Philosophical Quote of the Day

I'm currently reading Frederick Coplestone's A History of Philosophy, Volume I. I thought I'd share this rather impressive quote from a character named Empedocles.

"Wretches, utter wretches! Keep your hands from beans."

Apparently he was influenced by the Pythagoreans, who for reasons not entirely clear to the modern world, considered beans to be off-limits to their followers. Perhaps it had something to do with their views on the transmigration of souls. Or perhaps they all had to bunk together and were just sick of leaving the windows open. And people say philosophy is boring...

Not A Bad Idea

More Displays Of Tolerance On The Left

Apparently tolerance among gays only extends to the bedroom, and not to the ballot box.

One VP Question I Haven't Seen Discussed

One of the time-honored roles for a VP is as the official attack-dog of the campaign. This isn't true of every presidential VP pick, especially in recent years, but it can be a useful consideration. While Obama and McCain have not been as annoyingly nice as I was afraid they would be during this campaign season, neither one really seems to be comfortable with going for the other guy's jugular. Obama is just too obsessed with his own high self-regard and McCain seems confused whenever he has to attack the OTHER party. It takes them both out of their element (Obama's element is praising Obama, and McCain's is talking about how lousy those OTHER Republicans are). So why not pick the VP that can most effectively take the fight into your opponent's living room?

In Obama's case, I'd be tempted to say that this consideration makes Biden the prime choice, if it wasn't for Joe's penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth. Other good choices would include any of the seasoned old veterans like Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, etc. For McCain, I think it would definitely be a Christ/Portman/Romney type. Whatever other flaws they may have, all are bright, quick on their feet, and have a decent amount of political experience. The young guns like Palin and Jindal would make poor attack dogs because they have the most to lose in terms of harming their own political futures, and the business world types like Fiorina and Fred Smith don't know the political world well enough.

FWIW, I doubt either campaign will pick based on this criterion. Neither guy seems to think in those terms. But, given that negative campaigning generally works, such a decision could mean a lot more than vague guesses about who balances the ticket or brings a swing state into the fold. Voters may not vote based on who the VP pick is, but they DO listen when the VP starts swinging for the fences. See Darth Cheney's mauling of Silky Pony back in the 2004 vice presidential debates for a good example of this.

Breaking--Barack Obama's Vice Presidential Announcement

HUGZ all! BHO here. My new BFF is TK. ONID, LOL! He is 2G2BT and a BHG. GTBG, AITR!

New French Superweapon...Or Is It American???

Ok, I stand second to none in my admiration for the United States' ability to come up with creative and freakin' cool methods for wasting bad guys, but you're going to try selling it with plausible deniability rather than going with the "wrath of Zeuss striking from the heavens" angle? Seriously? A mysterious super-weapon fries targets without leaving a trace and other countries are just going to say, "Hmm...it was either America or France... Yeah, that's it. America or France, but without physical evidence, we'll never know which." Somehow, I think they'll probably figure out it was us.

Haha!

You know, I had a professor of English history who used to say, "There will be peace in the Middle East before there's peace between the English and Irish."

In Your Face Einstein!

Ever since that no-talent creep Einstein ruined everyone's day by proposing that it would be impossible for an object with mass to travel faster than the speed of light with his stupid relativity theory, sci-fi nerds everywhere have had to live with the tragic remnants of their shattered dreams. Apparently, this Einstein guy decided to point out that an object's mass increases exponentially as it approaches light-speed, until it reaches infinite mass. Therefore, infinite energy would be needed to push it above the speed of light. All this leaves us cold and abandoned out here on an isolated edge of a galaxy nowhere near any other friendly galaxies.

While comforting, talk of Federation-style warp drives have always remained a tantalizing fantasy, rather than a realistic vision of the future. Now however, faster-than light travel may again be an attainable goal...albeit one for future generations, since the technology to produce the necessary power and make the proper dimensional manipulations has yet to be invented. Still, men may once again dream of someday visiting far corners of the galaxy, thanks to some intrepid physicists. (Although admittedly, I was already ahead of them thanks to Futurama. I wonder when someone will take up Futurama's other suggestion, and propose simply increasing the speed of light, which seems like a lot less effort than moving the universe?)

Still, Einstein shouldn't be let off the hook for denying us our dreams for so many years. My only comfort is that his precious unification theory is still as far away as ever. Take that you glorified patent examiner!

Obama's Reaction On The Russian/Georgian Conflict

I've heard a lot of people criticize his initial statement on the conflict as being too wishy-washy. It condemned violence and called on both countries to show restraint, without assigning any blame or naming any very concrete actions to be taken. I don't really think that this is a fair criticism. The Obama camp's explanation that the statement was put out before anyone really knew what was going on, and whether assigning blame was appropriate seems perfectly reasonable to me. After all, Russia has peacekeepers in the region, and if reports are correct that some of these peacekeepers were killed, then I could understand a very limited incursion to protect their own troops. Now that Russia has gone far beyond what would be necessary just to ensure the safety of peacekeepers, it would be unconscionable for Obama to avoid speaking out more strongly, but in the opening minutes of the conflict, I can't really argue with caution.

Could McCain's Good Fortune Hurt The GOP's Congressional Efforts?

Two pieces of conventional wisdom:
1. Increasing awareness of pressing domestic issues tends to help Democratic presidential candidates, since they promise people free stuff. One of the easiest issues to work it's way into the forefront of American consciousness is gas prices, their rise would seem to help Obama.
2. In recent days the GOP seems to have found an effective stick with which to beat up Congressional Dems, by blaming them for not doing more on gas prices. "Drill faster!" seems to be an effective battle cry. This is fueled largely by rising prices.

Therefore, isn't it possible that falling gas prices (along with the current issues in Georgia) will help cement McCain as the better candidate to lead, while simultaneously taking away from the importance of one of the few issues the GOP members of Congress seem to be winning on? (Yes, yes, I know this ignores all sorts of other things like coattails, the perceived desire of Americans for divided government, etc. Shut up, it's my blog.)

If this is true, here's an interesting question. Would you rather the GOP do well and McCain lose this fall or vice-versa? At first thought, despite my better instincts, I think I'd rather root for McCain. That may just be the liquor talking though...

Russia And Georgia

I don't have anything truly profound to say on the issue, so I'll keep it short. While others have made good points about balancing the needs of the War on Terror with the ideals of democratization and self-determination, the bottom line seems simple to me. I'm perfectly willing to accept that Georgia was foolish to invade the disputed area in the first place. They probably should have anticipated that the presence of Russian peacekeepers would be a convenient excuse for Putin. But the fact remains that Georgia is a weak ally (in terms of their resources, not their commitment), while Russia is a strong sometimes ally/often rival. Georgia has 2,000 troops in Iraq, currently the second strongest commitment of any US ally. Given that their total active military strength is 28,666 people, that puts almost 7% of their armed forces in Iraq. That turns what would otherwise appear to be a respectable commitment into an almost superhuman one. They also offered up to 500 troops for Afghanistan earlier this year. For purposes of comparison, the UK, one of our strongest and most capable allies, has around 8,500 troops in Afghanistan and approximately 4,000 in Iraq, for a total commitment of 12,500 out of their 196,000 active-duty forces, about 6.4%.

So, to recap, Georgia is a Democratic US ally, who currently has troops putting their lives on the line to assist the US in a conflict that only peripherally affects them. Now they are engaged in what could become an existential conflict for them (Though I'd say this is unlikely. Far more likely is that Russia's design is to humiliate them and make it clear that they remain under the sway of the Russian Federation no matter what borders are recognized by the international community.). Is the moral calculus really all that difficult? Isn't one of the arguments for remaining in Iraq the idea that the US is harmed every time the world sees us as unwilling to stand by an ally?

On top of that, the practical calculus doesn't seem much harder. Russia will continue to work with us when it suits them, and oppose us, either actively or behind the scenes, when it does not. Why should we believe that allowing them to slap around a more faithful ally will convince them that working with us more often is beneficial to them?

Obama Eloquently Replies, "Nuh uh! You Are!"

...to John Mccain's charge that Obama is merely a political celebrity without the experience to lead. Seriously, right here. Aside from the completely unoriginal nature of merely saying, "I know you are, but what am I" in response to an opponent's attack ad, Obama has several problems here.

First of all, it mistakes John McCain's argument, which is twofold. He isn't simply saying that Obama is a celebrity as if this fact alone would make him an unfit and risky president. His message is that Obama's rise has been due to his celebrity, RATHER THAN EXPERIENCE OR ACCOMPLISHMENT, and therefore he would make an unfit and risky president. Even if Obama can successfully portray McCain as the true celebrity president rather than himself (a hard sell given that McCain has never jokingly been referred to as the Messiah, doesn't drape himself in glowing rhetoric about how his nomination marked the day that the waters would cease to rise, the poor would be fed, etc., and the fact that Obama is the one receiving hagiographic news coverage while McCain can't even get conservatives to say nice things about him), it does not logically follow that McCain's celebrity makes him a bad candidate. Obama seems to be trying to make the argument that McCain's status as a Washington insider makes him a bad potential president, a much more potentially fruitful line of attack, but mixing this with the celebrity response just muddies the more effective half of his message.

A more effective potential use of the celebrity counter-charge might be to argue that McCain is a celebrity seeker, who is driven by positive press rather than ideology. Hey, at least that message would resonate with many conservatives! However, I think it would be better for Obama to avoid the celebrity theme as much as possible. He's just fighting on a battleground of McCain's choosing, and any good general knows that you only do that when forced to. Since Obama still leads in the polls, he would be better off just avoiding this terrain. Trying to fight it out only increases the press attention on an Obama weakness.

Obama Needs A Campaign Song

Remember when Hillary wanted to let America pick her campaign song? Well, I think now we should try to help Obama pick himself a song. With that end in mind, here are my suggestions.



"When you're a celebrity, it's adios reality..."
_________________________________________________________________________________


"High above the mucky-mucky, castle made of clouds, there sits Wonderboy, sitting oh so proudly. Not much to say, when you're high above the mucky-muck."
_________________________________________________________________________________



Sometimes Obama just feels like a woman.
________________________________________________________________________________



"Seriously guys, I was. And STOP making fun of my name!

All The Bums But One

I think this polling data illustrates something I find fascinating about legislative politics. It tends to weaken individual accountability. While the country seems to have a "throw the bums out" mentality about Congress as a whole, when specifically asked about their district, most people respond, "not my bum!" I think that is why, while the mood in the country may color individual races (as we saw in 1994), Tip O'Neill really was telling the truth when he said that, "all politics is local". Unless a challenger can recognize the mood of the nation, and tie specific offenses by the local incumbent to that mood, it doesn't matter how foul the country feels about the Congress as a whole.

Am I The Only One?

While I think McCain's celebrity ad was actually fairly effective, and neither silly nor racist, it was unfair. To Britney Spears. While no one thinks she's currently at the top of her career arc, it shouldn't be forgotten that unlike Paris Hilton, Britney is not merely a celebrity for celebrity's sake. While she most certainly will not ever be mentioned in the same breath as the truly great female vocalists, she is definitely a top-selling singer, with 31 million albums sold in the US and 83 million worldwide. In comparison, Christina Aguilera, a contemporary (they both released their debut solo albums in 1999) with more actual talent, has only sold about 37 million albums worldwide. It may not be high art, but Britney's music can be fun. Am I the only one brave enough to admit I really liked some of her early stuff (though I'd never play it with other people around)?

Apparently The Knights Templar Are Suing The Pope

Seriously. I just checked, and yes, it is still AD 2008. I think the pope should make a deal with these guys. He'll agree to their demands, as long as they agree to let their order be tried for war crimes committed during the Crusades. And for that matter, let's open it up to everyone. The Arab nations can sue the Templars for war crime reparations too, as long as the pope gets to counter-sue the Arabs for their invasion and conquest of Palestine in the first place. Let's all get as silly as we can.

Take A Time-Out Guys

Ross Douthat discusses the silliness and paranoia of the pro-Obama crowd here. The Obama-worshipping segment of the press seems to think that they can browbeat people into voting for their man. (Oops! By pointing out that Obama is a "man" am I subconsciously playing into racial stereotypes about the hyper-masculinity of African Americans?) Seriously though, can it get any worse than an article describing the discussion of Obama's skinny frame as a stand-in for race? Oh yes, it does. Because Timothy Noah claims that ANY discussion of Obama's physical appearance is a cover for introducing racism. Does he realize how many articles were written on Hillary's pantsuits or haircuts? Does he remember the video of John Edwards getting his hair done that someone set to the tune of "I feel pretty" on Youtube? How about the discussions of George W. Bush's jogging and overall fitness regimen? No, forget all that. He seriously wants to claim that Obama cannot be treated like every other candidate because he's a black man.

It reminds me of the flap over the bar owner who started selling Obama-as-Curious-George tee shirts. He was accused of being racist, even though he explained that he really did think Obama's hairline and ears resembled those of the cartoon monkey. Well, I guess they did have a point. It's not like any other American politicians have ever been compared to a primate.

If Timothy Noah is really serious about this line of reasoning, perhaps he can explain the racist intent underlying articles like this one. Perhaps he can elucidate the racially tinged undertones of Maureen Dowd's column comparing Obama to Mr. Darcy. After all, isn't Darcy a romantic fantasy for thousands of American women? Maybe that plays into unconscious fears of the black male as a sexual predator? No one seemed to be complaining about his hagiography in Men's Vogue, even though it praised his svelte physique as well. Apparently they've only recently caught on to the subtle game being played by Obama's opponents. (I can see the secret meeting of Texas oil men, the Bush family, the Illuminati, the weird sisters, Vlad Tepes, and other members of the RNC right now. "I know what we'll do! Let's get a bunch of articles out there about how handsome and fit Obama is!" "Oooh, that'll stick it to him!" "Yeah, and let's make sure that we get pictures of him running shirtless on a beach." "Wow, there's no way he'll win now!")

Seriously, for the supporters of the supposedly post-racial candidate to get so worked up over invisible terrors like this just shows that maybe it isn't middle America needing to get over it's racial angst. Maybe it's the people who dwell on it all day, looking for secret signs of their opponents ill intent. "The guilty man fleeth where no man pursueth..." (Proverbs 28:1)

Meanest Election EVER!!

Articles like this one, drive me crazy. Ignore for a moment that the only candidate being accused of negative tactics is McCain. (Apparently it's a subtle dog-whistle to racist whites to have a black man appear in ads with two white women, but repeatedly using the word "confused" when describing the oldest man to run for the presidency is a completely legitimate observation of fact.) What really annoys me is all of the "meanest campaign ever" hand wringing we go through every four years. Shockingly enough, it grows louder in years when the Republican attack ads are more effective than those of their opponents. 2004 was a particularly good example of this lament. But, are these concerns really correct? Let's review some past elections:

-Thomas Jefferson was accused of atheism and sexual relationships with his slaves, while his opponent, John Adams, was accused of insanity and monarchical aspirations. It was also implied by the Federalists that Jefferson and his allies wanted to bring the French Revolution to America, and that their election would leave the populace unsafe in their own beds.

-Everyone remembers the famous Burr-Hamilton duel that lead to Hamilton's death. What caused that event? Oh, yes. A political rivalry characterized by personal attacks by both men.

-When Andrew Jackson won the White House, his wife was openly called an adulteress and a whore. She died shortly after he won the election, and he spent the remainder of his life convinced the assaults on her character had done his beloved wife in.

-Charles Sumner was beaten senseless by Congressman Preston Brooks (while one of Brooks' fellow Congressman held the other senators off at gunpoint) after he insulted his fellow Senator (and Brooks' uncle) Andrew Butler on the floor of the Senate during an abolitionist speech. The insult? Butler had taken "a mistress who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean, the harlot, Slavery." Sumner then went on to drive his point home by engaging in the rarefied intellectual pursuit of mocking Butler's speech and mannerisms, both the product of a recent stroke.

-Pro-slavery forces openly threatened crowds in 1856 and 1860 with the argument that if the Republicans took over, black men would be stealing their white daughters.

-You have to love the simplicity of Tilden supporters during the disputed election of 1876. "Tilden or blood" is as clear as it gets.

-"Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" helped lose the election for James G. Blaine, who was, according to his opponents, "Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine. The continental liar from the state of Maine."

-Who could forget the classic slogan, "Ma, Ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha ha." (Implying that Grover Cleveland had fathered an unacknowledged illegitimate child)

-Woodrow Wilson (a good liberal, I might add) didn't worry about all the niceties of debate, or even about trying to come up with clever epithets to hurl against his opponents. He just jailed people for disagreeing with him during WWI or refused to let the Post Office deliver their publications.

-Lyndon Johnson was a master of nasty campaigning, threatening nuclear war if people elected Barry Goldwater in his famous "Daisy Girl" ad, and tying Senator Goldwater to the KKK in another ad, "Confessions of a Republican". The tone of the campaign can be captured by these parodies of Goldwater's slogan, "In your heart, you know he's right". “In your guts, you know he's nuts” “In your heart, you know he might" "In your heart, he's too far right"

-The 1976 Ford/Dole ticket was derisively called, "Bozo and the Pineapple".

The list goes on, but I think the point is sufficiently made. Election nastiness has been present throughout American history. It hasn't lead to our national downfall yet, and the current crop is actually pretty mild by historical standards. So why not stop hyperventilating over imagined dog whistles for racists and appreciate for a moment the fact that, for the first time ever, a black man is in a position to be treated exactly like every previous presidential candidate in history?

RIP Solzhenitsyn

In the aftermath of the widespread exposure of Jeremiah Wright's foul diatribes about America, many commentators seized on his first name to argue that he was simply following in the example of his namesake (i.e. the Biblical prophet who wrote the eponymous book of Jeremiah). As pointed out by the religion editor of the Kansas City Star (March 29, 2008, H.T. Dennis Prager) there are plenty of religious fools willing to defend Wright in this vein.

"Scholars and black clergy say Wright … simply reflects a heritage of prophetic preaching in the black church. Prophetic preaching 'is the trademark of the black church tradition, of which Jeremiah Wright is perhaps one of the most illustrious exemplars,' said Walter Earl Fluker of Morehouse College in Atlanta. "'Black prophetic preaching emerges from black slavery,' said the Rev. Angela Sims, instructor of Christian ethics and black church studies at St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City. 'Black prophetic preaching can be associated with Old Testament prophets, including Amos, Hosea, Jeremiah and Isaiah,' she said. "'The African-American church has always had a prophetic role in black life in America,' said the Rev. Donald D. Ford I of Second Missionary Baptist Church of Grandview. "'Wright fits in that tradition,' said Peter Paris, professor emeritus of Christian social ethics at Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey." The Chicago Tribune (March 28) reported that "Wright's preaching … is in the 'prophetic' tradition, one of many that have evolved in black pulpits. … 'Shocking words like 'God damn America' lie at the core of prophetic preaching,' said Rev. Bernard Richardson, dean of the chapel at Howard University." In the Wisconsin State Journal, Bill Wineke, a columnist and ordained clergyman of the United Church of Christ (UCC) wrote: "You see, you and I may look at the short clips of Wright sermons played almost endlessly on cable television and agree that they are filled with 'hate.' [Hillary] Clinton knows better. … She knows the tradition of prophetic preaching in the church. Every theologian I know who has actually attended Trinity United Church of Christ -- including Martin Marty, probably the most popular theologian in America today -- agrees Wright's sermons, taken in context, rest squarely in that tradition." Wineke then goes on to relate how another UCC minister, from a generation ago, also spoke from the prophetic tradition: "In Madison, the late Rev. Alfred W. Swan, minister of the First Congregational Church (now part of the UCC) from 1930 to 1965, was regularly denounced for his preaching. One Sunday in 1952, Swan mounted the pulpit to announce 'I am not a Communist, and I have no intention of being one.' That was after Swan had criticized the Korean War, urged the country to make peace with China and suggested that Russians were better off than they had been before the 1917 Revolution. Not surprisingly, Swan regularly faced calls for his dismissal." The Rev. Anthony B. "Tony" Robinson wrote in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (March 28), "After 9/11, Wright charged that 'America's chickens are coming home to roost' … he said 'God damn America.' … Sounds like what the Bible calls a prophet." The Dallas Morning News (March 29) reported, "More than two dozen well-known black preachers and scholars, in Dallas for a long-planned conference, offered unequivocal support Friday for one of their number who was not there. … Several of the scholars and preachers spoke at a news conference. They said that Dr. Wright's sermons fit into a long-standing black tradition of prophetic preaching." Warren Bolton, associate editor of Columbia's (S.C.) The State (March 26), compared the Rev. Wright with Jesus Christ. The Rev. Marshall Hatch, pastor of New Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church in Chicago, wrote in the Austin Weekly News (March 26): "It is providential that this has come in the midst of Holy Week 2008, a season when we commemorate the crucifixion of Christ and the vindication of God for faithfulness to prophetic speech."

Among the many basic facts that this line of reasoning ignores, (such as the prophet Jeremiah, you know, telling the truth...) one seems vital. Any coward can "preach to the choir" by ranting against people who aren't present. The real Jeremiah instead spent his time criticizing God's people IN THEIR LAND, TO THEIR FACES. Wright meanwhile, spent his time blaming whitey to a cheering crowd of black parishioners who were gratified to hear that their problems were all the fault of someone else. Jeremiah showed God's people love by begging them to fix a situation rapidly careening out of control. Trying to save people from themselves was, in fact, the main purpose of his prophetic ministry. In contradistinction, Wright merely took advantage of his situation to exploit a cushy pulpit.

However, a man who was actually deserving of such a title has now passed away. Alexander Solzhenitsyn truly was "a Jeremiah", publicly criticizing the Soviets while still living within their system. Even more importantly though, was the fact that he did not stop there. Upon being thrown out of his homeland he could have become a comfortable celebrity in the West, resting on the laurels of his own brave stand against communism. Instead, he went on to criticize the West too, telling them exactly what they did not want to hear, and railing against the corrupting influence of secularism in a speech guaranteed to make sure he would never be invited to the right parties. The Scriptorium does a far better job than I can, so I'll let them write the rest of the eulogy. Just remember, if you ever need to understand the true bravery of a real Jeremiah, look no further.

Because Sometimes You Just Need To Smack The Snot Out Of Subatomic Particles

The Large Hadron Collider is nearly complete, and should be fully operational in September. I'm already getting warm fuzzies.

NYT Sinks Lower

In the whole flap over McCain's "Celebrity" ad, this is probably the worst, and least rational argument made to date. The New York Times seems to be claiming that any ad that portrays the faithful and married Senator Obama in any context with two young white women must, by definition, have racist sexual overtones. Apparently the Times believes both that Obama is seen as a potential adulterer by much of the general public, and also that the threat that he might someday be romantically involved with a white woman sends us honkeys into paroxyms of panic. (Hey wait, isn't he the PRODUCT of a black man messin' with one of "our women"? Good thing we honkeys never figured that one out, or there might have been trouble...) However, unlike the really demented leftists, the Times doesn't even have the moral courage to make the argument in clear, unambiguous tones. Instead, we are left with a mealy-mouthed "uneasy feeling" experienced by their blogging staff.

Let's accept for a moment their assumption that the Ford ad of 2006 was racist (even though it wasn't). Does the mere fact that such an ad exists prove that any other ad combining the images of a black man and a pretty white woman is, by it's very existence racist? In the Ford ad, a sultry-looking blond told him to "call me" while noting his attendance at a party at the Playboy mansion. Surely this is a slightly different case than flashing pictures of Britney and Paris while discussing the fact that Obama is more celebrity than substance. Whatever you think the merits of that argument to be, Britney and Paris are the purest living embodiments of the concept of celebrity without substance.

The NYT's other arguments are equally profound. For example, saying that Barack Obama "rightly" said that Republicans are trying to scare voters on race in response ignores the fact that Obama has been making that particular argument for months, long before the McCain ad. He was priming the pump to label anything he could a racist attack back in June. It also ignores the fact that Obama first claimed that his "dollar bill" statement had nothing to do with race, then later admitted that race was "one of the factors".

Their most intelligent argument however, had to be the idea that "dealing from the bottom of the deck" is indelibly linked to the OJ Simpson trial. In an America in which the World Series of Poker's Main Event draws literally thousands of participants at $10,000 per entry, is televised on ESPN, and has spurred household games nationwide, the New York Times is convinced that a legitimate gambling phrase essentially meaning "to cheat" must conjure up images of a trial that occurred 14 years ago, and can have no other possible, more innocent meaning.

In a world where Tiger Woods is probably the country's most beloved athlete (see his smokin' white wife here), it's sad, but not unexpected that the Times cannot let go of it's dim view of the American people. As I mourn the death of rational newspaper journalism, I can at least take comfort in the fact that this level of irrational protestation can only mean that McCain really hit a nerve with the ad. Hopefully he can home in on this unease with Obama's lack of prime-time experience and exploit it.

And Freedom Dies A Little Bit More

Gavin Newsom, the self-obsessed mayor of San Francisco has proved once again that his city produces more stupid ideas per capita than any other city on the planet. Apparently now he wants to have garbage collectors sort through residents' trash to make sure no one slipped an aluminum can into the garbage. Those who do will recieve fines and eventually can even have their service cancelled.

Aside from the obvious privacy issues involved in going through someone's trash, the risk of dangers like needle sticks, and the fact that Lady Liberty is currently spinning like a top in her grave, here's another problem to ponder. Newsom has now designed a system that combines the worst inefficiencies of both worlds.

In addition to people making the effort to sort their trash, and having multiple trucks to collect the different types of cans we all put out, the trash will be sorted a second time at the recieving point. That means that the inefficiencies of a system that requires an excessive number of highly-paid union drivers and expensive trucks requiring maintenance is combined with a system that requires lots of low-pay, (Relative to the rest of San Francisco, not the real world. The trash sifters will probably start around $50k a year, with full benefits.) manpower intensive sorting work. Why not just have one can, and thereby save on drivers and trucks if you're going to sort it at the destination anyway?

Ever Have One Of Those Days?

Speaking Of The De-Manification Of The Brits

Gordon Brown just laughed this moron off? Why wasn't he arrested? For that matter, if some turkey superglued themselves to me, the police would have to carry him off on a stretcher. What does it say about the UK that their last Prime Minister with any testosterone was a woman? Baroness Thatcher would have flattened this guy without once losing her dignity or mussing her hair. If it wasn't for the likes of Alex Arthur, Amir Khan, Ricky Hatton, David Haye, and Matt Skelton, I'd just assume that England has entirely quit producing men altogether.

Manscara? Guy-liner?

Ok, I'm all for good hygiene and proper grooming, but someone needs their man-card revoked. Although, I doubt any guy who would use this stuff would care.

Really?

Stealing a man's prayer is a pretty lousy thing to do, even for reporters.

However, it brings up an interesting question. What do they do with all the prayers stuck into the wall?

One More Thought On The Chronicles Of Nania

I went on about the subject of the theology of Christ presented in Lewis' portrayal of Aslan at some length. Lewis again proved that brevity is the sole of wit, and that no one will ever top his simple and accessible portrayals of complex concepts. All that I said about the accessability and complexity of Christ can be compressed into a dialogue that takes place between Aslan and Lucy when they meet for the second time in Prince Caspian.

"Welcome, child," he said.
"Aslan," said Lucy, "you're bigger."
"That is because you are older, little one," answered he.
"Not because you are?"
"I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger."

Looking Forward To The Weekend

For those of you who don't know, this weekend Antonio Margarito and Miguel Cotto will be entering the squared circle in order to engage in what may turn out to be the best fight of the year. I will, of course, be glued to the screen, and shouting myself hoarse for Cotto (though in this fight, I almost didn't know who to root for more).

Really good fights usually come in one of several varieties. There are the barroom brawls, fights in which little to no actual skill or technique are utilized, and two men try to destroy each other through the pure application of violence. See Mavin Hagler's fight with Tommy Hearns as a classic example. While both men had the technical skill to compete on a higher level, they threw it all away in order to try to dominate the other through raw brutality. There are also those fights that are great because they are fought at a high level of technical skill, two virtuosos performing something closer to art than combat. Ray Leonard's fight with Tommy Hearns fell into this category. Many great fights are a combination of both, as a virtuoso pits his skill against the brawn and ferocity of a true warrior. Look no further than many of Ray Robinson's fights against the toughest men of the middleweight division for examples of this type.

The most special fight that can occur though, is one in which both men embody the virtuoso and the warrior simultaneously. This weekend's fight will be an example of that. Margarito is known as a face-first warrior, who imposes himself through volume punching and toughness. However, he is also an underrated boxer, who does many little, seldom-noticed things that exponentially increase his effectiveness. Cotto meanwhile, is calm, methodical, and precise in the ring. He thinks through his game plan and executes it with skill. However, when the need presents itself, he also has the heart of a warrior and the toughness and power to match it. On top of all this, Cotto is currently Puerto Rico's top fighter, while Margarito is arguably Mexico's best. Adding national pride to their formidable personal arsenals almost guarantees a great bout.

Nothing is sure in boxing. Maybe one man will be injured early, or physically not at his best. The vicissitudes and health problems encountered in professional sports are amplified by the solo nature of boxing. However, all that being said, if there is a fight that it is safe to guarantee will surpass expectations this year, this is the one.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Cotto by unanimous decision, 115-113.

Passing Thought

I just finished The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. About a month ago I was reading The Word of Life, by Thomas Oden. One is a 186 page children's story, the other is a 500 plus page work on Christology and soteriology that surveys the writings of church theologians over the past 2000 years. And yet, with all due respect to Thomas Oden, while his book provides a more solid theological and intellectual basis for thinking about Christ, I feel that I KNOW my God much better by knowing the character of Aslan.

In part, that's due to Lewis' skill as a communicator. You can see in all of his books that he has a knack for taking complicated things and making them simple. But in larger measure, I think it is due to our God's desire to be known. He makes himself both simple and complicated, imminent and transcendent, approachable and terrifying. For those of intellect and high ability, a lifetime can be well-spent exploring the complexity there. For those without such abilities (i.e. idiots like me), he is simple enough to be understood and welcomed by the heart of a child. "What god is so great as our God?"

Keeping It All In Perspective

I'm blessed beyond all measure, and definitely beyond anything I've ever deserved on my own. If you're honest, you probably are too. But, here's a thought for those times when we have trouble keeping that fact in mind.

The irony of modern American life is that it is our very profusion of blessings that provide us with the leisure to sit and ponder how tough our lives are. You will never hear a poverty-stricken African farmer complaining about how tough it is fighting disease, drought, and AIDS. He's too busy surviving. You'll hear far more of that among American college kids who KNOW their life will be forever ruined because that D they got last semester is killing their GPA and will wreak their chances for a sweet internship this summer. So, while there are occasional exceptions, just remember that if you've done any complaining about how tough your life is recently, it's probably not.

One More Thought On Jefferson

I find the apparently deep and abiding love liberals have for Thomas Jefferson to be more than a little ironic. As far as I can tell, it stems from his Enlightenment mindset and his deep skepticism of organized Christianity. No, it doesn't take much to make the libs happy. The irony about all of this is that Jefferson was probably the most ardent defender of limited government we've ever had in the White House (though technically that name for the residence is an anachronism).

Another irony stems from the 1800 election. For those who don't know, in the election of 1800, he tied in electoral votes with Aaron Burr (yes, this Aaron Burr). That threw the election to the House of Representatives, making Thomas Jefferson the first president to be "selected, not elected."

Apparently Obama Is A Gym Rat

Recently he went a total of three times in a single day. And yet, I still wouldn't bet on him in a fight with my little sister. And she's barely 5 feet tall.

I'm sure he just missed his Pilates class and wanted to make it up later...

Historical Analogies

Everyone makes them. From Bill Clinton being "the next Thomas Jefferson" to Barack Obama being "the next John F. Kennedy" to John McCain being "that crazy old guy mumbling to himself in the corner"...wait, no that one doesn't work...where was I?

Oh, right, historical analogies. Anyway, one of my favorites is the old standby, "This election is just like..." You know the one. People find tenuous threads connecting various candidates or situations to historical figures and their lives, then their hearts become all fluttery when they realize they have enough of those threads to Draw A Historical Analogy, and if you'll only see how true the analogy is, you'll realize that the past predicts the future.

Unfortunately, when the rubber hits the road, the truth is that analogies are called "analogies" precisely because they are not exactly the same situation. If they were, they'd be called "exactly the same situation". Lean on them too hard, and they tend to crumble. However, they are terribly fun to toy with, and since I'm currently reading David McCullough's excellent book on John Adams, I'm noticing parallels to an election that I consider to be the most significant in American history (more on that some other time). I haven't heard anyone else make this particular comparison, and I delight in the thought that I may just have squeezed out an original idea. Therefore, I shall do my humble best to convince you that this election is JUST LIKE the election of 1800. Except when it's not.

Let's start off with a little background. An unpopular administration, a controversial and ill-defined war (which the challenger also happens to be an ardent opponent of), a series of controversial national security measures, and an incumbent party that is losing ground in the legislature and seems almost as dissatisfied with, and hostile to, their moderate candidate as the opposition is. Is any of this starting to ring a bell?

John Adams had taken the advice of George Washington to heart. As he left office, Washington warned of the pitfalls of party politics, and while his positions were mostly those of a Federalist, John Adams never became a party man. He managed to fly in the face of their consensus just often enough to keep the "High Federalists" of Alexander Hamilton from ever fully accepting him. At the time of the election, their main point of contention was his desire to negotiate peace with France. By picking a middle road on the issue, he had both sides angry at him.

By signing the Alien and Sedition Acts, fighting an undeclared naval war with France (a country supporting privateering, arguably an early form of terrorism, against America), and advancing both a stronger federal government in general and more specifically a stronger executive branch, did Adams no favors with the opposition either. The Alien and Sedition Acts were widely unpopular. The Alien Act was the original immigrant controversy. Under the Sedition Act, people could be, and literally were, thrown into jail for merely insulting the president. Compared to this, the Patriot Act is sissy stuff. While the Acts were not Adams' idea, he nonetheless signed them into law and approved of them. Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans (DR's from this point on) did not.

The candidates themselves have some interesting parallels with those in our current race. Back in 1800, campaigning was seen as undignified and unbecoming in a potential president, so everything was done through surrogates. (Much like the dirtier aspects of a modern race) These surrogates were absolutely vicious. John Adams was an old man of 65 at the time, one whose rough life of service to his country showed in every line, lost hair, and a body wracked with the ailments of the years. The DR newspapers of the day gladly pointed this out over and over. Words like "toothless" and "senile" found their way into more than one story. They accused him of having a temper that made him unfit for office, and at times went so far as to claim he was not fully in control of his faculties. Dark rumors were circulated regarding his faithfulness to his wife. That fact that these accusers were without a shred of evidence seemed not to bother them. Even more damage was done when these attacks were the result of friendly fire from his fellow Federalists.

Meanwhile, Jefferson, his opponent, was an effete man of renown (some might say "over hyped") intellect. At 57, he was seen as young, handsome, and fresh in a way Adams was not. He was accused of elitism, his religious views were the subject of much controversy (some justified, some not), and his pacifistic feelings toward the country's current conflict were portrayed as borderline disloyalty. He was too foreign and not enough an American. Federalist papers described him as a weakling of unrealistic and vague Utopian visions, with little grounding in reality.

Like any analogy, this one has it's flaws. Adams was the actual incumbent, not just a member of an incumbent party. For all his idealism, Jefferson actually accomplished things before being elected to the presidency. However, one point should not be lost on today's voters. The Federalists were unhappy with John Adams. They wanted him out in order to make way for "real" Federalists. And so, they showed their displeasure. In fact, they showed it so forcefully that there was a 22-seat swing in the House, a similar change in the Senate, (the Senate wasn't elected back then, but heavy losses in the state houses had the same effect) and Adams came in third place. Rather than leading to a renaissance within the party, their disarray lead to a 28 year absence from the White House. Of course, this is only an analogy. Maybe this time, things will end up differently.

Come on, At Least Try

I'd suggest that if you can't find something mockable about an effete, nerd who backflips on every issue in a way that makes John Kerry look resolute, has Curious George ears, tucks his shirt into his pants when he works out, has ties to more radicals than Osama Bin Laden, thinks we have 57 states, seems to think he's the second coming of the messiah, and has a wife twice as manly as himself (here's a hint: If Maureen Dowd sides with your husband over you, dial it down a notch!), then you should find a new line of work.

Here's a few to get you going.
Q. What do Obama and Osama have in common?
A. They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon.

Q. Why doesn’t Barack drink Pepsi?
A. He thinks that things go better with coke.

Q. Why did Obama change his name from Barry to Barack?
A. He thought Barry sounded too American.

Q. Why will Jimmy Carter vote for Barack Obama?
A. Because Jimmy doesn't want to be the worst President in history.

Obamessiah jokes:
Obama created new states from out of the void.
Obama turned whine into Kool-Aid® for his followers.
Obama came to us carried upon a donkey.
Obama was stoned and yet he has risen.
Obama's flock has millions of sheep.
As a Chicago politician, Obama has raised voters from the dead.

New War Powers Act

A bipartisan study group (don't you just love those?) has suggested a new war powers statute be put into place to better coordinate the decision to go to war between the executive and legislative branches.

The full report is interesting reading. It reviews the confusion that has reigned since the early days of our country's history on the scope of legislative and executive powers in times of armed conflict and the problems inherent in the current statute. While I'm no constitutional scholar, I take something of a middle view on the issue. The constitution's language and intent seems clear to me in it's requirement that Congress authorize any major conflicts. The only reasonable exceptions are conflicts of extremely short duration (such as Grenada) or situations in which the president has to respond immediately to a crisis (such as the opening of the Civil War, when Congress was out of session). However, once war has been authorized by the Congress, the president has broad discretion in the conduct of the war. Short of defunding, Congress should have little ability to interfere. This seems logical both from the standpoint of the president's explicitly stated authority as commander in chief, and also from the practical realization that effective military action requires a clear and unitary chain of command. Furthermore, as the case of the Iraq War so aptly illustrates, even when Congress does authorize a conflict, the president is primarily the one who suffers when public opinion turns against a conflict.

My only real problem with the report is the timing. It would seem obvious that, despite the fact that it has no bearing on the current war, releasing such a document while the conflict in Iraq is continuing cannot help but politicize a decision that should be made on purely pragmatic and constitutional grounds. Just as the current statute is the spoiled fruit of the Vietnam era, so any statute enacted next year would inevitably be tainted by Iraq. Wouldn't it be better to shelve this idea until the conflict has come to some sort of resolution before trying to determine how the handle the next war?

When Irony Doesn't Quite Cover It

It's sad to note that a mere two days after the 4th of July, an American has to head over to the British news media to hear about staggeringly good news on the Iraq War.

Filled With Joy

You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand. -Psalm 16:11-

This is a sweet and touching article by Colleen Carroll Campbell on a difficult topic. Her father recently died of Alzheimer's disease, and this piece is both a tribute and a lesson.

Of all of the life-related topics, euthanasia has always been the most difficult for me to grapple with. Abortion, and even embryonic stem cell research are fairly straightforward. If you recognize them as life, or even if you simply cannot decide, you should err on the side of protecting innocent and defenseless life. However, in the case of a terminally ill individual who simply wants early release from the pain, the issues are more complex. You aren't simply protecting someone who can't protect themselves, you are making a choice for someone who is capable of making their own choices. You aren't protecting a life of infinite possibility, you are extending a life that is already winding it's way down.

For me, the most powerful secular argument has always been the slippery slope. Once we start crossing the bright red line of ending life, how can we argue, "this far, but no further?" If it is moral to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in horrible pain, what about a person who is in terrible pain, but not terminal? How about ending the life of someone who has progressed beyond the ability to choose, but has family members who claim, "they would have wanted it this way"? If we accept both of these scenarios, how much further is it to, "Whether they would have chosen it or not, they are better off this way." From there, it is a simple step to, "Society is better off this way." After all, as government increases it's level of intervention in health care, how can people continue to argue that the taxpayers have no say in treatments they are paying for? As we grow coarser as a society, who is to say that someone won't start to argue that cutting off life support is as legitimate a method of cost-saving as reducing Medicare payments to physicians. Peter Singer received a tenured professorship at Princeton for making these arguments, and we've seem similar ones made by previous generations of Americans, so why should we assume that our generation is immune? I can hear the argument now. "Why not spend this money on lives that are still livable?"

That argument still seems effective to me, but like Colleen, I've always been troubled by the concept of lives that are no longer "worth living". Her father's story is an encouraging reminder that it doesn't always have to be the case. Memory and the faculties of reason are a large piece of who we are, but they are not the sum total of our being. When her father's memories and reason were stripped away, they revealed joy and love beneath. I've met many older people who retained their mental faculties and yet managed to make life unpleasant for anyone (including themselves) who came within range of their vitriol. Whose life would you say is more worth living?

**Update**

I didn't see this until after writing what I did, but I think it helps illustrate my slippery slope argument quite nicely.

No Death Penalty For Child Rape

"However devastating the crime to children, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, 'the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.'" Very true. It's nowhere near punishment enough. However, since our country refuses to burn, flay, disembowel, impale, or stone child rapists, modern forms of execution are the closest thing to justice we can obtain in this life.

While the dissenting justices, especially Alito, had some eloquent objections, I think the one that captures this injustice the best was the response given by the little girl's mother. "The girl's mother was reached by The Associated Press following the court's decision Wednesday. 'We don't talk about that,' she said and hung up."

P.S. Kudos to Obama for having the courage to denounce the verdict in the strongest language available to a gutless Dem. Ok, that was unnecessary, but seriously, he didn't need to comment and I'm glad he did. I haven't heard anything from McCain yet.

P.P.S. Ok, McCain did release a statement saying he found the ruling, "profoundly disturbing". Am I the only one who thinks that, while temperance is often a good thing, society would benefit by a little bit of apoplectic language from time to time? Couldn't Obama or McCain have mustered harsher words?

In case you're not with me yet, here's some context. This is a decision that stays the execution of a man who, after previously having sexually abused an 8 year-old on 3 occasions (including one actual rape), then raped another 8 year-old. According to the prosecutor's brief she suffered "a vaginal injury which had resulted in profuse bleeding. A laceration to the left wall of her vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into her vagina. Additionally, L.H.’s perineum was torn all the way from the posterior fourchette, where the vagina normally ends, to the anus." He then forced her to lie to the police, whom he only bothered to call after he called in to work to tell them he wouldn't be in because his daughter had, "become a woman" and arranging for the bloody carpet to be cleaned? How about showing a little bit of outrage?

Exercises In Onanism

6,000 hippies in one spot. Can you imagine the smell? Probably a combination of Otto's bus and unwashed feet.

What Would Reagan Think?

I'm currently reading this book, a collection of speeches written by Reagan himself. One piece, entitled Nigeria (pages 16-17) struck me. Written in 1979, Reagan decries the influence that Nigeria was reportedly able to exert on the US, which in turn guaranteed that Robert Mugabe would end up as president of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe instead of the non-violent Bishop Muzorewa. (though Reagan was unaware of this further development at the time)

As a short recap for those who are unaware, Rhodesia was much like South Africa in that it had a black majority ruled by a white minority. The country was under extreme external pressure to reform, and finally agreed to do so. The white population brokered an agreement that they felt would allow for a peaceful transition that would give the black population power while protecting them from reprisal. It called for elections with a set number of seats reserved for whites. Mugabe's violent ZANU party and it's equally violent ally ZAPU did not participate. After Bishop Muzorewa won, his government was refused recognition by the rest of the world. Despite it's advocacy of non-violence, and the established thuggery of Mugabe, the international community (always a defender of good versus evil) forced negotiations that lead to a second election in 1980. Due to his widespread violence and intimidation, this time Mugabe participated and won. Ever since then, he's dragged his country further into poverty, violence, and chaos. (Another foreign policy victory for the Carter administration.)

The violence currently going on in the country simply underscores how bad the decision was. Reagan blamed it at least partially on pressure from Nigeria. So how was a dinky, third-world dictatorship able to pressure one of the world's two great super powers? Oil sales. After all, the 1970's were a time of poor economic growth and high oil prices. A major exporter like Nigeria would have been capable of severe harm by cutting off the spigot.

30 years later, the president of the US is begging the Saudis to produce some extra barrels of crude while the US economy continues to slow. Meanwhile, the Saudis use that money to export radical Islam and abuse their hired help, while running one of the world's most repressive regimes. And yet, every REALISTIC opportunity to strike a blow for freedom while moving toward energy independence has been blocked by the left in this country; meanwhile they insist on wasting money on disasters like ethanol and hamstringing the economy in the name of global warming. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Whew!

Apparently the Large Hadron Collider won't be destroying the earth anytime soon. I was worried.

Now if we could just clear up that whole, "scientists accidentally shorten the lifespan of the universe" thing…

They're Stealing Our Jobs!

Yeah, that's right. Those dirty, stinkin' primates are at it again. Take your stinking paws off our jobs, you darned dirty ape!*


*I am fully aware that monkeys are not apes. Please don't e-mail me.

Yet Another Haditha Marine Off The Hook

"A military judge on Tuesday dismissed the case against the highest-ranking U.S. Marine charged in the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians at Haditha, whittling down the list of those who must still face justice for the 2005 killings to just the accused ringleader."

Has John Murtha apologized yet?

This Just About Says It All

Compare the political fates of Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Sandy Berger, John Murtha, Gerry Studds, Marion Barry, William Jefferson, and most recently Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad, to the fates of Trent Lott, Larry Craig, John Doolittle, and Tom Delay.

Image is courtesy of Mike Shelton and Townhall.com.

The Lie That Bush Lied

Good piece, hardly by a right-winger.

Hope For All But The Helpless

Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a "survivor." Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna's biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist's arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.
Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.
Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, "I guess I don't die easy." Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim's birth certificate. Gianna's medical records state that she was "born during saline abortion."

Unfortunately for any future Gianna Jessens, if the candidate of "hope" is elected, there will no longer be any hope for infants like her. Twice Mr. Obama has opposed legislation that would have defined such a child as a "person" once she survived the abortion attempt and made it outside of her mother's body alive. At that point, how can anyone argue that continued attempts to kill her are merely a case of a woman exercising "choice" regarding the workings of her own body. In fact, how can anyone call this anything but a clear case of infanticide? Maybe John McCain should ask Senator Obama about what hope such babies should cling to once he is in office.

Sex and the Single Christian

Rod Dreher has an interesting post up today regarding Sex and the City, and how the church handles chastity. Apparently Christianity Today reviewed and RECOMMENDED the movie. Some people were rightly not amused. Read it, it's worth the time.

It's a tough issue, and I think Rod hits on something when he says the church generally mishandles the issue (or doesn't handle it at all). How many sermons has your pastor preached on abstinence lately? If so, does the advice go any deeper than "don't do it"? Are single Christians holding their peers accountable in a firm, but gentle way? Are we expressing the true value of sex as one part of a committed bond? It's easy to avoid the issue. After all, we've been beaten up and called "prudes" so often by the world. We like to think of it as a "private" sin because it helps us excuse our inaction. Too bad that no sin is actually private. All sin damages our relationship with God, while also having earthly consequences. If the church is a connected body, how can we excuse standing by if our friends are doing something foolish? Isn't damage to one part of the body damage to the whole?

Just before Shannon and I got married, I was with a group of Christian men, and mentioned something about having to move all of her stuff while finalizing a wedding. He was genuinely surprised that we weren't shacking up already. I'm not trying to make mention of my own holiness. I have no more ability to resist temptation than anyone else out there. Fortunately I was marrying a godly woman, and even more fortunately, I have people in my life who refuse to stand by and allow me to make dumb choices. I would never have been in a position to shack up even if I wanted to. But that obviously isn't that case for most Christians or he never would have been so surprised.

I don't have any answers, other than to get involved in a loving way. We have perfect examples of how to handle sin in Paul's letters. How many churches actually follow the pattern he lays out? Do we ignore anything else so callously? Why do we let that one slip?

Seriously?

Come on people, I don't want to be subjected to inappropriate imagery any more than anyone else, but she's a friggin' mermaid! It's objections like this that allow people to take Christians less than seriously when we take stands on REAL issues.

Haditha Marines

The persecution of the Haditha Marines continues to fall apart. By my count, we now have 6 people who've been cleared out of 8 indictments. I wonder when Prime Minister Maliki, the various reporters who jumped on the bandwagon, and especially John Murtha will be asked to answer for their reckless condemnations?

Setting The Bar Low

Anyone who knows me well knows the absolute lack of respect I have for the world of academia. While it retains pockets of sanity, generally outside of math and the sciences the lunatics are running the asylum. If you need proof, look no further.

A study by professors from the University of California, Santa Cruz and the University of Kentucky has found that 90% of girls between the ages of 12-18 have experienced sexual harassment and that sexism is "pervasive" among adolescent girls. Wait! Before you go running to lock your daughters in their rooms, here is some important information. Some of the forms of sexual harassment experienced were "unwanted romantic attention", "teas(ing) due to appearance", and "demeaning gender-related comments". That's right, when that scrubby-looking guy sits down next to you at the bar and offers to buy you a drink ladies, you have a case for sexual harassment. If someone tells you "girls have cooties" or calls you "bug-eyed", you also have a case.

Now I will be the first to admit that buried among all the nonsense there is almost certainly some real sexual harassment going on. But, only on a college campus can someone define sexual harassment so loosely while keeping a straight face and receiving taxpayer funding. (Uh, oh. Since we're talking about college, lets hope no "queer studies" faculty are reading this post. Using the phrase "straight face" might be too heteronormative.)

Moreover, the young women being influenced by blithering idiots like these are being taught that they are victims. No society in which 90% of the female population believes itself to be victimized can remain healthy. And they ARE being taught this. The study itself notes that, "Girls who had been exposed to feminist ideas, either through the media or an adult such as a mother or teacher, were more likely to identify and report sexist behavior than were girls who had no information about feminism." Worst of all, this does a real disservice to society's attempt to fight real sexual harassment. How can we separate the wheat from the chaff if everyone is being taught that any behavior they don't like constitutes harassment?

My favorite part of this whole exercise in thickheadedness was this, though. According to the author, sexism comes in three types: "sexual harassment, sexist comments about their academic abilities, and sexist comments about their athletic abilities". So, according to this author, when I tell my wife she "hits like a girl", or acknowledge any gender differences, I'm displaying sexism. I hate to display my staggering knowledge of the biological sciences and human physiology so audaciously, but apparently I have no choice.

Most mammals display sexual dimorphism. That's merely a fancy way of saying that the genders aren't physically indistinguishable. One of the key differences among mammals is that in most cases, the male of the species is larger. This generally makes them more effective at performing a wide variety of arduous physical tasks. Noting this does not give the female of the species a fit of the vapors...unless the species in question is human. Though we display obvious sexual dimorphism (in capacity for muscular hypertrophy, lung capacity, skeletal structure, hand and foot size, and the relative size of various regions of the brain), the idea that this might have any practical consequences in terms of physical or cognitive performance is enough to send feminists running for their hangin' ropes.

Only on a college campus can you have a biologist tell you that men have a larger frontomedial cortex, amygdala, and hypothalamus, while women have larger frontal and medial paralimbic cortices, and a larger Broca's area, then turn around and be told by a women's studies professor that there is NO CONCEIVABLE WAY that this measurable, established fact has any practical consequences. Even when these comparisons are potentially complimentary, (the Broca's area for example, controls language processing and speech) they have to avoid them out of fear of losing ground elsewhere. I wouldn't be foolish enough to assert that I know with certainty that these differences have any material consequences. The human brain is the least understood organ in the body. Only the mindless orthodoxy of college campus feminism claims that sort of certainty.

Citing sources:
http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/6/490
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515072645.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

Odd

I wish Ted Kennedy all the best in his attempts to beat his cancer. It would be a terrible way to go, and I'd hate to see a family that's dealt with so much trajedy have to deal with that too. However, having said that, what's the deal with this line, oddly placed in a NEWS story about his illness? "Kennedy's bravery is legendary, but this is a lot to ask of a 76-year-old man, doctors admit." Why exactly is Kennedy legendary for his bravery? He is not a war hero like his brother (not his fault, he just feel into the wrong age group), and his behavior in the only moment of physical danger he encountered was not exactly the stuff of legend...well, at least not a positive legend. He has been a formidable warrior in the Senate, but leading from the mainstream of his party in a safe seat in a liberal state isn't exactly proof of his legendary courage. I'm not trying to attack the poor man, it's just a seriously weird statement. Is it just a little bit of hagiography for a potentially dying man that also convinently gives the author a hook for her piece? Can anyone tell me when he's demonstrated this legendary bravery?


**Hat tip: Jonah Goldberg at The Corner**

Today Might Be Interesting

For weeks, the conventional wisdom has been that Obama would finish the race strong with big wins in South Dakota and Montana. That would emphatically close out his campaign, and probably provide real encouragement for Hillary to bow out gracefully. As far as I can tell, this was based primarily on old polls and the results in neighboring states. The neighboring states really don't tell us much however, because they were caucuses, in which Obama has generally overperformed.

But now, the Clintons may see a gleam of light at the end of the tunnel. The total number of delegates involved isn't much. There are 31 up for grabs, not enough to catch Hillary up (she's currently about 120 pledged delegates behind) even if she won all of them. But the polling is looking different. ARG has Hillary up by 26 points in South Dakota, and Obama only leading by 4 in Montana (caution: ARG tends to produce extremes.) This is the only real polling that has been done in either state in a while.

So what would a split decision, or worse (for Obama) a double win for Hillary, mean? Montana's total population is around a million people, South Dakota has about 800,000. That means that, assuming the results are relatively close to ARG's numbers, Clinton will probably gain on Obama in the popular vote, though she'll only net a few delegates. Right now, if you estimate the results from the caucus states that didn't release official results (which is probably unfair to Obama since he won those states), and give Obama all the uncommitted Michigan votes (which is unfair to Hillary since many of those voters would have chosen Richardson or Edwards), Obama leads by a slim 44,000 votes. That means that Hillary, who is already touting her "popular vote" lead by not counting the uncommitted Michigan voters at all, might end up with a VERY SLIM majority no matter how you slice the votes. Coupled with her fairly convincing argument that she is the better candidate to face John McCain, I wonder if such a result might encourage her to take it all the way to the convention floor. After all, even if Obama hits the "magic number" of delegates in the next few days, none of those delegates are actually obligated to vote for him based on anything but their word (and Hillary has seen how much some of their commitments are actually worth).

Of course, real life is usually far less entertaining that that. Obama will probably win both states, Hillary will bow out and agree to help Obama reunite the party for November. But for today, I'll keep dreaming.

**Just in**
As I was about to hit the "post" button, the news flash came in that Obama has reached the necessary number of delegates. Just remember, the current delegate totals are a chimera. Many of the states have not finished their caucus processes, and as I said above, not one of the super-delegates is required to vote for Obama. He'll try to play this up, but I doubt it will discourage Clinton much, though it may suppress turnout in tonight's vote.

That's Awesome

Barack Obama is now officially wussier than the French. Move over cheese-eaters, there's a new surrender-monkey in town.

A Thought

One of the arguments against the war that we hear all the time is that Iraq isn't better off now that Saddam is out of power. The line of reasoning generally goes something like this. "Yes, Saddam gassed the Kurds. Yes, his secret police fed people into wood chippers. Yes, he killed hundreds of thousands of his own people in a pointless war with Iran. But that was all a long time ago. More recently he was a pussycat (at least relatively speaking), and so more civilians have died due to the invasion than he would have killed had he remained in power."

Ok, let's assume for the moment that life is the only quantifiable benefit to be considered in determining whether Iraqis are better off. Let's also accept for the moment the premise that Saddam wasn't directly killing any significant number of Iraqis and wouldn't have done so in the future had he stayed in power. That is not the same as arguing that his being in power wasn't leading to countless deaths. Remember, there were sanctions on Iraq from the end of the Gulf War until 2003. Those sanctions probably led indirectly to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis. (All the estimates are mostly conjecture, and range from 100,000 to 1.7 million)

Granted, at the time, people wanted to blame the West, not Saddam for these deaths, just as they now blame America for Iraqi civilian casualties rather than the terrorists actually killing them, but the truth is a little different. Saddam was directly responsible for the continuance of these sanctions. Had he truly reformed and offered evidence of his change, the western world would have been glad to lift them. On top of that, the UN introduced the Oil-For-Food program precisely to avoid starving the Iraqis and cutting off their medicine. With the complicity of many corrupt European officials, Saddam redirected a large percentage of the funds intended to save the lives of little children into his own lavish projects.

Ignore These Stories

There is no success in Iraq. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! These stories can be deceptive. Remember how we were told Maliki was too beholden to the Shia militias and would never tackle guys like Sadr? He sure messed that up by sending his troops in to take out the Mahdi army. Almost as badly as the Iraqi people messed up the predictions of disaster before they went to the polls. And how about the 18 benchmarks set up for Iraqi success. 12 completed and progress on another 5! If you were one of those fools who actually accepted the notion that George Bush isn't pure evil and success in Iraq is possible, things like this might trick you into believing that we're winning the war and shouldn't quit now. But don't worry. Keep the faith. Don't let anyone confuse the issue with an appeal to facts. Barack Obama will make sure we run far, fast, and quickly once he's elected. That will make us much safer and more respected, just as our reactions in Vietnam, Desert One, Beirut, and Somalia did.

Are Conservatives More Truthful?

According to this article they seem to be. While I'd love to just blandly accept this as true, I seriously doubt that it is. The problem with all studies like the ones cited in this article, whether they pick on conservatives or liberals, is that they ask the wrong question. For most people, their political outlook is not so much a core component of their identity so much as it is the natural result of those traits that do make up the core of their identity (did that make sense?). Therefore, assuming the study itself is methodologically sound, I don't think that it asks the right question. By focusing on political identity rather than the underlying reasons for that identity, the survey is picking up the effects of those underlying ideals rather than any meaningful affect that political ideology has on honesty.

For example, conservatives tend to be more religious than liberals. Religious conservatives tend to think of their religious materials (the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Upanishads etc) as divine and therefore holy, whereas religious liberals tend to see these same materials as manmade and therefore flawed. In this context it makes sense that these religious differences would lead to a difference in levels of honesty. After all, a command from Almighty God carries far more weight than an ethical system that evolved over the centuries through the efforts of men.

Another example that springs to mind is age. Young people tend to be more liberal, and grow conservative as they age. I think it's also entirely within the realm of possibility that young people have less solid ethical foundations than their elders. This difference could also very well account for the split in honesty between the two sides of the political spectrum.

In short, people who look at partisan affiliation as an explanation for behavior are still a level too high. They need to go deeper.

I Wonder

Now that Obama has lost by a landslide margin to Clinton in Puerto Rico, just as he did in West Virginia and Kentucky, will the media go digging around for evidence of racism? Or are stories about the racism of voters who overwhelmingly reject Obama only newsworthy when they involve white southerners?

The Gnostic Gospels, Part 3

So, with all of that background, the big question becomes this. Were they right? Scholars claim that at least some branches of Gnosticism weren't a separate religion, but a separate belief within the confines of the early Christian church. What we consider to be Orthodox Christianity is really a matter of what was chosen at the church counsels, while everything else was forcibly supressed.

There are a few problems with this argument. One of the biggest and most glaring problems is that the earliest of the Gnostic gospels didn't appear until the mid-to-late second century. Most of them showed up in the 3rd and 4th. This is as opposed to cannonical Christian writings, which even most secular scholars date back to the first century. By the time of the Gnostic writings, the Christian church had already accepted the four Gospels and the Pauline epistles as cannonical in practice. The catholic epistles took a little longer, and weren't fully settled until the ecumenical councils, but the Pauline epistles were in common usage and fully accepted by about the year AD 100, while the Gospels achieved this status by AD 150 or so. That means that by the time the first Gnostic books were written, the cannonical gospels had already been in circulation long enough to gain universal acceptance.

In fact, when you read people like Elaine Pagels, you'll find that the NEVER mention the Pauline epistles. They just kind of conviniently ignore them, because the Pauline epistles are the earliest Christian documents, the easiest to date, and some of the clearest indications that Jesus was accepted as divine right from the start of Christianity.

Another reason not to accept the claim that the Gnostics were just another form of early Christianity is the fact that they are totally segregated from each other. If all of these writings were floating around, each with as much legitimacy as the next, we would expect to see them intermingled, right? And yet we NEVER DO. Codexes and scrolls (a codex is a fancy word for "book") would contain multiple documents on one scroll/codex. For instance, we always find the Pauline letters together on a single codex, and almost always find the four gospels printed together on a single codex (sometime John gets it's own, and sometimes we only have part of what we know was once a larger codex, so one or more of the books is missing). But what we NEVER find is a scroll containing Gnostic writings AND cannonical Christian writings. They were never printed together, which means they weren't being printed by the same people.

So, to sum up, we have a totally distinct group of people, writing hundreds of years after the events of Jesus' life, claiming that they and only they, know the real truth about what he taught. These people are wholly separate from the mainstream of Christianity, and all of the earlier writings directly contradict them. This doesn't make all that convincing a case does it?

Here are a few good online resources for futher study.

http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ An apologetics site.

http://blog.bible.org/bock/ The blog of Dr. Darrell Bock, author of such books as The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back (which is on my Amazon wishlist, should anyone want to buy it for me...)

http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm Another apologetics site.

"If You Come Back Here And Get Beaten Up..."

"...you have been warned." Awesome. Expect more incidents like this to come. Remember, in the modern western world, the only true crime is telling someone else that they are wrong. Especially if you're a conservative Christian.