and undo all the 'damage' done by conservatives, which damage usually amounts to allowing local school boards a modicum of leeway on evolution. And then in the next election, they saunter off, confident that at last Kansans 'get it,' while those neanderthal conservatives take the board back again. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter one bit. Because even after several generations of Darwinist control of the classroom, after millions of dollars spent on natural history museums and PBS specials, after everyone is forced to listen to Carl Sagan intoning "Millions and millions of years ago..." millions and millions of times, half the people in the US still think mankind was created, as is, after 8000bc. 56% of all Republicans, 57% of churchgoing Democrats, 51% of all women, most of whom can be considered public school survivors, failed to learn the lesson. It's rather comical to watch the pointy-heads huffing and mocking, in denial and frustration and bewilderment, at how these benighted people just can't believe what they are taught. Yet it never occurs to them that even a permanent final victory in the Evolution Wars is not going to change that. They fail to grasp the simple fact that either the classroom is completely unable to impart the lesson or the lesson is too preposterous for people to believe. Labels: science God Works in Mysterious Ways  TerryMum asks a good questionNot to be a pain, or obtuse, but where in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is against God's will? Isn't it in Leviticus?Short answer: yes Long answer: while it is in the Mosaic Law (c.f. Le 20:13) and in the NT (c.f. Romans 1:26-7), that's not where I conclude God's opposition to it. In fact, the Mosaic Law makes several exceptions (e.g. divorce) due to human weakness and so is not always a good indication of Christian teaching. However, before I go any further I need to clarify that this answer applies only to homosexual acts and relationships, not to feelings or attractions. In other words, it's about deeds, not thoughts. We can't help how we are tempted, only what we do about it. That said, we're not going to find much in the Bible concerning homosexuality specifically because it's not much of an issue in the Ancient Near East. Oh, it existed (thus the law in Leviticus) but it didn't even have a word, just a description, because as with many things biblical, you have a model or target, and you have everything else. Jesus talks a lot about the model, but shows very little interest in various schemes that don't conform to it. But I'm getting ahead of myself... Jesus' teaching on marriage is pretty clear and it's very consistent. So let's take a look at a bit of it and look for the principles: "...from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female..."Simple enough, begin with two separate sexes who were designed that way by God, on purpose and presumably for a reason. "...For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they shall be one flesh..."Two separate sexes, joined together, and together become something different, something more than they were before. This is the absolute essence of all Jesus' teaching on marriage, because this joining of two incomplete sexual creatures into a single being was the very purpose of the creation of two distinct and differently-bodied human beings. Into their relationship was designed an emotional and spiritual bond. It is the physical act of sex ("Adam knew his wife") that is both the cause and the conduit of this bond. To create the bond, God created the parts used for bonding different and interlocking. It is both symbolic and very, very practical. "...What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."But this bond is not just a natural cause/effect. Jesus says that married couples are joined by God. It must be a pretty important institution. So what can we draw from this? Heterosexual marriage is the only relationship that it is ever said God has a personal part in, and its makeup is bound up in the very design of the human body. It is presumed to be one man and one woman by Jesus. It is in his teaching the model to which all sexual relationships are expected to conform. Now, if we begin with this creation-based principle, then we can explain WHY Paul says what he says in Romans and why Moses says what he says in Leviticus. It's not simply a matter of this rule or that - as if this thing we call sex is just a blank slate that needs rules applied to it - it's a matter of understanding the model laid out in Genesis and explained by Jesus. When you try to re-create that same model using parts as they were not designed by God to work that way, you have a counterfeit. That's why whatever gay marriage is, it ain't marriage. Since sex is designed for marriage (See Jesus' teaching on adultery), if sex is part of a relationship that is not marriage, it is outside God's will and therefore a sin. Ergo, homosexual conduct is a sin. In that sense, a physical homosexual relationship is no different than an adulterous one, an incestuous one, or a bestial one, and the homosexual is no more (and no less) a sinner than a guy who cheats on his wife on business trips. The 'wrongness' of the act is not inherent in prudish reactions to the very thought of it. Its wrongness is certainly not wrapped up in votes or marches or societal acceptance. The wrongness of the act lies solely in the fact that God created us to do A and we do B, C, and D, instead. And the farther we get from God, the farther down the alphabet we go. That's Paul's point in Romans 1 and the liberal denominations are illustrating it for us in real-time. But let me turn it around: is there in the Bible a single occasion where a same-sex sexually-engaged couple is blessed, accepted, or praised? If there is not, then we'd better be careful before we write God's name on something he has withheld it from. * Yeah, I realize there is a sequence error in the picture. Just work with me here, people. Global Warming   On the Rights of ChildrenAfter noting a Reuters story explaining how often Mom and Dad scam from the kiddies' piggy bank, Daniel MacIntyre comes out against forced sharing: If the money belongs to the kids, then taking the money without their consent - even if you pay it back - is sending them the message that this behavior is okay in general. After all, their own parents do it. Once you establish that "your" money is not really yours - that one can justify taking it from you without your consent - you lay the foundation for welfare, social security, nationalized health care and a host of other programs where you are forced to pay for the dubious benefit of others.The first para begins with a big "if": if the money belongs to the kids. And while I'm not going to justify the robbing of others' ceramic livestock, I think we need to be very careful about creating absolute property rights for children, even if it's just in argument. We certainly don't treat them that way in real life: if mom gave little Johnny a toy and he immediately broke it, rare is the parent who would shrug and say, "it was his property to dispose of as he wishes." Johnny would at least get in trouble for being careless if it was an accident or for being a spiteful, wasteful little bastage if it was not. But why? Because the property rights of children are not absolute and never have been. They are conditional. Legally, if a child inherits property over a certain amount, the state may get involved - conservatorship and all that. If it's below that amount, it often goes into the parent's name. Why? Because small children cannot really own anything in the real sense of the word. That's where the forced sharing analogy breaks down. Ownership of a car by an adult is not equivalent, legally or morally, to Jonny's ownership of a plastic car. Johnny may be the only one who uses it, and it may have been given to him with a big red bow and a card with his name on it but Mom is perfectly within her rights to dispose of it, whether to the Goodwill or in a garage sale. So whose car is it? In the biblical perspective, Paul made an apt comparison once, "the heir, as long as he is a child, is not different from a servant - though he be lord of all - but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed by his father," and while Paul was speaking about the law, the point is the same: there is a difference between the property rights of children and of adults. To the extent that we believe in parental rights concerning children, to that extent we do not support property rights for children. The two are mutually exclusive, and if a parent wants to teach Johnny to share (a noble act that one must be trained in...it does not come naturally) then Johnny's property rights are going to take a back seat to his parents' responsibility to mold Johnny's character. It's the parents' call, at least until Johnny pays for food and rent.  Mogambo gets a little excitedThe thing I like best about Mogambo Guru (Richard Daughty) is that part of his schtick is using the exclamation points and salty language that other professional economists are afraid to use. He's rather like the medieval court jester who, rather than being simply a joker, is a humorous yet cunning advisor and quite possibly the one man able to tell the truth in the King's presence and live. Yes, he's over the top. And yes, his numbers are correct. Perhaps his conclusion - that we have entered a monetary madhouse for which there is no precedent and probably from which there is no escape - is correct as well. And I notice with a grim Mogambo frown (GMF) on my stupid face that Required Reserves in the banks actually went down to the bottom of its range for the last zillion years or so. Hell, picking a date in random, say, in May 1995, which was eleven long years ago, total deposits in the banks ("savings") were only around $110 billion, and total Loans and Leases on the books of the banks logged in at only $204 billion. And against that, the banks were saddled with $57 billion in Required Reserves. Who says watching pro wrestling is a waste of time?  Please do not feed the bete noireThe Orlando City Council discussed a controversial plan to limit who can feed the homeless and how often, according to a Local 6 News report.Particulary ironic is that the city counselor who proposed the ban on feeding undesireable humans, Patty Sheehan, headed up the successful effort last year to allow dogs to eat in outdoor restaurants, apparently so the doddering harridans who infest south Florida can sup in public accomodations with the immaculately-dressed poodles who serve as the children they never wanted. After all, a city's gotta have its priorities.  Great, now I'm on the watch list I don't know what the above says, but it's linked to this blog from the Palestinian State's webpage, along with some other sexy domains like jihadislami.org. Can't wait until the next time I try to get on a plane...  Teaching the Chinese bad habitsBEIJING (Reuters) - Banner-wielding animal rights protesters swarmed into a restaurant serving cat meat in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen and forced it to shut, Xinhua news agency said Sunday.The Chinese send us all manner of useful gadgets and in return we export treasury debt and animal rights activism. Just doesn't seem fair, does it?   Accelerating irrelevanceAs the Episcopal church continues its century-long slide into oblivion, they are managing to pick up a collection of 'firsts' that would make the United Methodists green with envy, including an openly gay bishop and now a feminist head of the church. But there is one similarity they share with their liberal denomination friends: "The new leader will inherit a fractured church. The Pittsburgh-based Anglican Communion Network, which represents 10 U.S. conservative dioceses and more than 900 parishes within the Episcopal Church, is deciding whether to break from the denomination. The House of Bishops recently started a defense fund that will help fight legal battles against parishes that want to leave and take their property with them.As is the case with most liberal (or in press parlance, "Mainline") demoninations, the faster they try to catch up with modernity, the more people they leave behind. The more they strive to be relevant, the more irrelevant they become. In the end, the old who are too habit-bound to leave will die off, the waning flow of funds will be paid to lawyers rather than missionaries, and devolution and entropy do the rest of the job of returning a once great body to dust. The public structure may live on, as does the empty husk known as the World Council of Churches, but there will be no life in it. Paid staff may continue to write articles for obscure magazines and appear on TV news shows, but nobody will be listening from the pews. Why would they go to a church that doesn't believe in Christianity? It's probably a societal harbinger worth noting: the only churches growing are those that are young, vibrant, independent, and fundamentalist. Note the pattern in business as well - GM is dying and job growth for the past half century comes almost exclusively from small business. That pattern will be followed in government eventually as it produces less and less while consuming more and more. And the voices and demands of the parasites who infest these dying organizations will continue to grow more shrill, more imploring, more desparate. And more irrelevant. Update: It doesn't get any easier, considering she brings a uniquely American theology to the world body: As presiding bishop, it will fall to Schori to explain the convention votes to world Anglican leaders, including those who consider her ordination invalid. Her efforts to maintain ties will be made all the more difficult because she voted to confirm (openly gay Bishop V. Gene) Robinson, supports blessing same-sex couples and believes gay relationships do not violate Scripture.Update II: Neither denomination seems to have anything on the Presbyterians, however: BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) - The divine Trinity - "Father, Son and Holy Spirit'' - could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb'' or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend'' at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly...The proposals are not unrelated, of course. As soon as one finds it necessary to get rid of God's teaching regarding sex and sexuality, it becomes necessary to get rid of God Himself. Herself, itself, whatever... They won't come when you call, they don't chase squirrels at all ST. LOUIS - A woman accused of pummeling a dog breeder over the head with a dead Chihuahua has been charged with two misdemeanors and reimbursed the money she paid for the puppy.No, I'm not going to put a picture on this post. Sickos.  Thank you, Captain ObviousLONDON (MarketWatch) -- Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President William Poole warned Friday that rising gasoline and oil prices may be adding to inflation pressures in a way not detected by current data...Maybe it's just me, but I would have thought that relying on a core inflation measurement that purposely excludes energy costs might eventually cause the problem of gas and oil not being detected by that measurement. But it's nice to see the the eggheads who run things slip up and tell the truth on occasion. I'm strangely comforted by the fact that they know it, even if they so seldom share it. Poole's revelation that the nation's main inflation gauge doesn't really measure inflation won't change anything in real life, of course. A realistic measurement of inflation is still politically unpalatable, which is why food and energy and house prices (i.e. the most significant consumer prices) were excluded from the core Consumer Price index in the first place.  The Skeptic's Annoted Bible notes a contradiction, that in Gen 10 there are many languages but in Gen 11 just one which is subsequently split.Apparently there is an entire blog dedicated to answering their contradictions, and its take on the above is this: In chapter 10 of Genesis, genealogies are given of Noah’s sons and their generations. Each lineage developed their own language, as would be expected when they divided and diversified in land settlement. However, at some point in the last generations of Chapter 10, and at the beginning of Chapter 11, the tribes of the world decided to join back together under one head, or government. It was at that time that they agreed upon one language, just before the tower was built.So there was a single language which naturally split into many, was purposely compressed back to one, then were split into many again? I find that a little unlikely for at least the reason that if mankind could agree on a single language before the tower, what's to keep them from simply doing it again? It also undermines the nature of the judgment at Babel, which presumes that a plethora of languages is an insurmountable obstacle that will force separation of peoples (as it has proven to be in history). To propose that everyone in the world decided to speak a single language is not only unsupported by the text or history, but by what we know of people - they simply don't do that sort of thing. No, there's a simpler answer: Gen 10 and 11 form a single narrative separate from the rest of Genesis, and the genealogy is its main purpose and the narration is simply explanatory material. To see it laid out in outline form without those distracting verse divisions, click here. I mentioned before the "toledoth" (for a thorough explanation, try here), a separating comment that divides Genesis into books, probably with different original authors, which books were combined by Moses at a later date. There is a toledoth in 10:1 ("Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah...") which rather than belonging to the material following, belongs to the material preceeding. The story (generations) of the sons of Noah is the flood narrative which begins at the toledoth in 6:9 and ends in 10:1. 10:2 thru 11:10 are one account ending with the toledoth "These are the generations of Shem." Now, if we take 10:2-11:10 as a single "story" we find that it has 2 natural parts, genealogy (10:1b-32) and narration (11:1-9), and the author has chosen to arrange his book topically with the narration explaining the genealogy. He lays out the families of mankind as they existed in his day, then he narrates the events that caused them to be as they are. Catherine Murphy of Santa Clara University explains how the ancients did it this way: The historian usually began by writing out a sketch of the events, then inserted secondary material (speeches, dramatic episodes, digressions) and finally arranged the collected material in a systematic way (chronologically, topically)...What we have in Gen 10-11 is a case where our historiographer arranged his material topically rather than chronologically and even followed the pattern above - except that he mixes travel descriptions in the genealogy - and then relied on his audience to understand the cause/effect relationship. It's only because we insist on treating the whole passage as a chronology that we have troubles, because then we have to propose unworkable solutions to get around our own bad assumption. Labels: bible  Adventures in IRC[death09] my girlfriend broke up with me and sent me pix of her and her new boyfriend in bed [ktp753] ouch. [death09] yeah.i sent them to her dad [scirDSL] I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next." They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals. SparTacus (rulimbaww@3B942731.dsl.stlsmo.swbell.net) has joined #santcuary *SparTacus is now known as Betty_Guns wacko Jacko (lbeedy@1C57684.dsl.stlsmo.swbell.net) has joined #santcuary [wacko_Jacko] ok spartacus just came n here i know it. which one of you is that loser? [hunney] I am spartacus [ji_pper] no im spartacus [Betty_Guns] I am spartacus [mistr andersn] I’m spartacus [wacko_Jacko] ur all freaks thats what u r [Mike3285] wtf is a palindrome [MaroonSand] no its not dude [Zybl0re] get up [Zybl0re] get on up [Zybl0re] get up [Zybl0re] get on up [phxl|paper] and DANCE * nmp3bot dances :D\-< * nmp3bot dances :D|-< * nmp3bot dances :D/-< [[SA]HatfulOfHollow] i'm going to become rich and famous after i invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet [i8b4uUnderground] d-_-b [BonyNoMore] how u make that inverted b? [BonyNoMore] wait [BonyNoMore] never mind  Talking NonsenseThe Treasury Department legal tender FAQ has it down to a science: There is... no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.This was news to me (I'm not being sarcastic, I really didn't know) and I consider it very good news. Legal tender laws, it appears, only apply to doller-denominated debts that one has already incurred; they do not mandate that you accept cash, and of course no one has to accept checks or credit cards. It is perfectly legal to do a 'cash' business completely in silver or shotgun shells or crunchy frogs, though I'm sure that the government will be very interested in seeing you convert those into dollar equivalents come tax time. But that fact, while being good news, also puts the lie to the last rationalization of paper money fans (next question): Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.That the notes have no value for themselves is unarguable. They are simply ink on paper, promises to pay nothing. But you will hear a constant refrain any time you discuss the essence of paper money: "Just because it's not redeemable in gold doesn't make it bad," the argument goes, "because it's backed by goods and services." The silver certificate was 'backed' by silver in that there was one silver dollar on deposit that you could get by turning in your bill. The gold certificate was backed the same way. That's what backing meant: you could redeem the legal obligation you held and get the real thing. Always. By law. Now go back and read the first quote again. No one is under any obligation to give you any goods or services for your note. So in what sense is it backed by "all the goods and services in the economy"? Only in nonsense. At least when the dollar breaks you'll be able to legally stick your creditors with worthless money. Sticking your grocer in exchange for your next meal might present a more difficult challenge.  Give me action not wordsRed State explains why the Dems can't be given the reins of power (asterisk in original): So you think the Republicans in power are spending too much? You think they need to be punished? You think the Democrats can't be worse than the Republicans? Think again.My goodness, earmarks, near and dear to my heart. Earmarks, for those who don't know, are special spending where a congressman - like Jim Moran should he get into power - can spend your money on little pet projects that benefit only the people who vote for him. Kind of like the GOP does now, at least according to Red State. In fact, on the very same page we find that the Republican Chairman of Appropriations, Jerry Lewis, earmarked $250k for a swimming pool in Banning, Ca (coincidentally his home town) in a 2005 transportation bill and $250k in the 2006 transportation bill. The 2007 bill is even better, $500k for the pool. But it doesn't all go to Banning. In 2004 he earmarked $325k for a pool in Salina, Ca. Lewis is apparently on a mission to alleviate the Great California Swimming Pool Shortage. And Lewis is not the only Republican on the job: the number of congressional earmarks has grown from 4,126 in 1994 - the year before Republicans gained control of Congress - to 15,268 in 2005. That's action! So I guess that the reason we ought to vote against Democrats is because they boast that they'll earmark the shit out of everything. Instead, we should vote for Republicans, who have proven time and time again they won't just talk about it.  Taxation without ostentationMarc J. Lewyn on why the Inheritance tax should remain: As a financial adviser, I spend much of my time helping clients decide how to handle their estate tax liability...Since no one has to pay the tax - the argument goes - repealing it is unnecessary except to his job. In other words, the main purpose for the estate tax is not to raise money for the government (the government raises relatively little from it anyway) but to employ people to help other people avoid paying it. It's a law designed to keep people busy producing nothing useful, and repealing it would toss "thousands of accountants, lawyers, and financial planners" out on their ears. To me that sounds like a pretty good argument for repeal. Since all it is, bottom line, is a scheme whereby we give busywork to intelligent and educated people who are perfectly capable of creating something else with their time and effort, it really is of no advantage economically. Actually, its purpose runs a little deeper: The estate tax is mostly an envy-driven psychological placebo for liberals. They can sleep well at night believing that the rich are being taxed, while those rich - who write the laws - create plenty of loopholes to allow them to avoid it altogether. So the tax itself is pretty worthless, but I suppose the mental health of liberals is worth something...  A commie under every trainThe poster on the right (click it for a larger version) is a 1920 German election poster that says, "For Workers and Farmers, vote Communist!" The poster on the left appears on MARC (Maryland Rail Commuter) trains running between Baltimore and DC ordering riders to report anything unusual to the authorities. Notice the purposeful gaze toward the future, the proletarian apparel, the light falling from above and behind, the shadowed faces, even the placement of the pole and the lettering. The resemblance is not coincidental. All MARC needs is a hammer and sickle rather than a magen david on the red cloth and it's a perfect communist propaganda poster. So here's the question: did some libertarian make his way into the art room, create a sly commentary on our own security apparatus, and slip it past his historically illiterate superiors? Or is there something less benign going on in DC?  Sometimes science stinks -but it's the game we play, baby John Hargrave takes one for the team: Because I care about my fellow Americans, I decided to give Olestra a try. At the time of this experiment, however, it wasn't easy: Frito-Lay was test-marketing the snacks at only one store in the country, so I had to have them shipped from Iowa. At that point, they were called "Max Chips," and since "Max" sounds like an overweight trucker who already has stains in his underwear, I thought that was even more fitting.Warning: Unless you're the kind of person who giggles when you hear the words, "Side effects may include anal leakage" during a commercial, don't click the link. You won't enjoy it.  Self-Inflicted Wounds"I don't even know what a gay Republican is. Does that mean they beat themselves up in parking lots?" -- Paula Poundstone on NPR's "Wait! Wait! Don't Tell Me" last weekend. Republicans don't need parking lots, nor to be gay, to beat themselves up. It seems that committee meetings work out just fine: WASHINGTON -- House Republicans yesterday revived their efforts to slash funding for public broadcasting, as a key committee approved a $115 million reduction in the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that could force the elimination of some popular PBS and NPR programs...Of course, this little clip not only explains why the GOP not only has to fight the same battle every year, it explains why they lose it every year. Every year, the GOP passes some meaningless 'cuts,' and every year the full house (including many Republicans) kills them and gives taxpayer money away so Paul Poundstone can go on NPR and call them homophobes. Then the same Republicans will pull their hair out over liberal programming. Of course it's liberal programming. Socialists are generally liberals, and you are funding a state-sponsored, or socialist, enterprise. Duh. But liberal programming is not the problem because it's not the real issue. Even if NPR was as conservative as Fox News, it would still be improper - and unconstitutional - to fund it. This PR-based, for-the-children approach guarantees the GOP will lose the battle as well. By making it a battle of kids' programming versus "handicapped children," they have guaranteed they can't win. After all, if you can't justify the $115 million you propose to cut, how do you justify the $380 million you're still giving away? You can't. You're just trying to starve big bird because he's a pinko. Senator McCarthy hated children, too. The correct answer is that in a world of 500+ channels, there is simply no excuse to spend taxpayer money funding television programs. The answer is to kill it. If you trim it, it grows back. You have to dig it up, burn the roots, and salt the earth where it once grew. That they won't just means they'll have to fight - and lose - the same battle next year. Almost as if that's what they want, huh? Genesis 10:1b (the "Table of Nations") through Gen 11:10 (the end of the Babel episode) form a single narrative organized topically. Bookended by toletoths ("These are the generations of...) this document illustrates the history of families following the flood, then relates the event which caused them to be separated "by their languages, in their nations." Probably the work of the family of Eber, if you read carefully you can occasionally catch driving directions that illustrate that while the author had a good grasp of geography, he expected that his audience would only be familiar with the more famous landmarks of the Ancient Near East. Sons were born to Shem, Ham, and Japheth after the flood. · The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. o The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. o The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, and the Kittim and Dodanim. · This is how the isles of the Gentiles were divided in their lands, each after his language, family, and nation · The sons of Ham: o The sons of § The sons of Raamah: o o Mizraim fathered the Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, Casluhim, (out of whom came the Philistines,) and the Caphtorim. o · These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their languages, in their countries, and in their nations. · To Shem - the father of all the children of Eber, and brother of Japheth the elder - children were also born. The children of Shem are o The children of o Arphaxad fathered Salah, Salah fathered Eber. § To Eber were born two sons. The name of one was Peleg (“Division” – El B) for in his days the earth was divided. His brother’s name was Joktan. · Joktan fathered Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, · These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their languages, in their lands, after their nations. These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations, and in this way the nations were divided in the earth after the flood. [end genealogy with the statement that the families were divided. Now begins the narration that explains the statement – El B] The whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And as they journeyed from the east they found a plain in the They said one to another, “Get up, let us make brick and burn them thoroughly,” (they had brick in place of stone and used mud for mortar). Then they said, “Get up, let us build a city, with a tower whose top will reach the heavens. Let us make a name for ourselves so we are not scattered over the whole earth.” The LORD came down to see the city and the tower the children of men had built. And the LORD said, “Look, this people is united and have one language, yet this is what they do. Now nothing will they have thought to do can be kept from them. Let us go down and confuse their language so they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the whole earth: and they quit building the city. This is why the name of the city is This has been the family history of Shem. Labels: bible  Weapons of ass destructionKABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Security forces thwarted a bombing in a southern Afghan town by capturing a donkey laden with explosives and a man who was plotting to blow up the animal in a rebel attack, a government spokesman said Thursday...(hat tip: BOTW)  Cedarford explains TMA(tm)Coulter's larger point is the Left has adapted a tactic, same with the media, of "adopting" various grievers and conferring on them "Total Moral Authority" in Maureen Dowd's words - to advocate without any criticism whatever they want ... See, any criticism of the Jersey Girls' stance on global warming, [or the] need to try Giuliani for 9/11 would be hurtful and delay KA-LOSH-URE, the Secular Therapeutic Sacrament. While Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ back on April 12, 2004, launched the seminal critique on the four 9/11 widows basking in the glow of their pathos and power to command government and media, Coulter has been hot on others pushing agendas down our throats while employing the full Victim Shield at those opposed to them. Coulter was the one that sledgehammered Max Cleland and pointed out several of the disgusting things Cindy Sheehan was getting away with as she sat giving speeches on her portable phony grave to her son Casey... Coulter pointed out that voters in Georgia dumped Cleland not because anyone "questioned his patriotism", but because he was a liberal tool of Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle. Oh, pointing out Max became a triple amputee not from enemy action but from suffering a grenade accident - somehow dropping his own grenade on himself after a beer party. And that Max had parlayed his wounds to good effect for 35 years, ensuring people took care of him - right up to his current super-perk, super-cushy, no-show patronage job at Export-Import Bank. But the Cult of Victimhood goes well past a few liberals using it. On some campuses, you cannot question affirmative action or slavery reparations because blacks, according to some activists, have a Victim Shield, making what they want immune from criticism. FOX uses the Victimhood schtick all the time on their pet victims like Beth the MILF from the Holloway case, and the Total Moral Authority of the deranged RTLers trying to use the Victimhood of Terri Schiavo to impose RTL laws on us. MADD was based on the ability of "victim families" of drunk drivers to walk into courts and legislatures to make demands for this or that onerous law going well past their original goal of getting drunks off the road - they claim they are now the aggrieved "societal substance abuse experts" now trying to weigh in on child custody cases to say a parent who drinks even moderately shouldn't have custody. Gun banning "victim families" say their grief and loss outweighs the 2nd Amendment and gun owners rights. It's a huge problem in our society, and I salute the people that are trying to take the Victim Shield of criticism dowm, and those who say "I'm sorry your husband was killed by terrorists, but your loss does not make you the national expert in espionage agency reforms, skyscraper design, foreign policy, and how many millions more you are due from your husband's death than ordinary Americans killed in the military, in a traffic accident, or by a street thug."   Liberalism causes stupidityThe Washington Post illustrates that stupid is as stupid does: The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn't want. Well, not literally, but let me explain.Here’s the difference between liberalism and freedom. Under freedom, one is allowed to do generally what one likes, so long as no one else is hurt. So this Dana, an educated woman (so much for sex ed) neglected to use birth control. She got pregnant, a consequence of that action. To escape the consequences, she tried to coerce another person, the doctor, into a transaction in which he did not want to take part, providing her a morning after pill. As a result of him excercising his freedom not to interact with her financially (freedom of assembly), she then chose to get an abortion, which she says she didn’t want - yet she apparently wanted it more than something else, because she chose it. Then she blames Bush for “forcing” her to get one. There was no coercion against her. No one forced her to have sex, she chose to. No one forced her to ignore birth control, she chose to. No one forced her to get an abortion, she chose to. But she failed to force another person and then blamed an unrelated party for forcing her to do something as if she was the victim of their actions when she was purely the victim (if one can call it that) of her own, not unlike the case of abortion activist Amy Richards, chronicled in the New York Times a few years ago. Jane Galt exhibits the exasperation of the pro-choice at such personal revelations: What the hell is it with first person essays in allegedly pro-choice papers? ...Rather than the editors being stealth pro-lifers showing how self-centered and irresponsible choicers are, maybe the stories don't seem compelling because when one looks at them closely, they just aren't. They are simply an attempt to escape responsibility for the consequences of freely-chosen actions, and failing that, to pin responsibility elsewhere. But the short version of liberalism - especially as illustrated in these "Boo hoo, I didn't use birth control and now I'm pregnant because doctors are free not to give me a pill" stories - is that it is nothing but a philosophy whereby other people are forced to act in order that that the people who choose to be irresponsible can escape the consequences of their irresponsibility. In other words, Liberalism's socialization of risk carries a morale hazard, because if a person never has to accept the consequences of stupid behavior, stupid behavior increases. Therefore liberalism increases stupidity. Don’t believe me? If abortion was simply not an option, would Dana have acted more responsibly? Odds are very good that she would have. And if that was the only thing we knew about liberalism, it would be enough.  The post that goes with this pretty picture is here. Read it only if you can stomach technobabble or haven't heard enough of my whining about the death of the dollar, which the above picture represents. You've been warned.  The Monsters who tucked me inAs a foster father of kids who have a little trouble going to bed at night (it's not that they simply don't want to - that's easy to deal with - but rather it's an absolute, panic-inducing primal fear of closets, darkness, open doors, closed doors, beds, and mostly closing their eyes), Avery Ant strikes a little close to home here. Those of you who are well-adjusted will probably enjoy the humour. The rest of you might see a few faces that look familiar...  A theory disproved?The Australian has news for me: Last week's raids on both sides of the Atlantic are ... a rebuke to anti-war progressives and so-called foreign policy realists alike who believe that Western – specifically American – meddling in the Middle East and support for Israel is responsible for tensions between Muslims and the West. Would that international relations were so simple...The recently-derailed terrorist plot in Canada has caused a lot of supporters of the Iraqi War to say, "See? See? We told you terrorists are bad," as if those of us who oppose the war would disagree with that assessment. And while I'm by no means a progressive (and imagine how surprised I was to see Myopia listed under "Liberal Blogs" on coolaqua) the existence of this plot, even if it were carried out, does not change anything vis-a-vis the war. And the reasons can be found in the above quotation. The first and foremost issue is the assumption that "the stabilizing and democratising of the Middle East is vital to stamping out the terrorist threat," and there are two questions to deal with. The first is, is it true? I contend that it is not. Both the Canadian plot and the expected attack on the US are "home grown." That is, they are plotted by people who already enjoy all the benefits of stable democracy, and they use those as cover for their plans. Given the experience of democracy in Gaza, where one band of terrorists was recently voted out in favor of one more radical, it is naive in the extreme to expect that if Islam's will is legitimized through free and democratic elections, suddenly that desire will take on the form of Western materialism. It will not. Resurgent Islam is most interested in defeating the infidel (that's us) and while I don't doubt that there is a special hated place in the hearts of radical Islam for friends of Isreal who tromp all over the Middle East (that's us again), it is not based on political form - it is based on subjugation to the will of Allah - and therefore a change in political form is not the answer. Those who say we need to fight homegrown terrorism by instituting democratic governments half a world away need to really re-think that premise. Those who say that the fact that Canada is unsafe proves that the US is no more unsafe for meddling need a lesson in logic. If Canada is x unsafe, it does not prove that the US is not 2x unsafe. Unsafety is probably more related to the number of terrorists that inhabit a Western nation and how easy it is to get into. If you don't want to get stung by bees, don't mess with the nest and don't bring them in the house. Canada has brought them in the house, but that doesn't make it safe to hit the nest outside with sticks. But the second question is fatal to the WOT cause: is it possible to implement such governments? I know the politically correct mantra is that there's nothing inherent in Islam that keeps democracy from taking root, but if that's the case, why has it never taken root of its own accord? Democracy is a strange beast, a belief in the rights of the individual to have input into the process of rulership, and it arises from a unique set of historical - and religious - circumstances. It is not the natural, historical form of human governance because the circumstances that birthed it did not exist until the Protestant Reformation. In Catholic Europe there was kingship. In the Islamic Middle East, satraps. In Asia, emperors. It was not until Protestantism, with its emphasis on the priesthood of all believers, that the idea that rulers ought to answer to those individuals took root. All before that - with short-lived exceptions like the Greeks and low-population nomads like some AmerIndian tribes - has been some form of autocracy. The mindset that the individual is paramount does not exist in Islam - the only will that matters is that of Allah - and is as futile to try to change Islam by implementing democracy as it would have been to cause the Protestant Reformation by holding elections for Bishops. One follows from the other, but they are not interchangeable. And so long as Islam is a state religion (which it will be under any democratic government in the Middle East) governments will enjoy the same perpetual civil wars that occur 18 months after elections in Africa. If Somalia and Ivory Coast and Congo were stabilized by elections, then maybe there would be hope for the Middle East. But elections don't bring stability, they can only reflect a stability of society that already exists. And they also reflect - and magnify - the instabilities that exist. The best we can probably hope for is "democracy" such as exists in Turkey or Pakistan, where elected governments are given their way until they get too uppity, at which time military reigns them in. In other words, when the will of Islam is realized through the ballot, there needs to be a stronger will to contain it. In Pakistan, a nominal ally in the War on Terror, President Musharraf has survived 4 assassination attempts. Unelected in all but name, he is the small bridge between an Islamic majority that finds Osama a hero and control of atomic weapons. A truly democratic Pakistan is in no one's best interest. And so long as Islam remains the state religion (as it is in Indonesia and Afghanistan as well) there is little chance that democracy there will be any more than occasional votes over which ayatolla will control the nukes. But we destroyed any chance of a Pakistan solution by the radical de-Baathification program that destroyed the Iraqi state. In Iraq, it will be all or nothing. Then we can go back and re-invade Somalia, I suppose, where Islamists siezed the capital this week and began setting up a new Taliban. So is the theory that America and its allies are less safe because of their armies in the Middle East disproven by the plot in Canada? Not at all. The plot in Canada, organized as it was by terrorists who already enjoy everything our armies promise Iraq, proves that whatever we are doing over there is not going to solve the problem. There are no good solutions at this point, but some solutions are worse than others.   It's genius, I tell you.AP: U.S. to Give Iran Nuclear TechnologyGiving the Iranians nuclear technology if they promise to stop developing nuclear technology is brilliant. In fact, it's such a cagey and sagacious solution that I can't believe no one has ever thought of it before. Well, except for the North Koreans, who made the same deal with us in 1994, shutting down their Yongbyon nuclear complex in exchange for a couple of light water nuke plants and half a million metric tons of fuel oil per year. Eight years later, they kicked all the UN inspectors out, fired Yongbyon up again, and pulled out of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. If I'm not mistaken they didn't give the nuke plants or the fuel oil back. They're clever like that. UPDATE: Political Cortex says the admin isn't forgetful, but rather they are scared. Of what, they have no idea (just a few suggestions). But the thing I'll find interesting is whether the same Republicans who derided Clinton for giving nuke tech to a ronry dictator will find will find it more palatable to hand it over to an ayatolla. Place your bets?  I seem to remember something like thisKIEV (Reuters) - A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.Oh yeah, here it is, Daniel 6:24: And the king commanded them to bring the men who accused Daniel and cast them into the den of lions with their wives and children; and the lions got the best of them, breaking all their bones in pieces before they even reached bottom of the den.Sometimes God shuts the lions' mouths. And sometimes he says, "Come on up. We need to have a talk anyway." If you're not sure which it's going to be, stay out of the lions' den.  God's oddsBible Scholars Predict 85% Probability of a Nuclear Terrorist Attack on the UN Complex in Manhattan on June 9 or 10The question is not, of course, whether God can predict the future but whether he lays odds. He doesn't, at least as far as I've seen. These verses do not appear in the bible: Lot said, "Get out of Sodom, for there is an 85% chance the LORD will destroy this city." Moses said, "Choose a lamb for each family and kill the passover, for there is an 85% chance the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians." Joel said, "Fear not, O land; be glad and rejoice: for there is an 85% chance the LORD will do great things." The angels said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? For there is an 85% chance Jesus will return in the same way you have seen him go." Long-term readers might have noticed it bothers me no little bit when people mistreat the scriptures this way. Saturday will come and Saturday will pass, and if there's no nuke in New York (if you'd like to lay a wager, contact me privately. I'll offer 6-1 against. Bets payable in silver only), the gullible who scurried to Pennslvania will blame God for their gullibility and these false prophets will fall back on, "Hey, we only said the odds were 85%" or will disappear into anonymity altogether. And the rest of the world will snicker at the silly Christians. Paul once wrote that the Gospel was foolishness to the Greeks, but he didn't order us to act foolishly to give them an excuse not to believe. This is more than just some wayward believers playing numbers games with the scriptures. When you speak for God, you are assuming the office of prophet. When you speak falsely in God's name, you bring shame not only upon yourself, but on his name as well. But I guess I shouldn't get too worked up over it. After all, Jesus said, "There's an 85% chance false prophets will arise and deceive many. On second thought, make that 100%."  Never, no, always check your referencesThe Volokh Conspiracy seems to have fallen for one itself: Now, the stunning news. In light of experience, it appears President Bush has rethought the question. He’s called a press conference Monday to address the issue of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.There are times that a reader's BS detector ought to go off. This story contains all of them: no original link, a source that is a backhanded slap at another issue ("An NSA source who monitored a phone call"); an unheard-of press agency, "HSEPA, the Hope Springs Eternal Press Agency". Not to mention the fact that Bush is not going to publicly flip two days after holding a tea party in the Rose Garden on the issue. Things simply aren't done that way in politics - you don't alienate your allies while you have opponents who cannot be appeased. The current President's father learned that lesson hardway. On the Amendment itself, if Bush wanted to rid himself of it, he'd just let it die, which is what should happen. As Joe Sobran said the last time this amendment was trotted out for public defeat, "It was a bad idea. As so often happens, social conservatives led with their chins, picking a fight they couldn’t win. " But the fact that it can't win is precisely why it remains so valuable to Bush: it will be there every time he needs it, like a credit card that never has to be paid back. And Conservatives - Pavlovian creatures that they are - are always ready to fill the Rose Garden with people and the campaign coffers with money every time Bush whips it out. Bush is going to throw that away in a public press conference? For all the things Bush's oponents have said, none ever accused him of being *that* stupid.  More sellers than buyersI seldom give trader's notes. The fact is that in the market, unless you're a trader, the day-to-day and hour-to-hour moves in currencies, stocks, and gold are meaningless. Financial reporting, especially when it explains moves like this, "the Nasdaq composite index slipped 0.11 points lower to 2,219.75 giving back some of yesterday's good gains as investors mulled the unconvincing jobs data," are worse than useless, because a .05% move in stock indexes is no move at all, and certainly wasn't caused by mulling. No one knows what it was caused by, if anything. I used to hate it when I asked my old broker why a certain stock went down and he would reply, "more sellers than buyers today," but he was right. In the short term it is normally no more than that. But in the long term, moves have causes and things happen for reasons. Sure, a move down is still caused by more sellers than buyers, but sustained moves are caused by more sellers than buyers for a tangible reason. The chart on the main page is a chart of the US dollar's value against other currencies like the yen and Euro. During the late 90s, its value rose (more buyers than sellers) but since 2001 it has dropped precipitiously, pausing only in 2005 and having given back that gain in 2006. Its cause, in short, is more sellers than buyers. But who are the sellers? The biggest seller is the US Fed, which issues dollars (sells bonds) to cover government deficits, creates bank reserves to cover home loans, and creates 'liquidity' to salve the wounds created by the other two activities. I bitch a lot about the dollar, because it is the lifeblood of our economy, and every dollar you've saved has lost 1/3 of its value in the past 5 years when compared to other nations' paper. But it has lost more than that. *All* fiat currency loses value over time when compared to real things like homes and oil and Cheesie Poofs, but the dollar is losing it faster than any other major currency because so many of them are being issued. And it's not just because I value government thrift for its own sake, but because the dollar represents political stability, prosperity, retirement, vacations...in other words, when the value of the dollar is destroyed, our ability to enjoy those things is destroyed along with it. No American wishes that on America, but no one who understands it expects any other outcome. This chart represents our reward for our government's actions. The blue and red and grey lines on the chart represent moving averages, which are used by traders to decide whether the future will bring gains or losses, and those technical traders cause trends to run further and faster than they ought. Now that the dollar has broken forcefully through its major moving averages, the chart is telling traders to sell. And sell they will. 80 is the number, the coming cliff. That's as low as the dollar has ever gotten on this chart, and below that there are no support levels; there is nothing but air. When the dollar breaks 80, look out below, because we could see another 1/3 lopped off its value in short order. If you think that only matters to traders in the pit, consider that when the dollar was at 120, oil was $20 a barrel. Now that it is at 80 (1/3 less), oil is $70 a barrel. When the dollar is at 60, there are going to be some pretty good deals on used SUVs. Of course, Congress will blame the oil companies, but this chart tells the real story. According to The Economist Magazine, oil is up 39% year on year. That's a lot of gain. But the "all items" commodities index is up 36%. If the oil companies are to blame, so are the gold miners and the farmers and the sugar manufactures and the chocolate growers. It's either the biggest corporate capitalist conspiracy ever seen or the simple fact is that El Presidente' and his GOP Clown Brigade are ensuring that there are more sellers than buyers of US dollars. Maybe Congress should have a Blue Ribbon investigation to find out what's going on, while they can still afford one.  Not surprised he's a DemocratRep. John Mayo of Mississippi has a strange definition of opportunity: Today's volunteer army is not in the best interests of a democracy. A volunteer military does not allow enough people to answer the questions posed at the beginning.That makes sense. Allowing everyone to volunteer for something does not give them equal opportunity to do it. They must be forced to do it; that's where the real opportunity lies. Of course, as is usual with Democrats, even his history is myopic. With a draft in place, Lyndon Johnson would never have relied on faulty intelligence to use the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to get us into Viet Nam, right? So how come he did? But the draft itself is something we've been discussing over on Quinno's excellent post on Haditha. Is the draft, in the words of MyName, "more like forced indentured servitude than slavery"? And if it is like forced indentured servitude, is it not unconstitutional? The 13th Amendment says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Of course, the courts are sure that if it's really really important, words don't matter, writing (Arver v US, 1918) that "we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment." The "theory" (they must have missed it in oral arguments) is that the words "involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime" means that you can't be forced against your will to serve unless you've committed a crime. So should we ever get a Supreme Court fluent in English, all Congress has to do is make celebrating your 18th birthday while in possession of a penis a crime and we're good to go. Since all men are rapists anyway, I'm sure at least some of the Democratic left would go along with it. In any self-respecting country This would be a felony:  Glory lasts foreverOne of my favourite "Inside the NFL" segments was always "Where are they now?" in which Nick and Len caught up with some former NFL star helping crippled kids or living under a bridge. Most of these guys had almost been forgotten, except by those who still had old Topps cards in the garage or attic. Of course, some of the stars stick around. Terry Bradshaw is doing movies, Lynn Swann is running for Governor of Pennsylvania, OJ is still looking for the Real Killers(tm). So Shane Falco was sorta right when he said, "Pain heals, chicks dig scars, glory lasts forever." But apparently in politics failure means you'll be replaced by Al Gore: Of course, an even bigger goat than Bonds is Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig. He turned a blind eye to the steroid issue and now has an investigation into alleged steroid use by Bonds.Bush Sr. defeated Gore? Then what was that tank ride all about? Some things are better off forgotten, I guess.  On History Fraudulently RecordedJohn Stossell talks about the Congressional Record: Every night that Congress is in session, stenographers take down every historic word and ship them off to the Government Printing Office. The printing office stays open all night to be sure the official record will be on every member's desk by the following morning. That sounds important.Of course it's fraud. Most things Government and its various Agencies and Offices write or release contain some element of fraud, if by that we mean cheating, tricking, and posing falsely. The Social Security Trust Fund: fraud. Hillary's claim that she deserves credit for New York's economy: fraud. A Consumer Price Index that excludes most consumer prices (e.g. food, energy, and housing): fraud. Ephemeral money lent into existence at interest: fraud. Pentagon reports that Jessica Lynch went down fighting or that Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire: fraud. Diplomas given to people who are unable to read those reports after 12 years of education: fraud. It's not just the government, however, but business as well. Enron, Arthur Andersen, and a thousand other companies, some caught, some to be caught in the future. The bureaucratic, parasitic class that has infested much of American leadership this past generation knows nothing else. The numbers will say what they need to say; they have no reality of their own. When the lie becomes too embarassing, someone goes to jail. But the game goes on. We live in an age of fraud and facade. It makes me wonder how anyone will ever make sense of the history we leave behind. Oh, and the Nugent pic? Stossell talks about one tribute to the Nuge that's printed in the Congressional Record - that he's as good with a bow as with a guitar - and notes that if he was a congressman, "it would be embarrassing to actually stand in front of my colleagues and talk about Ted Nugent's archery, so I'll just make it seem as if I did." I'd talk about it if I was a Congressman. At least Ted Nugent really plays the guitar. |
|||
When you need a picture of 'the one that got away,' try Lyin' Your Bass Off. |
||||