Music Archeology

Is Procul Harem's "A Whiter Shade of Pale" based on a poem by Rober Burns?


Don't know, but it would be cool if it was.

Water is Wet - another study on sex

This one is useful in that it confirms common sense, i.e., something denied by our liberal shapers of culture.

Two recent studies led by RAND Health behavioral scientist Rebecca Collins examined the impact of TV sex on teenagers’ sexual beliefs and activities. The results supported the view that watching shows with sexual content may influence teen sexual behavior, but also found that some viewing effects can be positive.

Watching TV shows with sexual content apparently hastens the initiation of teen sexual activity.

Sexual talk on TV has the same effect on teens as depictions of sex.

Shows with content about contraception and pregnancy can help to educate teens about the risks and consequences of sex–and can also foster beneficial dialogue between teens and parents.

That last point is obviously a nod toward liberal pieties, because - Lord knows - parents want nothing more than the opportunity to discuss the mechanics of sexual activity with their 13 year old sons and daughters, particularly when the discussion is foisted on them by our betters in Hollywood. 

Also, parents talking to their teens is such an obvious counterforce compared to peer pressure accelerted by the conventional wisdom dispensed by the media that sex is the summum bonum and anyone who isn't having sex is a loser.

Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Dinner


Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner

Save the Date!




This is a "Youtubish" wedding announcement that was done by the engaged couple without professional assistance. You'll enjoy it, unless you're a total misanthrope and/or curmudgeon, but, then, I'm a total misanthrope and curmudgeon - I go out on Valentine's Day to heckle people with dates - and even I enjoyed it.

Plus the short guy gets the hot, tall chick, so what's not to like?
 

Well, yes, it does seem that dropping the cooler stations from the analysis might conveniently give the appearance of Global Warming

In the 1990s, when the Anthropogenic Global Warming band-wagon really got rolling, it seems that scientists at NASA and NOAA decided to eliminate cooler high altitude and rural weather stations from the system it used to determine global temperature.

And - Hey, Presto! - suddenly the world warmed up.

Recent revelations from the Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers — most notably NOAA and NASA — conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.

This has inspired climate researchers worldwide to take a hard look at the data proffered, by comparing it to the original data and to other data sources. An in-depth report, co-authored by myself and Anthony Watts for the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), compiles some of the initial alarming findings with case studies included from scientists around the world.

We don’t dispute the fact that there has been some cyclical warming in recent decades — most notably from 1979 to 1998 — but cooling took place from the 1940s to the late 1970s, again after 1998, and especially after 2001, all while CO2 rose. This fact alone questions the primary role in climate change attributed to CO2 by the IPCC, environmental groups, and others.


However, the global surface station data is seriously compromised.

There was a major station dropout — and an increase in missing data from remaining stations — which occurred suddenly around 1990. Just about the time the global warming issue was being elevated to importance in political and environmental circles.

A clear bias was found towards removing higher elevation, higher latitude, and rural stations — the cooler stations — during this culling process, though that data was not also removed from the base periods from which “averages,” and then anomalies, were computed.

Possible Backlash on Homosexual Living Arrangement that Some Want to Call Marriage

Hawaii - of all places - has killed a "civil union" bill that would have granted the legal benefits of marriage to homosexual couples.

Hawaii is not exactly a bastion of bitter conservatives, clinging to their guns and religion.

Here's some background on Hawaii's treatment of the issue:

The Aloha State has been a battleground in the gay rights movement since the early 1990s. A 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court ruling nearly made it the first state to legalize same-sex marriage before voters overwhelmingly approved the nation's first "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment in 1998.


The amendment gave the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. It resulted in a law banning gay marriage in Hawaii but left the door open for civil unions.

Interesting.

Civil unions are a "camel's nose into the tent" strategy for homosexual activists.  It seems pretty clear that recognition of civil unions are quickly transformed by the courts into full-fledged "marriage."  Might it be the case that Hawaiian citizens and their legislators recognized that civil union was being used as the chip in a game of "three-card monte" for recognition of "gay marriage"? 

If so, that speaks to the lunacy of the current Prop 8 trial, which clearly strips the same-sex marriage side of the pretense of being willing to compromise.

Thought of the Day

"I suppose that if a fish were thoughtfully to consider the matter, she might have a hard time determining the differences we treasure between Al Gore and a sperm whale. Both of them are large and one of them is streamlined."

David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

Eternal Light Grant Him

Ralph McInery has passed away.

On "Catholic Authors", McInery came across as an authentically decent person.  From all accounts that I've read, his public persona matched his private reality.

"The Shaming of The Scientific American"

Roger Simon joins Burt Rutan in pointing out that The Scientific American has been whoring for the Global Warming cabal, particularly in publishing an article that is completely undermined by the revelations of the last month. 

Oops.

Stewart on Matthews: "He's one scotch away from being Ron Burgundy."

"Is President Obama bored with the job?"


So asks Byron York:

He won in 2004, but the Senate proved unsatisfying, too. By mid-2006, Majority Leader Harry Reid "sensed his frustration and impatience, had heard rumblings that Obama was already angling to head back home and take a shot at the Illinois governorship," write Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in the new book Game Change. Reid knew "Obama simply wasn't cut out to be a Senate lifer."


According to the book, the majority leader invited Obama to his office for a talk. "You're not going to go anyplace here," Reid told Obama. "I know that you don't like it, doing what you're doing." Reid suggested Obama run for president. Obama had been a senator for all of 18 months at the time. Soon after, he was off and running.

What drove Obama was not just ambition, although he is certainly ambitious. As he became frustrated in each job, Obama concluded that the problem was not having the power to do the things he wanted to do. So he sought a more powerful position.

Today he is in the most powerful position in the world. Yet he has spent a year struggling, and failing, to enact far-reaching makeovers of the American economy. So now, even in the Oval Office, there are signs that the old dissatisfaction is creeping back in.

At a Jan. 17 Martin Luther King Day event at Washington's Vermont Avenue Baptist Church, Obama brought up the fact that many people see him as almost preternaturally calm. "I have a confession to make," Obama said. "There are times I'm not so calm ... when progress seems too slow ... when it feels like all these efforts are for naught, and change is so painfully slow in coming, and I have to confront my own doubts."

Obama said it to be inspirational, but the fact is, in the past, that's when he looked for a new job.

And:

Many observers have remarked that, even when dealing with the most momentous issues facing the country, Obama has seemed oddly removed from the hands-on work of making policy. Maybe they're noticing the same thing Harry Reid did. The president's dissatisfaction is shining through; perhaps he's not really cut out for -- or up to -- the job.


In the State of the Union address, Obama declared, "I don't quit." And of course, there's no danger he would just up and quit the presidency. But throughout his life, his reaction to frustration has been to look for a bigger job. What does he do now?

Well, his time as President has been the longest time he has worked at a job.

Usually, at this stage, Obama would be looking to move up to a more influential position, but until the position of Grand Exalted Leader of the World is created, he's pretty much stuck where he is.

Love that Burt


Former client Burt Rutan launched into an anti-global warming diatribe in a magazine interview:

"I whip out my list of questions, but before I get to the first, Rutan blindsides me. "Which magazine are you from again?" I tell him. "OK, well, I won't talk to Scientific American," he says, "They improperly covered man-made global warming. They drink Kool-Aid instead of doing research. They parrot stuff from the IPCC and Al Gore." I'm taken aback but curiosity gets the better of me so I ask him what he means. For the next 30 minutes he launches into an impassioned diatribe. He believes claims of catastrophic global warming are nothing but scare-mongering and are a product of "the greatest scientific fraud ever". At first I think this is some sort of joke but he's totally serious and at times gets quite angry."

Like a lot of self-made men - and, by the way, Burt and Dick Rutan are originally from the Fresno area, they first rode in an airplane over Roeding Park - Burt is used to being right more often than not and not used to being contradicted when he gets onto something that stirs his soul.

Burt is absolutely right about Scientific American. They've stopped being an impartial science magazine and moved into leftwing advocacy a long time ago. When SA hired Michael Shermer as a regular columnist and published the article that anthropogenic global warming because some warm weather moth was discovered in England, without ever discussing the significance of cities being warmer and the possibility of micro-environments, it was clear that SA had "jumped the shark."

I used to buy SA regularly. Now, I buy it every now and again, and realize that it's stuffed with stuff I just don't think I trust for being objective information, particularly now that I know how the AGW forces have made a travesty of scientific ethics.

Scientists misbehaving.

The University of East Anglia broke the law by failing to produce climate change data in response to Freedom of Information Act, acccording to the "Information Commissioner's Office", which is apparently the British bureaucracy charged with enforcing the British FOIA.  No one will be prosecuted, however, because the Statute of Limitations has already run.

Now, that's the way science is done!

Spot the Idiot

Or spot the racist.

Chris Matthews forgot that Obama was black for an hour.

He said what?

According to this NRO piece:

In a meandering speech in which he seemed somewhat smug but not really in command, he scolded the Supreme Court, Congress, and “Washington.” He struck a surprisingly confrontational tone — a somewhat unusual tone for a president at a showcase event — toward the Republican side of the chamber. In a passage clearly written to be said to the Democrats but delivered (with a hint of venom) while looking directly at the Republicans, he said, “And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.”

So, the Republicans pick up one seat in the Senate and Obama is conceding that they are in control?

That has to be one of the dumbest things ever said by anyone who is supposed to be in charge.

The man has no leadership ability, but, then, why should he, since he's never actually been a leader.

And, then, there is this awful bit of street theater - scolding the Supreme Court to their faces - and leading cheers againt them??? That isn't the way that one equal branch of government treats another branch.

The speech began with an elegant and elevated opening, but quickly descended into scolding and condescension.


He scolded the justices of the Supreme Court in front of their faces and led the entire Democratic side of the aisle into cheering his taunts. The justices sat there stone-faced (save Justice Alito, whose reaction probably betrayed what the rest were thinking).

He scolded Republicans for obstruction and declared “we can’t wage a perpetual campaign” — even as he continued, in his speech, his perpetual campaign against President Bush. The fact is, by this time in their presidencies, both of his predecessors had reached across the aisle to seek opposition support for a major initiative (Clinton on NAFTA, Bush on No Child Left Behind). Obama has not one single significant bipartisan initiative to speak of. He has tried to ram through his agenda along strict party-line votes. But the Republicans are obstructionist.

He scolded Scott Brown (without mentioning his name) and all those who have criticized his handling of the Christmas Day bomber, declaring that “all of us love this country” and warning critics to “put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough.” If you disagree with Obama’s policies, you are questioning his patriotism. Imagine what the reaction would have been if Bush had tried that in a State of the Union with those who criticized the surge in Iraq. The howls of the liberal media would have been deafening.

His one moment of “humility” came when he acknowledged his biggest mistake of the past year: his failure to adequately explain his policies to all of us. This was a State of the Union for the slow learners. His message to all of us was: “Let me speak slowly for you.”

It was quite possibly the most partisan, condescending State of the Union address ever. Tonight, Obama was unpresidential. The permanent campaign continues. In the long run it will backfire.

The Anchoress' concerns about a complete breakdown may be on the mark.

Here's the clip of the criticism of the Supreme Court:


Watch CBS News Videos Online

According to this Politico article, Justice Alito is said to have mouthed the words "not true" when Obama talked about changing 100 years of precedent.  Actually, you can clearly see it in the clip.  Alito is sitting at the far left of the screen, to Sotamayer's right.

This is an amazing breach of decorum and rude to boot.  Particularly, the Democrats who stood up and applauded as the Supreme Court politely sat there and listened to Obama mischaractrize the decision and demagogue against the First Amendment.  Professor Randy Barnett observes:

In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

It is simply amazing how much scapegoating and fingerpointing this supposedly post-partisan president managed to get into this speech. Also, as Glen Reynolds points out, this is going to be the clip that defines this speech:

And that will step on Obama’s press tonight and tomorrow, turning his demagoguery into a negative for him. That’s why Presidents usually act Presidential. Not so much because it’s dignified. But because it’s smart. That’s something that Obama, with his limited experience on the national stage, hasn’t figured out yet.

The man has a tin ear for politics, which, again, is no surprise inasmuch as he has basically moved up the ladder of success by being golden for being golden.

Further Reflections:

I forgot to mention what is even more "audacious" - in the sense of "hypocritical" - in Obama's dressing down the Supreme Court is that he was the candidate in the 2008 election who broke his promise to take only federal campaign money.

Free speech for me, but not for thee and the rest of the peasants.

Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas

Genius, scholar, polymath, scholastic, mystic, poet and lover, pray for us.

Among other hymns, Aquinas wrote the haunting Pange Lingua, which is often used as the closing hymn on Holy Thursday as the sanctuary is emptied and the church goes dark -



He also wrote some of the most profound meditations on love.  Modern people - for whom it seems that emotions and feelings play such a transcendental role - have actually reduced the importance of love.  For Aquinas, love was nothing less than the force that made everything move, from human choices to the stars in the sky.  But he wasn't a sappy sentimentalist like modern folks are.  Listen to the limpid insightful rationalism as St. Thomas meditates on the mystery of the Incarnation:

To excite our love towards God, there was no more powerful way than that the Word of God, through whom all things were made, should assume our human nature in order to restore it, so that he would be both God and man. First of all, because the strongest way God could show how much he loves man was his willing to become man for his salvation; and nothing can provoke love more than to know that one is loved.

"Nothing can provoke love more than to know that one is loved."

Such a simple and elegant way of framing something that is clearly true as a matter of our common experience.

Obama and the Presidential teleprompter meet with the President's staff.

The Anchoress has an intriguing post on the troublesome question of why we see the President's travelling kit - podium and teleprompter - being displayed in the oddest places, such as classrooms and presidential staff meetings:

I’ll be honest, my first reaction to both of those pictures was that they were photoshops. Whoever is choosing what photos get released by the White House needs to be fired. Do they think these pictures reassure us, or that it makes Obama look commanding? They’re quite wrong. These pictures make the President look like an insecure fool.

For all we know -since we don’t know very much at all about Barack Obama, after all- perhaps the president is an insecure fool. Perhaps that was why he needed a pre-presidential seal.

And let's not forget the weird sign for the "Office of the President-Elect":

This was weird when it came out, and I had forgotten it.














The Anchoress also observes:

Well, yes, there must be blame and there is plenty to go around. For my money, the press needs to be made to explain how it can justify having never asked this man a difficult question during his two-year campaign; they need to explain why they were so happy to promote Barack Obama into the presidency when they really did not know him, and did not want to know him. They wanted an idea of a president, and I suspect the press did not look too deeply at Barack Obama, because they did not want their idea shattered; they did not want to find out he was not what they imagined. Even Howard Fineman now admits we do not know this man.


So, we do not know much about Barack Obama. We do not even know the minimal stuff -school records, health records, known associates- because the press never troubled themselves with those same urgent demands they made of his predecessor. All we have is the media-built narrative, and the example of Obama in his first year as president, during which he resembled nothing of the man we saw in 2007 and 2008.

 We shall see.

Edwards and Wife Legally Separated

And apparently Mr. and Mrs. Edwards openly discussed how much her cancer diagnosis would help his polling.

These people are psychopaths.

But thank heavens for the media in getting us this information when it really mattered.

By "media," I mean "The National Enquirer."

State of the Union Speech

I just suggested to my partner that we turn the State of the Union speech into a drinking game where we take a shot every time Obama uses the word "I" or tells an illuminating anecdote about how his personal experience allowed him to transcend the narrow limitations of race or partisanship.

Penner thinks this is not such a smart idea.

Something to do with "alcohol poisoning."

A tradition with all the depth of linoleum

H.E. Barber does not like the American evangelical mega-church.  The first clue is probably not her use of the phrase "butt-end of Christianity,"  which is certainly an earthy and startling phrase that deserves a response by someone:

This is the future of middle-class US Christianity, according to the latest American Religious Identification Survey (Aris). If the trend identified in the Aris study continues, we will see a country divided between conservative evangelical Christians and secular liberals – the latter hostile to religious belief, identified with evangelical Christianity. This is bad news because popular evangelical Christianity is religiously vacuous. It is directed to secular ends which, arguably, should be promoted by secular means. Saddleback is religion for people who don't like religion: transcendence is not on the menu.

Although almost half of Americans say they have had a religious experience, mysticism is likely a recondite taste. For the minority who have that taste – who seek God as an object of contemplation – Saddleback has nothing. Evangelical and mainline churches promote activism and are contemptuous of navel-gazing.

As a navel-gazer, I was depressed by Saddleback. It seemed the butt end of Christianity: stripped of history and icon­ography, wholly immersed in its secular surroundings, constructed according to a business model and promoted by motivational speakers – bland, cheerful, dull.

We drove away, past immaculate housing estates and strip malls iterating chain restaurants and shops, replicated in every suburb from coast to coast. I wondered why anyone would want to live in that charmless place, much less to get more of the same at church.

Hope and Change and Nukes.


So, maybe, California, and specifically the "bone dry" Central Valley will get those nuclear power plants:

"Despite its long opposition to nuclear power, the Golden State may soon be building several nuclear power plants - because they are environmentally friendly.

So why is the state where the phrase "No Nukes" became a rallying cry possibly allowing a slew of plants to be built in the Central Valley, the state's bone-dry, irrigated breadbasket?

It comes down to the state's global warming law, which requires California to steeply increase — by 30 percent — in renewable energy by 2020.The new plan comes from the company Areva SA primarily owned by the government of France, where nuclear fission has been a mainstream power source for decades. They're working with the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group.

A state wracked by drought, endless budget problems as well as what seems like perpetual political gridlock may be eager to try anything. (Besides increasing taxes, that is.)"I don't think these people are country bumpkins as some people in the media have portrayed them, or even rabid pro-nuclear people," Jim Metropolus of Sierra Club California told EE News. "I certainly believe that the Fresno group is very serious, and maybe they have a chance regardless of the law in California."

File this under "When America's most trustworthy Leftist is making fun of Obama's detachment from the common people, the war over image is lost."


Note that Stewart is mostly attacking Obama from the Left, but the cracks about Obama's living like royalty and the fact that his followers are "not getting a car" is telling.

File this under "Public Service Announcement"

The good people at OK Cupid have crunched the numbers and come up with the conclusion that the best strategy for women on Computer Dating sites - and you know who you are - who are seeking a "return on investment" in "increased hit counts" - and isn't amazing how dirty those terms sound when they are in quotes? - is to show cleavage:

"As you would expect, women get fewer and fewer new messages as they age (which is a topic for another whole post!), but this decrease in new contacts is substantially slower for women with cleavage pics. A 32 year-old woman showing her body gets only 1 less message a month than the equivalent 18 year-old; an older woman not showing off gets 4 messages less, a large relative fall-off in popularity. The older the woman, the more relatively successful she is showing off her bodyWe find this anti-aging trend surprising. When we look further into the data, we can see that as women get older, they are more hesitant to emphasize their bodies, despite its still being a good strategy (at least in terms of message volume). Instead, they increasingly choose to show themselves in non-sexual contexts, like being outdoors."

So, less outdoor pictures and more skin - unless you can combine the two -  which goes to show one thing - men are visually oriented creatures, or pigs, which is two things.

Update:

This analysis on the effect of race on desirability is fascinating.

Video Fisking of Rt. Rev. Schori

Midwest Conservative Journal fisks a sermon by Presiding Bishop Schori.

Here's the sermon.

Best lines: "You are odd.  Tell me you are joking."

Secret History

Humberto Fontava corrects the historical record behind the movie "Che."

For example, according to Fontava, Che and Fidel fought only one guerrilla war, and it was one that they brutally suppressed:

Now, on to Cuba’s genuine guerrilla war, fought from 1960-66 and–this cannot be repeated often enough– AGAINST the Fidel/Che regime. Farm collectivization was no more voluntary in Cuba than in the Ukraine. And Cuba’s Kulaks had guns, a few at first anyway. Had these rebels gotten a fraction of the aid the Afghan Mujahedeen got, the Viet Cong got – indeed that George Washington’s rebels got from the French – had these Cuban rebels gotten any help, my kids would speak Spanish and Miami’s jukeboxes today would carry Tanya Tucker rather than Gloria Estefan.


Be it known: Che Guevara had a very bloody (and typically cowardly) hand in one of the major anti-insurgency wars on this continent. Eighty percent of these anti-communist guerrillas were executed on the spot upon capture, a Che specialty. For my book I interviewed several of the lucky former rebels who managed to escape the slaughter. “We fought with the fury of cornered beasts,” I titled the chapter, using the phrase one used to describe their desperate freedom fight against the Soviet occupation of Cuba through their proxies Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.

And:

Mass murder was the order in Cuba’s countryside. It was the only way to decimate so many rebels. These country folk went after the Reds with a ferocity that saw Fidel and Che running to their Soviet sugar daddies and tugging their pants in panic. That commie bit about how “a guerrilla swims in the sea which is the people, etc.” fit Cuba’s anti-Fidel and Che rebellion to a T. So in a relocation and concentration campaign that shamed anything the Brits did to the Boers, the gallant Communists ripped hundreds of thousands of Cubans from their ancestral homes and herded them into concentration camps on the opposite side of Cuba. I interview several of these “relocated” families too.


One of these Cuban redneck wives refused to be relocated. After her husband, sons, and a few nephews were murdered by the Gallant Che and his minions, she grabbed a tommy gun herself, rammed in a clip and took to the hills. She became a rebel herself. Cubans know her as La Niña Del Escambray.

For a year she ran rings around the Communist armies sweeping the hills in her pursuit. Finally she ran out of ammo and supplies and the reds rounded her up. Amazingly, she wasn’t executed (Che must have taken that day off.) For years La Niña suffered horribly in Castro’s dungeons, but she lives in Miami today. Seems to me her tragic story makes ideal fodder for Oprah, for all those women’s magazines, for all those butch professorettes of “Women’s Studies,” for a Susan Sarandon or Sandra Bullock role.

Think about it: here’s that favored theme for Hollywood producers – “the feisty woman.” Well, they don’t come much feistier than Zoila Aguila, her real name. Had she been fighting, say, Somoza or Pinochet, you can bet your last penny Hollywood and New York would be ALL OVER her story. Instead she fought the Left’s most picturesque poster boys. So, naturally, nobody’s heard of her.

Obama addresses elementary school class...with teleprompter

Obama rolls out teleprompter in talk to 6th Grade class.

President Barack Obama delivers remarks on the 'Race To The Top' program at the Graham Road Elementary School January 19, 2010 in Falls Church, Virginia. The President is announcing his request for an additional $1.35 billion in 2011 for the program that was created as part of the economic stimulus bill signed into law last year. He is joined by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

Obama used a teleprompter to introduce a federal program to spend billions on education.

"Evidence is the way you know anything that you know." – Richard Dawkins

Of course, this leads to the question of how we know that evidence is the only way we know that we know anything? Is there evidence for knowing that the only way to know anything is through evidence.  Can't we know things based on reason, feelings or emotions, which would not qualify as "evidence" in any scientific sense of the word.

Moreover, how do we know how to evaluate evidence.  Evidence exists or doesn't exist, but there is weaker and stronger evidence, and evidence by itself doesn't do anything, until we apply our reason, formed by our habits of prudence and judgment, to the evidence.  Are prudence and judgment something that count as evidence?  Not likely.

What Dawkins misunderstands is what simple people without substantial learning and conventional minds always misunderstand, which is that we "know" things by "learning" and we learn things by trusting - having faith - in those wiser than ourselves, whether they be scientists or saints.

I read this in Robert Louis Wilkens' The Spirit of Early Christianity today:

"If faith in authority is necessary to learn to plow a field, "how much more so in religion." By bringing up these kinds of examples, Augustine wishes to say that the knowledge acquired by faith is not primarily a matter of gaining information. The acquiring of religious knowledge, the knowledge one lives by, is gained gradually over time. Just as one does not learn to play th epiano in a da, so one does not learn to love God in an exuberant moment of delight. If joy does not find words, if it does not exercise the affections and stir the will, if it is not confirmed by action, it will be as fleeting as the last light out of the black west. the knowledge of God sinks into the mind and heart slowly and hence requires apprenticeship. That is why, says Augustine, we must become "servants of wise men."

Of course, the problem with becoming the servant of wise men is acknowledging (a) that there is such a thing as wisdom, (b) that we are not wise, and (c) that there is someone who we can learn from.

And, then, we have to pick the right person.

Ironically, Dawkins' claim to fame is that he is viewed as a "wise" person by a certain segment of the population.  Dawkins is not really wise when he talks about things beyond biology, but he is trading off his reputation for wisdom in biology to sell himself as being wise in areas far beyond his competence.  In many ways, Dawkins resembles the Manichees of St. Augustine's youth, who sold Manicheaism to questioning youths of St. Augustine's day by telling them that the Manichees would never ask anyone to accept things based on tradition or authority, but only based on reason.  Manichees were very good at picking nits within the orthodox tradition, but, unfortunately, the closer that Augustine got to those who were supposed to have the wisdom, the more he realized that Manichees had nothing other than the "hermeneutics of suspicion."  From Wilkins again:

As Augustine came to know the Manichees better, however, he discovered that although they talked a great deal about intellectual prowess, they fell silent when faced with hard questions. When Faustus came to Carthage, Augustine asked for a private interview to lay his doubts before him, but Faustus offered few answers and Augustine went away sorely disappointed, even disillusioned. He found Faustus to be poorly educated, "ignorant of the liberal arts," and possessed of a thoroughly conventional mind.  The Manichaeans were more adept at deriding and ridiculing the beliefs of Catholics than they were in offering convincing arguments for their own teachings. Within months of talking with Faustus, Augustine had quit their compnay and sailed to Rome to seek wisdom elsewhere.

The description of Faustus as "poorly educated, "ignorant of the liberal arts," and possessed of a thoroughly conventional mind" is as good a description of Richard Dawkins' failings outside of biology as one could find. Likewise, who is it today who are "more adept at deriding and ridiculing the beliefs of Catholics than they [are] in offering convincing arguments for their own teachings"?

Exactly, the New Atheists, who seem to believe that they can establish the ontology of their own metaphysical predicates by placing the "burden of proof" on their opponents.

I suspect that many will have the same experience with the New Atheists that St. Augustine had with the Manichees - go away dissatisfied.

State Controlled Media


Patterico at Hot Air reports on some "astroturfing" that the mainstream media seems to be complicit in:

Someone appears to be doing a little Astroturfing for Obama.In recent days, a letter defending Obama has appeared in dozens of newspapers throughout the country — all signed by an “Ellie Light.”

In the letters, which all use identical language, Ms. Light explains that Obama never promised to fix all our problems quickly or painlessly. She declares:

Today, the president is being attacked as if he’d promised that our problems would wash off in the morning. He never did. It’s time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can’t just wave a magic wand and fix everything.

Editors all over the country found Light’s message strangely compelling. It was reprinted at The Politico; the Philadelphia Daily News; the San Francisco Examiner; the Washington Times; and a USA Today blog. In addition, the letter has appeared at literally dozens of small-town papers across the country, with names like the Los Banos Enterprise, the North Adams Transcript, and the Danbury News-Times.

Ms. Light always claims to be a local in these letters. Her real estate holdings are apparently prodigious, as she has claimed residences in Philadelphia, PA; Daly City, California; Mansfield, Ohio; Waynesboro, Virginia; Algoma, Wisconsin; Bangor, Maine; and dozens of other places. Who said Obama supporters were all downtrodden?

The story was originally broken by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which published a thread of e-mail correspondence between the reporter and “Ellie Light.” But the original Plain Dealer story identified only the tip of the iceberg.

Leftist Bigots want to show that Catholics and Baptists are Bigots

That is about as ironic as being "defriended" by a San Francisco Lefty who thought there should be a "national discussion" on religion and women, but who didn't "give a damn" about the reasons that might exist for religious beliefs in question. 

That's a weird kind of "discussion." 

For liberals, "discussion" means talking about how we can agree with liberals.

Maggie Gallagher offers this on the Prop 8 trial:

What do Olson and Boies think they are doing? Watching accounts of this trial unfold this week I had a big “aha” moment. It’s now clear: Ted and David think they are conducting the Scopes trial!


When this trial began I told you: gay marriage activists were putting 7 million Californians on trial. (Ed Whelan over at National Review has a brilliant series “Judge Walker’s Witch Hunt“ . . . explaining how intellectually absurd it is to conduct a “trial” into the subjective motivations of 7 million voters, constitutionally speaking.). But this week it got worse: They are clearly putting Christianity itself on trial. Why else have an expert read statements of Catholic and Southern Baptist doctrines into the record?

And why put a Stanford Prof. named Gary Segura on the stand to testify “”religion is the chief obstacle for gays’ and lesbians’ political progress.”

Could the zero-sum nature of the game be any clear? Rights for gays and lesbians, in their minds, depends on invalidating the voting rights of religious people when it comes to gay marriage, because their votes are influenced by their religion–i.e. bigotry.

Here’s their brilliant legal strategy: Ted and David want the Supreme Court to rule that Catholicism and Southern Baptism and related Christian denominations are bigotry.

(That’s why their next move is to subpoena –i.e. drag into court against their will–two San Diego Christian pastors who emerged as leaders in the Prop 8 fight, Pastor Jim Garlow and Pastor Miles MacPherson. Why should participating in democracy give somebody a right to drag you to Sacramento to court?)

I know many gay people do not agree with this anti-religion strategy. And I also know many gay rights activists are getting increasingly worried about the legal strategy and tactics employed by these two legal eagles may backfire. (See the Jan. 17 Los Angeles Times story, “Gay Marriage Supporters fear Supreme Court’s Ruling was an Omen,” and also Dale Carpenter’s comment about the “bad start” for pro-gay marriage advocates.)

Ted Olson and David Boies think they can persuade the Supreme Court that Science with a capital “S” proves the voters are wrong about the natural family. Then they want to pit Science with a capital “S” against “Big Religion,”

This trial is shameful. 

Jewish Paper Publishes Defense of Pius XII

From Haaretz:

On April 4, 1933, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, the Vatican secretary of state, instructed the papal nuncio in Germany to see what he could do to oppose the Nazis' anti-Semitic policies.On behalf of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli drafted an encyclical, entitled "Mit brennender Sorge" ("With Burning Anxiety"), that condemned Nazi doctrines and persecution of the Catholic Church. The encyclical was smuggled into Germany and read from Catholic pulpits on March 21, 1937.

Although many Vatican critics today dismiss the encyclical as a light slap on the wrist, the Germans saw it as a security threat. For example, on March 26, 1937, Hans Dieckhoff, an official in the German foreign ministry, wrote that the "encyclical contains attacks of the severest nature upon the German government, calls upon Catholic citizens to rebel against the authority of the state, and therefore signifies an attempt to endanger internal peace."


Both Great Britain and France should have interpreted the document as a warning that they should not trust Adolf Hitler or try to appease him.

After the death of Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli was elected pope, on March 2, 1939. The Nazis were displeased with the new pontiff, who took the name Pius XII. On March 4, Joseph Goebbels, the German propaganda minister, wrote in his diary: "Midday with the Fuehrer. He is considering whether we should abrogate the concordat with Rome in light of Pacelli's election as pope."

During the war, the pope was far from silent: In numerous speeches and encyclicals, he championed human rights for all people and called on the belligerent nations to respect the rights of all civilians and prisoners of war. Unlike many of the pope's latter-day detractors, the Nazis understood him very well. After studying Pius XII's 1942 Christmas message, the Reich Central Security Office concluded: "In a manner never known before the pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order ... Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals." (Pick up any book that criticizes Pius XII, and you won't find any mention of this important report.)

In early 1940, the pope acted as an intermediary between a group of German generals who wanted to overthrow Hitler and the British government. Although the conspiracy never went forward, Pius XII kept in close contact with the German resistance and heard about two other plots against Hitler. In the fall of 1941, through diplomatic channels, the pope agreed with Franklin Delano Roosevelt that America's Catholics could support the president's plans to extend military aid to the Soviet Union after it was invaded by the Nazis. On behalf of the Vatican, John T. McNicholas, the archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, delivered a well-publicized address that explained that the extension of assistance to the Soviets could be morally justified because it helped the Russian people, who were the innocent victims of German aggression.

Throughout the war, the pope's deputies frequently ordered the Vatican's diplomatic representatives in many Nazi-occupied and Axis countries to intervene on behalf of endangered Jews. Up until Pius XII's death in 1958, many Jewish organizations, newspapers and leaders lauded his efforts. To cite one of many examples, in his April 7, 1944, letter to the papal nuncio in Romania, Alexander Shafran, chief rabbi of Bucharest, wrote: "It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews ... The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance."

The campaign against Pope Pius XII is doomed to failure because his detractors cannot sustain their main charges against him - that he was silent, pro-Nazi, and did little or nothing to help the Jews - with evidence. Perhaps only in a backward world such as ours would the one man who did more than any other wartime leader to help Jews and other Nazi victims, receive the greatest condemnation.

The National Enquirer Deserves the Pullitzer

It did more independent journalism than any mainstream media source in 2008.

The mainstream media is such a joke.

A Nation of Indians Ruled by Swedes

From an e-mail:

What First Amendment?


By Andy Pugno, General Counsel, ProtectMarriage.com

Over the last couple of days, we have been treated by the plaintiffs to astonishing intrusions into areas supposedly protected by the First Amendment, including religious freedoms and the political rights of free speech and association.

It started Wednesday when a Stanford political science professor testified that, in his opinion, organized religion in the United States is such an overwhelming threat to gays and lesbians that they should be declared a vulnerable “minority” entitled to extraordinary legal protections under the US Constitution. In short, he concluded, “religion is the problem.”

As a result of this “problem,” the witness testified, gays and lesbians in the United States are “politically powerless,” a legal term of art meaning that they are at such a disadvantage so as to be incapable of defending themselves in the political process. Of course, the notion that the gay and lesbian community is politically feeble should sound backward to anyone, especially living in California. Common knowledge tells us that gays and lesbians wield substantial political power in our state, both in passing major gay rights legislation and in amassing opposition to Prop 8. Just one example: While the California Teachers Association and other labor unions gave millions to the No on 8 campaign, not a single labor union ever contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Of particular concern to the witness was the “breathtaking” numbers of people who volunteered their time in the campaign to help carry Prop 8 to victory. The volunteer effort was so strong, he said, that it was impossible for gays and lesbians to defeat Prop 8. And so Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. Really? So let me get this straight. If you lose a campaign because you can’t persuade the majority of people to rally behind you, then you have a constitutional right to nullify the votes of the majority. Hmm.

It boggles the mind, truly.

Later Wednesday, lawyers for the plaintiffs started submitting evidence of the “improper” influence of Catholics, Baptists, and other major religious communities in support of the traditional definition of marriage. As though the First Amendment itself had disappeared, the court allowed their lawyers-over the strenuous objections of our legal defense team-to pry into the internal records of churches, communications between church members and church leaders, and other similar documents revealing these religious organizations’ commitment to protecting traditional marriage.

For anyone who values the right to associate with others in a church community and freely exercise the tenants of their faith without fear of being dragged into court because of their beliefs, yesterday afternoon’s blitzkrieg by the plaintiffs into our previously protected religious and political freedoms was terrifying to behold.

Then Thursday, for the first time (we believe) ever in a court of law, a proponent of a voter initiative was put on the stand to be interrogated under oath about his own political, moral and religious views. Not only was the Prop 8 supporter forced to reveal his political and religious views under penalty of perjury, but he was further forced to defend and substantiate his views so the court can decide whether his views are “improper.”

Clearly the plaintiffs will go to any lengths-even if it means sacrificing the precious protections of the First Amendment-to achieve their goal of invalidating the vote of the people.

Aquinas Question 111


The audio kicks in after a minute.  I'm still figuring out who to use Livescribe.

If you are interested in following along, here is the link to Question 111.

1.21.2010 10:27 PM
brought to you by Livescribe

Deep Thought

From de Lubac's "The Discovery of God" via Father Powell:

Infinite intelligibility--such is God. The incomprehensible is the opposite of the unintelligible. The deeper we enter into the infinite, the better we understand that we can never hold it in our hands. . .(Whatever is understood by science is limited by the understanding of the knower.) The infinite is not a sum of finite elements, and what we understand of it is not a fragment torn from what remains to be understood. The intelligence does not do away with the mystery nor does it even begin to understand it; it in no way diminishes it, it does not "bite" on it: it enters deeper and deeper into it and discovers it more and more as a mystery. (117)

"The infinite is not a sum of finite elements."

This sums up the error of most New Atheists - well, probably most believers.  We tend to think of God as like us, only more so, squared, cubed and on steroids, as if continually going one more than everything we can possibly think is what is meant by God's infinite nature.

But this is a "category error."  God is not an item in the world, so that he can be imagined as everything in the world multiplied by infinity. God's infinity is "being without limits", a phrase that is nicely equivocal in that God is a Being that has no limits and in His existence He has no limits.

Just about the dumbest and most painful thing you are likely to read about Aquinas this Century.

How Aquinas turned (orthodox)Catholicism into Romanism.

So these Trent men canonized his teachings (and later he was made an angel doctor) and essentially dismissed all the other great Saints and Theologians who had gone before because of ... well, that's not the subject of this post. Suffice it to say that this was the culmination of the transformation from Catholicism to Romanism.

Which shows that the author has not really read anything that Aquinas wrote because Aquinas quoted from Augustine, Boethius, Jerome, Ambrose and every other Christian theologian who had put anything to paper.

Sheesh.

The Left is a Cult

Read this post by anonymous bloggers who have been personally threatened by the Left netroots for daring to break ranks over the Massachusetts election.

And, you know what, this tactic does have an immediate psychological and financial impact. This weekend, after these attacks from the Kossacks and Moveon.organism began, we lost two freelance jobs because the nonprofits we were working with felt they can’t be associated with people who are being called racists, since these nonprofits work in the black community and here in Chicago there is a neverending turf war on the Southside, where anything is game when it comes to business or politics. People who’ve worked with us in the past decided their own jobs would be in jeopardy if they had us on upcoming projects, because if the black community was riled up against these organizations for having people called RAAACISTS! on the team, then their own jobs would be lost. The way it works is this: if you have a job in the black community, there is always someone out there who wants that job instead of you, and that person will look for any sort of hook to yank you from that job so they can take it. This RAAACIST garbage is always a favorite hook.


And it is the chief weapon of the Left against just about everyone.

They’ve been using this for decades now.

They use it to scare people into silence. They force people to drop what they are doing and spend hours defending themselves, trying to prove they’re not what they were accused of. They demoralize you with the RAAACIST rants, and try to ruin your lives with them. They cost you work, take food off your table, and threaten your personal safety and well being.

The Left did this to the Clintons in 2008.

The Left does this to Sarah Palin.

The Left has done this to too many people to ever count.

The Left is doing this to us now, on a personal level, because we backed Scott Brown, came up with the Hottie McAwesome tactic to defuse their best attacks against him, and refused to buckle and shut up when we were told to.

Now, we were told by several good friends not to talk about any of this, and not to write a post like this taking this on directly. We were also advised to “just stop writing” and all of this would go away eventually. There was even one Democrat who advised us, “if you just stop, and close down the site, I’ll see to it that Kos and the others remove what they are saying, and we’ll help you clean things up on Google”. That sure felt like extortion to us.

This is really what Democrats have become at this point.

The party we loved our whole life has been taken over by thugs, who threaten, libel, malign, persecute, and extort anyone who does not fall in line with their Liberal-Socialist agenda. We’ve been on the receiving end of this harassment since November of 2007, when we started campaigning in Iowa for Hillary Clinton and first found ourselves on the receiving ends of Alinsky Method techniques. All of that increased 10, 100, and 1000 fold after we launched this site, started up Democrats for McCain efforts after Hillary suspended her presidential bid in June 2008, and we started actively promoting Sarah Palin as America’s best hope for the future in 2009.

The Left has been like this for years, which is why some of us have been concerned about America becoming a Banana Republic.  The election yesterday, and the dissent of people of good will on the left, gives some hope that we are not a Banana Republic just yet.

Controversial New Research

According to this study:

"Pot-smoking teenaged girls are more likely to have sex than those who don’t, a new study suggests.

Drunkenness also increases sexual activity in teens, especially when boys and girls are allowed to spend too much time together, according to a report by the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada released yesterday.

“Adolescent sexual behaviour places teens at risk of ill health, unintended pregnancy and emotional concerns. The earlier teens initiate sex the greater the risk,” said Peter Jon Mitchell, an analyst for the institute."

So, it seems - and, mind you, I'm sketching this only as tentative opinion that needs more study - that girls and boys who have a habit of getting stoned or drunk in the presence of members of the other gender are likely to have sex and - and this is just mind blowing - having sex leads to getting pregnant.

Plus, it seems that the more sex one has when one has the judgment of a blowfish, the more likely one is to get pregnat, assuming, of course, that one is a girl.

All of this just seems to run contrary to everything I've been taught over the last 40 years.

Via Mark Shea.

File this under "Where would we be without science?"

Socialized medicine - to liberals it is like Sauron's Ring


It doesn't matter what it costs to get the ring, it doesn't matter if turns you into a hateful misanthrope rejected by everyone else, it doesn't matter if it gives you bad breath, jock itch and athelete's foot...."Progressives" just have to have it.

According to John Scalzi:

"From a purely strategic point of view, I’m not sure why they don’t just ram the thing through the House as is, fiddle with it a bit during reconciliation and get to Obama to sign it. To put it bluntly, the Democrats will look better by flipping the GOP the bird and then using the ten months until the 2010 election to get voters back on their side than showing to the voters that despite a large majority in both houses, they collapse like a flan in the cupboard at the first setback."

Or as J.R.R.Tolkien phrased the argument, "My pretty precious....."

What is the fascination with a project that has wrecked the Dem party twice now?

The Fuhrer learns of Scott Brown's victory.


"Now we know why Obama won't release his grades....Bush got "C"s....Obama probably failed 'lunch'....Should have stuck with Hillary."

Cats living with Dogs

According to Jonah Goldberg, Coakley has conceded.

Who would have thought that the annointed Senate seat of the sainted "liberal lion" would be lost in one-party Massachusetts?


If true - if not a rumor - how badly have the Democrats miscalculated? What possessed them to double down on socializing 1/6th of the economy in the face of obvious voter hatred for their project? And what is with this perennial Democrat obsession with socialized medicine?

Now is the time that we do the dance of joy.

Mom's Hometown Supports Brown

The Mayor of Quincy Massachusetts has endorsed Brown.

Take a bath, Hippies.


John Ratzenberger(aka Cliff Claven from Cheers) remarks at a Scott Brown rally:

"This isn't the Democratic party of our fathers and grandfathers. This is the party of Woodstock hippies. I was at Woodstock — I built the stage. And when everything fell apart, and people were fighting for peanut-butter sandwiches, it was the National Guard who came in and saved the same people who were protesting them. So when Hillary Clinton a few years ago wanted to build a Woodstock memorial, I said it should be a statue of a National Guardsman feeding a crying hippie."

Sometimes, I feel like Moses seeing the Promised Land from Mt. Nebo - Oh, Lord, let me live long enough to see the '60s end.

More Nukes!

Fresno needs a nuclear power plant, and there's a group of businessmen who are trying to get it one.

Good luck!

Given our track record, I'm sure that we are more likely to get more thermal imagers for the purpose of informing people where they need more insulation.

A National Discussion

It's ironic that my former friend was interested in having a "national discussion" about how religion oppresses women, but maybe what we need is a national discussion about freedom of conscience and whether the State has the right to limit freedom of conscience depending on who is in power.


K-Lo at NRO has these observations:

In some respects, Martha Coakley actually deserves points for honesty. “Religious freedom” appears to have a limited value for her, as it had a limited value for those in the Massachusetts statehouse who voted for — and voted down the exemption amendment — the bill that would mandate that all Bay State hospitals provide emergency contraception to rape victims. As it does for senators and congressmen who insist that taxpayers should be funding abortion as part of their “comprehensive” health-care legislation in memoriam to Ted Kennedy. But at least she admits it.

Martha Coakley is effectively saying that faithful Catholics can’t work in emergency rooms, whether in public or Catholic hospitals. She is saying that faithful Catholics cannot be pharmacists. And it is, of course, not just Catholics this thinking affects. She is saying that “do no harm” is out the window in the age of Roe v. Wade. She is saying what the U.S. Senate just said: that an American should not have the freedom to choose whether or not his tax dollars will fund abortions. They will be so used, consciences be damned.

Whether or not Bay Staters realize it, the issues they’re grappling with now are national issues of conscience, ones in which the very concept of freedom is up for debate and, even, sale.

The religious freedom guaranteed in the American Founding made possible Mother Joseph’s enduring contributions to American civic life. Martha Coakley’s “No Catholics Need Apply” mindset represents a genuine threat to American freedom — and not just the religious kind.

Water is Wet

It seems that male-male couples have a different view of the nature of their relationship vis a vis "monogamy" and "fidelity" than male-female couples. According to the expert put on the stand by the Pro-Gay Marriage side:

"UCLA social psychology professor Dr. Letitia Peppeau opined that, among other things, same-sex couples are “indistinguishable” from heterosexual couples in terms of their relationships, and that legalizing same sex marriage would not harm traditional marriage. However, she could offer no studies to prove her contention that there would be no impacts on traditional marriage. On cross examination, she also admitted that the available studies do, in fact, show significant differences between gay couples and heterosexual couples. For example, one study reported that a significantly lower percentage of gay men think that monogamy is important in their relationships (only 36%) than do those in heterosexual relationships. Of those gay men who say that monogamy is important in their relationships, 74% still engage in sex with multiple partners. When pressed, she admitted that sexual exclusivity among gay men is the exception rather than the rule."

Gentlemen, I suggest you try this logic out with the woman in your life and see what happens:Monogamy is important, but "monogamy" does not rule out "sex with multiple partners."

I'll bet it doesn't play.

There are three great truths behind the secret of a healthy, stable society: (1) Marriage does not civilize men. (2) Women civilize men. (3) Men need civilizing.

Breathtaking Ingratitude

The Pius Wars grind on.

In this article, the Rabbi of Rome tells the reporter:

“I think that it can be morally dangerous and, religiously speaking, dangerous to say that the will of God is to be silent and not to say a word in front of the suffering of the people,” Di Segni said, speaking in English. “So let us be careful and let us not (look for) a way of absolving people. I think only God may understand if people have done His will righteously, not us.”

Clearly, modern critics of Pius XII would have preferred that he had made a public statement - not made by Western leaders sitting in Western capitols rather than occupied Rome - rather than actually saving the entire Jewish population of Rome by hiding Roman Jews in Castle Gandalfo and other Vatican properties. 

Or that Pius should have made a statement and not issued orders that resulted in the Catholic Church saving more Jews than any other institution.

The Chief Rabbi of Rome who actually lived through the Holocaust converted to Catholicism and took the name of "Eugenio" in tribute to someone he personally knew had been a true friend to Jews.

Remember, for those who are at a safe remove from the crisis, it's words, not deeds, that count.

An ecumenical moment

This article by a Baptist news source is pretty encouraging in that it identifies a motivation for the gay marriage as being anti-catholic bigotry and anti-baptist bigotry AND AT THE SAME TIME doesn't excuse the anti-catholic bigotry on the grounds that Catholics are idol-worshipping apostates.


We are so past the 17th Century when we can put our traditional hatreds behind us and be loathed by the Powers That Be together. That is a really encouraging sign that the 17th Century can end sometime during our lifetimes, and let me offer an apology for destroying Magdeburg. Our bad.

Now, if the 1960s would only during our lifetimes.

My former friend, the "lefty" San Francisco lawyer, perfectly captured the ethos of secular war on religion by not giving a "damn" why the people she loathed believed what they believe. Not a particularly healthy attitude for the body politic of a pluralistic society in the slightest.

But to our Baptist brothers, a hearty shout-out. We'll be leaving the light on for you... in the catacombs.

[Via Mark Shea.]

Global Warming Nostalgia

I'm becoming nostalgic over the good old days when we were concerned about global warming...now that leading climate scientists are predicting a several decade long global cooling trend.

Political correctness run amok

Canada's "iconic" history magazine will be changing its name because of internet filters. It will henceforth be knows as "Canada's History" and will retire the name it has used for the last 70 years - the Beaver.

*Snicker*

Bible Scholarship

This Richard Bauckham lecture on why the canonization of the four gospels preceeded the Gnostic pseudo-Gospels is really good. My take-away - which is gobsmacking obvious after it's been pointed out by someone else - is that that the Gnostic gospels assume the historical background knowledge of the orthodox gospels and then carefully write their versions so as to exploit gaps in the narrative sequence in the orthodox gospels, such as by attributing dialogue to Jesus after the Resurrection.

Makes sense - Morton Smith clearly used the same approach in his forgery of the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark.

I feel so swindled when I think about the money and time I've wasted on books written by agenda-driven, so-called scholars, like John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman, who ignore or suppress the real state of historical research in order to sell books by exploiting a tendentious, gosh-wow!, shock value.

Venerable Luce, pray for us

This is a remarkable story about a girl, born in 1971, diagnosed with cancer when she was 17, who serenely accepted her suffering on the grounds that "Jesus takes away all my black spots with bleach, and bleach burns. So when I get to Heaven I'll be white as snow," and passed away at the too early age of 20, in 1991.

Now, a miracle has been confirmed in her name and she will be beatified.

As Mark Shea points out, if she were alive today, she would be 38.

Mathematics... she has always been there for us.

One of the many great lines from "Better off Ted" last night was:

"Phil: If mathematics was a lady, I'd marry her."

"Carl: Stand in line, big guy."

This guy must feel the same way in light of his analysis re: "Why I don’t have a girlfriend: An application of the Drake Equation to love in the UK."

Sadly, the math is even more depressing when you input "Fresno" and "5'7"."

Swimming the Tiber

Frank Beckwith reports that Joshua Betancourt - the co-author of "Is Rome the True Church?" - has converted to Catholicism.

Betancourt's fellow author is Norm Geisler, who has been the principle author of a series of Protestant apologetic works that analyze non-Protestant systems, such as atheism, Catholicism and Islam. Geisler's books are probably the most even-handed of this genre, although I passed up on getting "Is Rome the True Church?" because it seemed particularly prone to rehashing cliches from the 17th Century.

This post by Doug Beaumont advises:

There are also Protestants converting to Roman Catholicism. One chapter in the book Is Rome the True Church? is dedicated to why this is happening. Interestingly, the book’s co-author, a friend of mine named Joshua Betancourt, converted to Roman Catholicism shortly after the book was published!

For me, this raises the question of what Betancourt was thinking while he was writing the book.  Did he have doubts?  Was he convinced by the arguments he was outlining?  What shifted to cause him to reweigh his conclusions?  How would the "new" Betancourt respond to the "old" Betancourt's arguments?

This is what "hope" means?

The Dems are creating a "poverty trap" according to this Cato post.

Screw how people dress - this really deserves an application of "cultural imperialism."

This Steve Sailer post on the rise of human sacrifice in Uganda and the fact that the Ugandans have an "anti-sacrifice task force" makes me reflect (a) not all religions are equal and (b) how close we are to "the primitive."

Puzzling

There is the following post at a Truly Reformed site:

Why I am Not a Roman Catholic



01/11/2010 - Alan Kurschner

The following simple juxtaposition is a sufficient reason.

Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples:

"The bottom line here is this: Jesus Christ did not suffer and die so that we don't have to. Jesus Christ suffered and died so that our good works offered up in him can be truly pleasing and salvific before God. And indeed, Jesus didn't suffer and die so that we don't have to suffer and die, he suffered and died so that our suffering and death could be salvific."

Isa 52:13–53:11

““Look, my servant will succeed! He will be elevated, lifted high, and greatly exalted– (14) (just as many were horrified by the sight of you) he was so disfigured he no longer looked like a man; (15) his form was so marred he no longer looked human– so now he will startle many nations. Kings will be shocked by his exaltation, for they will witness something unannounced to them, and they will understand something they had not heard about. (1) Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the LORD’s power revealed through him? (2) He sprouted up like a twig before God, like a root out of parched soil; he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention, no special appearance that we should want to follow him. (3) He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant. (4) But he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain; even though we thought he was being punished, attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. (5) He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed. (6) All of us had wandered off like sheep; each of us had strayed off on his own path, but the LORD caused the sin of all of us to attack him. (7) He was treated harshly and afflicted, but he did not even open his mouth. Like a lamb led to the slaughtering block, like a sheep silent before her shearers, he did not even open his mouth. (8) He was led away after an unjust trial– but who even cared? Indeed, he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the rebellion of his own people he was wounded. (9) They intended to bury him with criminals, but he ended up in a rich man’s tomb, because he had committed no violent deeds, nor had he spoken deceitfully. (10) Though the LORD desired to crush him and make him ill, once restitution is made, he will see descendants and enjoy long life, and the LORD’s purpose will be accomplished through him. (11) Having suffered, he will reflect on his work, he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done. “My servant will acquit many, for he carried their sins.” —New English Translation

I'm honestly puzzled. 
 
Is it the case that the elect do not die or suffer as a result of Christ's actions? 
 
Or is it the case that the elect are not supposed to die or suffer?
 
Or are we just supposed to ignore the suffering and dieing that seems to be going on all around us?
 
There is supposed to be something obvious here, but I'm not seeing it.

Further from Facebook

Karen's response:

"I don't actually have all day to debate this, but I do think I should point out that I have not purported to equate the Catholic Church with fundamentalist Islam's imposition of the burqa on women, not to mention a host of other rules that limit the rights of women to realize their full potential. They do have common elements, but the consequences to a woman in not being able to say Mass vs. a woman who ventures outside her home unaccompanied by a male relative are vastly different. They are different in degree, but they both derive from a common rationalization, and both involve what I believe is a fundamental perversion of religious doctrine. They are not, however, equal, and it's nonsense to attribute that view from my earlier comments. To the extent you actively avoid trying to understand the mechanisms that some people use to repress other groups of people by the argument that every situation is different, you miss the opportunity to understand root causes and thus to address them.


BTW, I grew up Catholic, and to be honest, I don't give a damn what doctrinal reason the Church relies on for continuing to exclude women from the priesthood. I've voted with my feet (and wallet) on that issue.

Finally, with respect to your last question, it suffices to say that there are some "customs" that are so abhorrent (slavery, anyone?) that no culture ought to tolerate them. I'm perfectly comfortable to say that it isn't cultural imperialism to advocate for human rights. "

I'm posting my response here to take any discussion off Facebook

Karen,

I don’t intend to have you debate all day, but one of the rare pleasures of life is the intellectual give-and-take that comes from discussing different perspectives. I probably have more experience in this than most, having been in more than my share of “combox debates.” I’m also certain that there has never been a time where I haven’t come out of the discussion learning something, even if it is where my views are weak.

I leave the tweeting of political or religious emotions to the massus damnatum.

On reflection, as someone with an abiding interest in history, what sets my teeth on edge about the Kristoff column is its shallow appeal to the prejudices of his presumed readers. Thus, everyone knows that religion oppresses women and that Islam is particularly noxious in that regard, but if you move from the “common sense for common folks” approach, you find that the issue is far more complex. For example, the single most common form of hatred, violence and oppression of women throughout human history has been female infanticide. The anthropologist Marvin Harris points out that cases of “accidental overlaying” in early 20th Century America had a female cull rate that approximated the cull rate of male and females in cattle herds. Nonetheless, despite the universality of female infanticide in his culture, and in human cultures generally, Mohammed preached against female infanticide in Sura 81 and promised that the victims of this hideous crime would have justice. For that matter, what about the inclusion of women in the Umma and in the fact that female Muslims share the experience of equality before God signified by the pilgrimage to Mecca?

In other words, Mohammed may have to stand as a revolutionary feminist in some ways since he challenged a conventional social practice on the grounds of the female’s right to justice and essential equality before God.

Thus, is it fair to talk about “common grounds” for the oppression of women in “religion” – and specifically Islam – as repressive of women in light of these facts, which I suspect that Kristoff has never heard of?

I’m willing to say that the issue is complicated, that there are social and religious practices that cut the other way, but unless we are looking for the cheap emotional thrill of seeing the things we despise calumnied – and who doesn’t get a frisson of schadenfreude when our faith is vindicated? - we ought not to take the easy way out of knocking down strawmen. I say this, by the way, even though I don’t hold a brief for Islam.

Undoubtedly, where Islam fell down in further elevating the status of women was its retention of polygamy. The single most important development for the status of women was the institution of life-time companionate monogamous marriage with strict rules against divorce. Even in this day and age, we know how divorce generally disadvantages women relative to men. Thus, it seems obvious that the cultural customs that permitted men to divorce women (as in Judaism) or for men to have multiple wives (as in Islam) clearly put women in a weak and easily threatened state in such marriages. So, Jesus also looks like someone who took a radical position in the name of the essential equality of women and in the development of a custom that would have immediate and long-term payoffs with respect to recognizing the equal nature of males and females. (St. Paul, likewise, deserves kudos relative to his explicit imposition of express obligations on the husband relative to his wife.) These men probably deserve kudos for being uber-feminist, particularly when compared with the anti-women alternative of Gnosticism, which denied that women could be saved as women, and is, ironically, is a favorite of feminist liberals like Elaine Pagels.

History and humanity are complicated, and when we judge the failings of the cultures of our ancestors, we ought to have a little humility in light of our own failings. After all, we have managed to re-establish a form of female infanticide through the use of sex selection and abortion, which is evidenced best in officially atheist China with its surplus of 30 million excess males. Future generations may point to “abortion on demand” as the single most anti-female development of the 20th Century. I don’t know that for certain, of course, but if I take the long-view that doesn’t seem unreasonable.

I didn’t know that you were “raised Catholic.” As a cradle Catholic myself, I know two things. The first thing I know is that people who were raised Catholic are tremendously ignorant of the faith they were raised in, largely as a result of the dismal state of Catechesis after 1965. The other thing I know is that when someone says “I was raised Catholic”, the next thing they are going to say are going to be the wildest form of misunderstanding that they managed to invent when they were 10 years old, and I say this as someone who has debated anti-catholic former Catholic Protestants and anti-catholic former Catholic atheists. So, it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that you don’t know what “altus Christi” means, or how that idea is central to two-thousand years of Catholic theology, and has nothing to do with the “oppression of women” and everything to do with the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation by which the supernatural and natural worlds were brought together as a historical, empirical fact, but that really means that you have no basis for making the statement that the burqa and the male-only priesthood “derive from a common rationalization.” They clearly don’t, although you are certainly free to believe they do in light of the feminist doctrine that everything is about power and male subjection of women. All I am trying to do is offer interesting reasons for why this statement is not so obviously true.

I share your intuition about slavery and if Obama wanted to lead a crusade against slavery, I would sound like a bagpipe. But what about things like a low tax policy, the right to contract, due process and other Western ideas about the just society? I also think we also have to reflect on the fact that it is the fact that we are exporting our Western views about the just society – merely as a by-product of globalization - that is a primary cause of Islamic terror against the West. That may be a war worth having, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves that our war against the burqa is cost-free.

On further reflection, it seems obvious that it is cultural imperialism to advocate for human rights. By definition - well, the traditional leftist definition - imposing one's view of the good society on someone else is "imperialism."  Now, it might be the case that it is justified cultural imperialism, but I don't think that it is intellectually honest to claim that it is not "cultural imperialism" when it happens to be a cultural form that we really like.

Also, I really appreciated the opportunity to write about Sura 81 and female infanticide.  That's been a factoid, I've been waiting to share for 30 years.

Update: 


I've also been defriended.

It's a pity that some folks have such a brittle approach to differences of opinion. I tend to view such differences as vital to living a good life. Other people feel very threatened by the thought that there are some who disagree with them.