Thursday, June 30, 2011

At some point, people are going to wake up and realize that narcissism is not one of the cardinal virtues.

Susannah Breslin on "why blogs for women are bad."

The fact of the matter is that blogs for women do more harm than good.


TIP #1: They’re limiting.

Blogs that focus solely on women’s issues are one-trick ponies. They don’t challenge you; they appease you. They don’t ask you to think; they tell you what you want to hear. They are an island, a fantasy; they are not the real world.

Feeling disempowered? Great. There’s a blog for that. They will tell you that it’s not you. It’s the patriarchy. Didn’t get that raise, make less than your male coworkers, can’t figure out how to negotiate your way into the salary you want? Don’t worry. There’s a blog that will explain to you this is due to male sexism, that it has nothing to do with you, that there are other sisters here who have gone through what you’ve gone through, and, (wo)man, do they feel you.

The idea is that this sort of sympathetic, female circle-jerk will make everyone feel better. That if women are told enough times whatever bad thing happened isn’t their fault, from this they will rise from the ashes and overthrow the terrible men who are keeping them down. This is a lie.
And:

TIP #3: They have nothing to do with reality.


If blogs for women existed in the real world, rather than a virtual one, what would they look like? Giant pink bubbles in which women floated through life, peering through the see-through pink walls at the big, bad confusing world out there in which men exist, things are complex, and not everything has to do with whether or not you have a pair of ovaries.

You don’t learn how to live in the world by withdrawing from it. You learn how to deal with the world by living in it. You don’t become empowered by talking about how disempowered you are. You become empowered by getting over whatever gender your parents’ biological sperm-and-egg cocktail gave you and getting on with it already. You don’t become someone new by pretending to be someone else. You reinvent yourself by letting go of who you wish you could be and figuring out who you really are.

What has segregation done for you lately?
There are a lot of single topic blogs that are written for a particular perspective, but only certain kinds of blogs are designed to be "safe havens."  The people who insist on having "safe havens" simply aren't engaging with the world.  They insist on their right to be critics but be safe from criticism in return.  That is just a delusional approach to reality.
Odd and Useful English Expressions.

Today's odd and useful English expression is "teach grandma to suck eggs," which, apparently, is not as nasty as it sounds.

According to World Wide Words, it implies wasting one's time on a silly endeavor:

Q From Jonathan Downes: I wonder if you would care to explain a phrase in wide use but rather odd in its direct meaning: teaching your grandmother to suck eggs? (This has been in use by my parents, both in their 70s).


A It does look odd, but its meaning is clear enough: don’t give needless assistance or presume to offer advice to an expert. As that prolific author, Anon, once wrote:

Teach not thy parent’s mother to extract
The embryo juices of the bird by suction.
The good old lady can that feat enact,
Quite irrespective of your kind instruction.

Many similar expressions have been invented down the years, such as Don’t teach your grandmother how to milk ducks, and don’t teach your grandmother to steal sheep. These have the same kind of absurd image as the version you quote, which has survived them all. It was first recorded in 1707 in a translation by John Stevens of the collected comedies of the Spanish playwright Quevedo: “You would have me teach my Grandame to suck Eggs”. Another early example, whimsically inverted, is in Tom Jones by Henry Fielding, published in 1749: “I remember my old schoolmaster, who was a prodigious great scholar, used often to say, Polly matete cry town is my daskalon. The English of which, he told us, was, That a child may sometimes teach his grandmother to suck eggs”.
But according to this site, this idiom implies teaching someone with more experience something they already know:

teach one's grandmother to suck eggs


Fig. to try to tell or show someone more knowledgeable or experienced than oneself how to do something. Don't suggest showing Mary how to knit. It will be like teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Bob has been playing tennis for years.

See also: egg, suck, teach
Urban Dictionary offers:

Teaching some process which should already be known, especially to a person who should already know it.


"What does this woman think she's doing? Teaching multiplication to a Calculus class is like teaching grandma to suck eggs!"



It's an expression that Robert A. Heinlein used periodically. I was curious where it came from.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Compare and Contrast.

An AP US History Professor contrasts the media seizure of the gnat  of Bachman's historical illiteracy with the camel of Obama's:

Now it would have been nice if Stephanopoulos or any journalist had shown as much focus on historical gaffes that Obama has made. Here are a few reminders.


During the 2008 campaign he'd claimed that we should meet face-to-face with those we oppose just as Kennedy had met with Khrushchev when "We were on the brink of nuclear war." Except Kennedy's meeting with Khrushchev had occurred more than a year before the Cuban Missile Crisis and was regarded even by JFK as a failure. In fact, Khrushchev concluded from his meeting with JFK at Vienna that the young president would not be a barrier to an increased Soviet hardline as he went on to approve the building of the Berlin Wall and the placement of missiles in Cuba.

Also during the campaign he bragged about his uncle being part of the liberation of Auschwitz when it was the Soviets who liberated the camps in Poland. His uncle helped to liberate a satellite camp of Buchenwald. I would have thought that, if he were truly so proud of his uncle's service, he might have read up on those experiences and learned more about what actually happened.

At his inaugural, he didn't know how many men had been president double-counting Cleveland. That was a small error, of course, but you'd think that for an Inaugural Address he or his speechwriters would get it right.

Obama's aides seem so impressed with the boss that they have lost all historical perspective. Remember Rahm Emanuel telling Obama that he had faced the toughest times that any president has ever faced. Apparently, Obama and his aides only remember Abraham Lincoln when they want to reach for some strained comparison between the two.

Obama's sense of himself seems so grandiose that he can make boneheaded comments like claiming that the reason he was so unpopular in Texas is that "Texas has always been a pretty Republican state, for, you know, historic reasons." Apparently, this man who supposedly learned so much from the civil rights movement was unaware that the Democrats were the party of the solid South and that Texas had been a Democratic state since its admission in 1845 until Nixon's election in 1972. That was the historic gaffe that led Scott Johnson of Powerline to say that "Obama's historical ignorance could be a full time beat for somebody who does this work for a living".
It is a fair point, though, that it would be really nice if our elected officials would do some reading on History.

Monday, June 27, 2011

Israeli Ambassador Praises Pius XII...

...Jewish group takes the "never let whitey off the hook" stand.

Here's the story:

A leading Israeli official has praised Pope Pius XII for saving Jews during the Nazi occupation of Rome, a surprise twist in a long-standing controversy over the pontiff's wartime role.


The comments by Mordechay Lewy, the Israeli ambassador to the Vatican, were some of the warmest ever made by a Jewish official about Pius. Most have been very critical of his record.

In an indication of just how sensitive the subject of Pius is among Jews, Lewy was quickly assailed by a group of Holocaust survivors.

Lewy, speaking at a ceremony Thursday night to honor an Italian priest who helped Jews, said that Catholic convents and monasteries had opened their doors to save Jews in the days following a Nazi sweep of Rome's Ghetto on October 16, 1943.

"There is reason to believe that this happened under the supervision of the highest Vatican officials, who were informed about what was going on," he said in a speech.

"So it would be a mistake to say that the Catholic Church, the Vatican and the pope himself opposed actions to save the Jews. To the contrary, the opposite is true," he said.

The question of what Pius did or did not do to help Jews has tormented Catholic-Jewish relations for decades and it is very rare for a leading Jewish or Israeli leader to praise Pius.

Many Jews accuse Pius, who reigned from 1939 to 1958, of turning a blind eye to the Holocaust. The Vatican says he worked quietly behind the scenes because speaking out would have led to Nazi reprisals against Catholics and Jews in Europe.

JEWISH HURT

Lewy told Reuters Friday that he expected his comments to cause a stir but that he was standing by them.

"I am aware this is going to raise some eyebrows in the Rome Jewish community but this refers to saving Jews, which Pius did, and does not refer to talking about Jews, which he did not do and which Jews were expecting from him," Lewy said.

Elan Steinberg, vice-president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, called Lewy's comments unsustainable.

"For any ambassador to make such specious comments is morally wrong. For the Israeli envoy to do so is particularly hurtful to Holocaust survivors who suffered grievously because of Pius's silence," Steinberg said in a statement.

He said Lewy had "disgracefully conflated the praiseworthy actions of elements in the Catholic Church to rescue Jews with the glaring failure of Pope Pius to do so."

When Pope Benedict visited Rome's synagogue last year, the president of the capital's Jewish community told him that Pius' "silence before the Holocaust" still hurt Jews because more should have been done.

Many Jews responded angrily last year when the pope said in a book that Pius was "one of the great righteous men and that he saved more Jews than anyone else."

Jews have asked that a process that could lead to Pius becoming a saint be frozen until all the Vatican archives from the period have been opened and studied.

Lewy said that most probably even opening the archives would not settle the controversy over Pius's role during the war.
Anyone interested in a eyewitness account of Pius XII's actions to save Roman Jews should read "Before the Dawn: Autobiographical Reflections by Eugenio Zolli, Former Chief Rabbi of Rome."
Why Mennonites don't sing...

...the Star Spangled Banner.
Speaking of arrogant, post-modern elites who are proud of their ignorance...

...New York Times columnist David Carr refers to Middle America as the "dance of the low-sloping foreheads."

On the Bill Maher show, naturally, where he knew he was among "friends."

Via Jammy Wearing Fool.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Bare ruined choirs.

Only 15% of Swedish Lutheran Church belive in Jesus, and are outnumbered by atheists and agnostics.

According to the survey, 15 percent of church members they are atheists, while a quarter of Swedish Church members identify themselves as agnostic.


The younger the members, the more likely they are to be atheists or agnostics.

Bromander pointed out that there is no requirement that church members believe in Jesus or any particular religious figure.

"Many are members, not for religious reasons, but because of the role the church plays in society, or because it serves as an organisation which maintains Swedish traditions," said Bromander.

"In fact, there are many members who would rather that we focus more on our social work in Sweden than on Sunday services."

Of the roughly 6.6 million members of the Church of Sweden, about 400,000 are active churchgoers, attending services at least once a month.

According to the survey, 90 percent of church members have a weak relationship with the Swedish Church, forcing the church to ponder whether or not it remains a relevant institution in Swedish society.
In other news, Swedish man convicted of "forcible sex with sheep."
Bare ruined choirs.

Vox Day reflects on the death of an urban church that is a microcosm of the mainstream churches.

Halifax’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people are without spiritual anchor after their church of 20 years closed on Sunday. Around 50 people gathered at Safe Harbour Metropolitan Community Church on Veith Street to hold one last worship service. The congregation of 27 decided to disband on April 17 after a vote at their annual general meeting.


"We reached a point in our history where we realized we couldn’t go on," says Jane MacConnell, the vice-moderator of the church. "The biggest (reason) being the financial side of things."
Let's see if the usual signs of the church death spiral are there. Female pastor? Check. "Reverend Darlene Young" and "Reverend Jennifer Paty". Homophilic? Check. "Safe Harbour was the first church in HRM to accept lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people."

One wonders if this gentleman understands the irony in his words: "Tim Doufar has been a member of Safe Harbour since 1993, yet sees the church’s dissolution as a step forward for gay people... "Now (gays) are accepted in my home church, the Anglican church." Doufar said it’s only a matter of time before all churches accept gay people."

It's never going to happen. Eventually, even the most would-be tolerant Christians are going to notice that once a church starts throwing out the clear teachings of the Bible, it leaps into the death spiral that killed Safe Harbour and is now in the process of relegating the Anglican church to the dustbin of history.
The answer to the question, "what's up with all of Obama's gaffes?" ...

...is that our country is in the hands of post-modernists, who are, basically by definition, arrogant and ignorant , but are alos paranoid and unwilling to involve people outside of their narrow clique. 

And, of course, the best news is that they are getting any feedback that might make them change their ways.

Michael Ledeen writes:

When you add up all the mistakes he’s made–not slips of the tongue, but real errors in statements and speeches he could read from the ubiquitous teleprompter–they make quite a number. So what? you may ask. The answer is that hundreds of people traditionally read the drafts of presidential speeches and statements. That happens for two good reasons. First, presidential utterances are instant policy. It’s hard to walk away from a public statement. Second, the myriad political appointees want their leader to look good, and they strain to ensure the accuracy of his statements. Or at least they did when I had first-hand knowledge of such things, now a few years back.


I don’t think that is happening in this administration. A friend said to me earlier today that he was really amazed at the discipline of Obama’s team, specifically in the small number of leaks compared with previous administrations–especially W’s years. It’s a good point, and that only happens when information flow is severely restricted; when only a handful of folks know what’s happening, chances to leak are reduced. (On the recent decision on force level reductions in Afghanistan, for example, most of the “inside the Beltway” rumors were dead wrong).

I suspect that drafts of presidential speeches and statements are treated the same way. I think they are only circulated among a very small number of people for comment, and those people are probably very busy, and don’t have the time to check things like the precise name and history of a Medal of Honor recipient.

That would explain today’s embarrassment (embarrassment to us, to the nation–he speaks for us, after all–since he doesn’t seem to suffer embarrassment very often), but it doesn’t explain things like the apology for his lack of fluency in “Austrian” or his lack of knowledge that we have a Marine Corps (pronounced “core”). That comes from lousy education, from lack of basic knowledge about the world. And if I’m right about the small number of administration officials who get to see his words before they’re delivered in public, it tells us that they, too, aren’t properly educated.

It tells us that the president and his trusted advisers are the products of the atrocious, politically correct educational system that’s wrecking the country in so many ways. And it’s very worrisome. It’s part of the Orwellian universe that envelops many of our leaders, a universe in which they feel free to simply invent “facts” so long as they fit the emotional and ideological pattern that really matters to the elite.

And these people think they’re the smart guys, and we’re the dummies, even though we know that German is spoken in Vienna, and many of us would be mortified to make a glaring error about an American hero.

The gaffes are important. They tell us a lot about the nature of our leaders, and it’s not good news. But it is news…even though it’s not reported as often as it should be, or with the sort of concern the gaffes deserve.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

"Oprah can't explain Him."

Catholic Eucharistic Adoration Flash-crowd.

Gaffe Fallout.

Obama apologizes to family of fallen soldier he said was alive.

Friday, June 24, 2011

File under "Too Good not to be True."

Zhou Enlai was referring to 1968, not 1789, in his "too early" to assess the effects of the French Revolution:

When Chinese premier Zhou Enlai famously said it was “too early” to assess the implications of the French revolution, he was referring to turmoil in France in 1968 and not — as is commonly thought — to the more distant political upheaval of 1789.


So says a retired American diplomat, Charles W. (Chas) Freeman Jr., who was present when Zhou made the comment during President Richard Nixon’s visit to China in February 1972.

Freeman, who was Nixon’s interpreter during the historic, weeklong trip, made the disclosure last week during a panel discussion in Washington about On China, the latest book by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

The discussion was moderated by Richard McGregor, a journalist and China expert who wrote about Freeman’s comments for the Financial Times of London.

In an interview yesterday, Freeman elaborated on his recollection about Zhou’s comment, the conventional interpretation of which is frequently offered as evidence of China’s sage, patient, and far-sighted ways. Foreign Policy magazine, for example, referred last month to that interpretation, saying the comment was “a cautionary warning of the perils of judgments made in real time.”

The Washington Post’s recent review of Kissinger’s book likewise referred to the conventional understanding of Zhou’s remark.

Freeman described Zhou’s misconstrued comment as “one of those convenient misunderstandings that never gets corrected.”

He said Zhou’s remark probably was made over lunch or dinner, during a discussion about revolutions that had succeeded and failed. They included, Freeman said, the Prague Spring of 1968 and the Hungarian uprising of 1956, both of which the Soviet Union crushed.

He said it was clear from the context and content of Zhou’s comment that in saying it was “too early to say” the Chinese leader was speaking about the events in France in May 1968, not the years of upheaval that began in 1789.

Freeman acknowledged that the conventional interpretation makes for a better story but added that it was “absolutely clear” from the context of the discussion that Zhou was speaking about 1968.
The Assumption in the Title Seems Accurate.

"Why the Supreme Court cares more about elites."
Obama gaffes again...

...silence by media, again.

Who the heck is advising him on things like names and protocol?

According to Black Five:

The President addressing the 10th Mountain Division today at Fort Drum:


"First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously."

As we all know, SSG Sal Giunta, of the 173rd Airborne, was the first living recipient (2011) of the MOH who fought in Iraq/Afganistan. SFC Jared Monti, 10th Mountain Division, was KIA in Afghanistan in 2006. He was posthumously awarded the MOH by Obama in 2009.

How does the Commander-in-Chief mix these heroes up? He put that medal around Giunta's neck and he stood with Monti's parents as they grieved. These fallen heroes leave such a great legacy, and we should know all their names. The ironic part of the speech, and this comes after the announcement of the politically pressured drawdown of troops in Afghanistan, was Obama's closing remark, "Know that your Commander-in-Chief has your back."

It shouldn't take a teleprompter for the C-in-C to get it right.
Getting names right certainly would difficult for a person who meets so many people, although I am certain that George W. Bush would have remembered the name of the men whose grieving parents he had met.  But how difficult is it to have an assistant who can clue in the President about things like how to toast the Queen, whether to bow to royalty, and the name of living and dead Medal of Honor recipients in the military unit he is addressing?

Again, either this isn't being done, which is disturbing, or it is being done and Obama doesn't think he has to pay attention, which is more disturbing.
Liberalism and the Forced Sterilization of the "Unfit."

One of the great historical shell-games is the way that progressive and liberal historians, i.e., "historians,"  have managed to file off the common denominator between liberals and Nazis: they both relied on science to inform their social policy, particularly Darwin's evolutionary theory, and they weren't going to listen to "religious fundamentalists" and their nancy talk about human dignity.

Cato has an article on Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and the Buck v. Bell decision:

Today, the Charlotte Observer reports on the ongoing attempts to find restitution for the 3,000 living North Carolinians who were victims of the state’s forced sterilization program. It may surprise many readers, but forced sterilization has a long and shameful history in the United States. In North Carolina, the last forced sterilization was performed as late as 1974.


The most famous case of forced sterilization was the 1927 Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell. Carrie Buck, a “feeble minded” woman from Virginia who was deemed the “probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring,” challenged the state’s attempt to forcibly sterilize her. In an opinion that even his colleagues called “brutal,” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. curtly did away with Buck’s pleas, ramming home his decision with one of the most heartless and ignominious lines in all of the Supreme Court history:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
Amazingly, Justice Holmes’s original draft of the opinion contained worse language. He later wrote to Harold Laski that he was “amused” that his fellow justices suggested rhetorical changes when he “purposely used short and rather brutal words… that made them mad.” Nevertheless, despite his desire to use crueler language, Justice Holmes was satisfied with himself, once telling a friend, “One decision that I wrote gave me pleasure, establishing the constitutionality of a law permitting the sterilization of imbeciles.”

It has continually fascinated me that Buck v. Bell seems to be rarely found on the short list of worst Supreme Court decisions. Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu (the case upholding the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII) are nearly household terms used to describe the height of Supreme Court folly. But if Buck is among the rogue’s gallery of Supreme Court opinions, it certainly isn’t higher than Lochner v. New York. The term most often used to describe Supreme Court error is to “Lochnerize.”
That prioritization fits my experience of law school in the early '80s.
 
The explanation is that Lochner was a "conservative" decision by "conservative" judges, which actually served libertarian interests by limiting the power of the government to interfere with the economy.  So, it had to be attacked root and branch on an ideological level.  Buck was written by a favorite of the progressives - and actually was part of the same progressive/liberal/elitist ideology that came to dominate jurisprudence in a later generation.  So, it had to be explained as a sad anomaly on the part of a great justice. 
 
But Buck wasn't an anomaly. Anyone who read histories or contemporary accounts written at the time that eugenics and forced sterilization were considered by the academic class and other elites as entirely unremarkable.  Holmes was simply following the conventional wisdom of his class.
Fashionable and practical, and, yet, the risk of accidental electrocution is causing some initial sales resistance.

Solar powered bikini charges electronics on the beach.

Obligatory bikini picture -


Details on same -




Textual justification for bikini picture:

Put away those flimsy little nylon bikinis and instead strut your stuff in this Solar-Powered Bikini. Aside from being on a totally different level, it makes your already smoking bod look even better by accentuating all the right curves. More than that, it can also charge up your iPod, smartphone, or any other device via USB because it’s actually made up of a series of photovoltaic cells sewn together with conductive wire.


Gone are the days when you need to get up from your lounger to fit your device with a spare battery or keep it because it has run out of juice. As you can see, the Solar-Powered Bikini is pretty skimpy and doesn’t have room to hold a battery. This means that any energy it can get from the sun is directly transmitted straight to your mp3 player or mobile phone. Bazinga!

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Rising deficits, public unions bankrupting the nation, entitlement out of control and but the real problem that we must address is....

...the fact that some religions still require circumcision.

Colorado will end insurance coverage for routine circumcisions.

Our elites are lunatics.
The good thing about having a Democrat in the White House is that there is no bad news...

...and all bad economic news is "unexpected."

Pundit Press compiles all of the "unexpected" bad economic news, such as:


U.S. Consumer Sentiment Unexpectedly Falls to Six-Month Low on Job Outlook, from Bloomberg, May 31, 2011

US Q4 growth unexpectedly revised down, from EuroNews, February 25, 2011

U.S. Factory Orders Drop Unexpectedly, from Industry Week, March 24, 2011

US Services Economy Slowed Unexpectedly in March: ISM, from MSNBC, April 5, 2011

U.S. Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Jump, Reflecting Quarter-End Volatility, from Bloomberg, April 14, 2011

"Core U.S. producer prices rose slightly faster than expected," from Reuters, April 14, 2011

Construction Spending in U.S. Unexpectedly Fell to Decade Low, from Bloomberg, from February 1, 2011

U.S. initial jobless claims rise unexpectedly, from Forexpros, June 23, 2011

"Unexpectedly weak economic data," from Economics Newspaper, from April 2011

U.S. Economy: Goods Orders Unexpectedly Fall, Claims Drop, from Bloomberg, March 24, 2011

Orders for Manufactured Goods Fall Unexpectedly, from the New York Times, March 24, 2011

"Confidence among U.S. consumers unexpectedly declined in January," from Bloomberg, January 14, 2011

"Initial Jobless Claims Rise Unexpectedly," from Reuters, April 28, 2011

"Confidence among U.S. consumers unexpectedly fell in December," from Bloomberg Businessweek, January 3, 2011

Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Rise to Three-Month High, from Money News, April 28, 2011

U.S. Economy: Confidence Unexpectedly Drops to 6-Month Low, from Bloomberg Businessweek, May 31, 2011

U.S. initial unemployment claims unexpectedly soars, from World Bank, May 5, 2011

Housing Starts Unexpectedly Plunge 10.6%, Pointing to More Construction Woes, from Money News, May 19, 2011

Consumer confidence falls unexpectedly in May, from USA Today, May 31, 2011

Unemployment Claims in U.S. Unexpectedly Increased to 424,000 Last Week, from Bloomberg, May 26, 2011

"New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly climbed to 424,000 last week," from CNBC, May 26, 2011

U.S. Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Climb, from Bloomberg, June 9, 2011

U.S. Economy: Previously Owned Home Sales Unexpectedly Fall, from Bloomberg Businessweek, May 19, 2011

US Q1 corporate profits drop unexpectedly, from Business Speculator, May 26, 2011

Jobless Claims in U.S. Unexpectedly Jump on One-Time Events, from Bloomberg, May 5, 2011

"Industrial production in the U.S. unexpectedly stalled in April and housing starts dropped," from Bloomberg Businessweek, May 17, 2011

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

"We will always have Fresno."

House, M.D., Season 3, Episode 4:

Cuddy lies to House, trying to get him away from Ali, but then cracks under House's pressure and reveals that Ali is locked in her office and House should talk her down and send her off for good. House observes Ali crying milky tears. Having recently experienced an earthquake in Fresno, she likely inhaled a fungal spore - Coccidioides immitis in her brain, which is typically released during earthquakes. As most of her symptoms developed in her head, it may be that the spores mostly concentrated in her sinuses and resulted in headaches, cough, and her loss of inhibition.


In his final speech to Ali in the episode in an attempt to scare her away, House indirectly quotes the famous romantic speech at the end of Casablanca. "We will always have Fresno"
Quote from IMDB:
Dr. Gregory House: Listen to me. Do you have any idea of what you'd have to look forward to if you stayed with me? Nine chances out of ten, we'd both wind up in a jail.


Ali: You're only saying that to make me go.

Dr. Gregory House: I'm saying it 'cause it's true. Inside of us we both know that you belong with Victor.

[She does not understand the reference to the movie "Casablanca."]

Dr. Gregory House: Is there a Victor in your class?

[She shakes her head]

Dr. Gregory House: If you're not with... someone your age, you'll regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life.

Ali: What about us?

Dr. Gregory House: We'll always have Fresno. I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that. Now, now... Here's looking at you kid.
Angry Atheists, part 2.

David Klinghoffer dissects P.Z. Myers bullying response to Biology post-grad Jonathon McLatchie.

Let's say you had no opinion on evolution and no background in evolutionary developmental biology but were simply presented with a video of this exchange. What would it tell you about the character of the individuals involved and the respective strength of their positions?


The exchange is between an older man, heavy and bearded, hardly a distinguished scholar but a professor nonetheless who's a popular writer on atheism and science, speaking before an adoring audience at a Glasgow pub; and on the other hand, a physically slight young man setting out to embark on his own professional training in the same field. The young man is earnest and nervous. He talks a little too fast and seems unaccustomed to public jousting. The older man, on being challenged, is bullying, abusive, and personally insulting.

Is this the way an educator behaves when he's got the truth on his side? As the exchange proceeds and the young man tries to formulate responses despite continuing jeers and shouts from a crowd of other bullies all around him, you can just feel the poor guy's heart galloping in his chest. In his place, that's how I would feel.

Yet putting feelings aside and considering it as a specimen of scientific discussion, the interchange is telling. When Jonathan references a sheaf of peer-reviewed research papers he has brought with him, Myers mocks him for it. Presumably, if he offered no documentation, he would have been mocked for that too. When Jonathan fully articulates his challenge, Myers ridicules him for going on too long. When Jonathan compresses it to a sentence, Myers mule-headedly misrepresents what Jonathan is asking. In his prodigious written posts here, including a recent response to P.Z. Myers, Jonathan has already amply demonstrated that, despite his youth, he is impressively on top of his subject matter.

Again, does this sound like the professor has science on his side? To me, it sounds like a secular version of the old stereotype of the domineering, oppressive religious-school teacher who tolerated no questioning and gave faith a bad name.

I keep emphasizing Jonathan's youth contrasted with Myers's age and, in the eyes of this audience of so-called Glasgow Skeptics anyway, his status. That's because there is something outstandingly contemptible about such abuse in a case like this where it's being directed so clearly down the ladder of rank.

And:

So too in other situations where there's a power differential. In an employment context, if you want to try intimidating your boss or supervisor and see how far you get, you're a fool and will have to learn that for yourself when you get fired. However there's nothing morally contemptible about it, as there would be when the intimidation is aimed downward in the opposite direction.


You can see how Myers plays it up for the audience not by straightforwardly answering Jonathan's challenge or correcting his misconceptions but by ridiculing and intimidating him. The next questioner timidly apologizes for asking what she says she's afraid may be a "stupid question," but this time Myers is gentle and accepting because she, unlike Jonathan, hasn't actually challenged Myers or his views.

So I return to the question I began with. Is this how they educate young people at the good old U. of Minn. Morris? It's a highly effective way of enforcing groupthink, which is why Myers has advocated it to fellow Darwinists, but what about as a method of honest pedagogy? You may question your professor in order to get clear in your mind and thus to accept and digest his opinions -- that's OK. But if you question him and intimate that you're not entirely convinced that he's right in what he teaches -- if you are, in a word, a skeptic -- then you can count on being met with a barrage of obscenity and abuse.
Contrast this with William Lane Craig's invariably direct responses to atheist challenges.  Craig habitually treats the question as sincere and responds to the gist of the question, long after I would lose patience with the explicit taunting in which the question is phrased.

But the question of "what are they teaching at the good-old U of M, Morris?" is totally fair.  Recall that Myers is the guy who desecrated a eucharist in order to show his contempt for the feelings of others. For him, teaching is clearly a species of indoctrination.

Reviewing my files, I noticed that the point that Myers' missionary efforts are more likely to convert people to Creationism has been made before, by none other than paleontologist Robert Bakker.
From this interview, here is an excerpt:


[Switek] Finally, as someone who works with the "bones of contention" and the fossil record, what do you think about the current controversy surrounding evolution in the United States? How can we do a better job of communicating science to the public?

[Bakker] We dino-scientists have a great responsibility: our subject matter attracts kids better than any other, except rocket-science. What's the greatest enemy of science education in the U.S.?

Militant Creationism?

No way. It's the loud, strident, elitist anti-creationists. The likes of Richard Dawkins and his colleagues.

These shrill uber-Darwinists come across as insultingly dismissive of any and all religious traditions. If you're not an atheist, then you must be illiterate or stupid and, possibly, a danger to yourself and others.

As many commentators have noted, in televised debates, these Darwinists seem devoid of joy or humor, except a haughty delight in looking down their noses. Dawkinsian screeds are sermons to the choir; the message pleases only those already convinced. Dawkins wins no converts from the majority of U.S. parents who still honor a Biblical tradition. Hitchcock is a far better model. He had his battles with skepticism. He did worry that the discovery of Deep Time would upset the good people of his congregation. But Hitchcock could view three thousand years of scriptural tradition and see much of value - and much concordance with Jurassic geology.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

More Global Warming Tom-foolery.

Global Warming scientists artificially increase rising sea level measurements.

It's either not a big deal if the projection is 2 to 3 feet or it is a big deal if the rise is only 7 inches.
Being a Man.

Patrick O'Hannigan reviews two books that might just help our sons be better men.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Clown Nose Off/Clown Nose On.

John Stewart on FoxNews Sunday.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Why so many atheists?  And why are they so angry?

Father Barron observes:

The CNN Belief Blog, which has graciously featured a few of my pieces, just celebrated its first anniversary, and for the occasion, its editors reflected on 10 things that they've learned in the course of the year. The one that got my eye was this: that atheists are by far the most fervent commentators on matters religious.


This completely coincides with my own experience as an internet commentator and blogger. Every day, my website and YouTube page are inundated with remarks, usually of a sharply negative or dismissive nature, from atheists, agnostics, and critics of religion.

In fact, some of my YouTube commentaries have been specifically targeted by atheist webmasters, who urge their followers to flood my site with "dislikes" and crude assessments of what I've said. And one of my contributions to the CNN site -- what I took to be a benign article urging Christians to pray for Christopher Hitchens -- excited literally thousands of angry responses from the haters of religion.

What do we make of this? I think we see, first, that atheists have come rather aggressively out of the closet. Following the prompts of Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, and many others, they have found the confidence to (excuse the word) evangelize for atheism. They are no longer content to hold on to their conviction as a private opinion; they consider religion dangerous and retrograde, and they want religious people to change their minds.

This fervor has led them, sadly, to employ a good deal of vitriolic rhetoric, but this is a free country and their advocacy for atheism should not, of course, be censored. But it should be a wake-up call to all of my fellow religionists. We have a fight on our hands, and we have to be prepared, intellectually and morally, to get into the arena.
And:

We shouldn't imitate the Internet atheists in their nastiness, but we should certainly imitate them in our willingness to come forward boldly and showing some intellectual teeth. But the fierce and vocal presence of so many atheists on the CNN Belief Blog and so many other religious sites also speaks to what I call the Herod Principle.


The Gospels tell us that Herod Antipas arrested John the Baptist because the prophet had publicly challenged the King. Herod threw John into prison but then, we are told, the King loved secretly to listen to the prophet, who continued to preach from his cell.

St. Augustine formulated an adage that beautifully sums up the essentials of Christian anthropology: "O Lord, you have made us for yourself; therefore our hearts are restless until they rest in you." A basic assumption of Biblical people is that everyone is hard-wired for God in the measure that everyone seeks a fulfillment that cannot be had through any of the goods of this world. Long before Augustine, the psalmist prayed, "only in God is my soul at rest."

My wager, as a person of faith, is that everyone -- at that includes Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, and Richard Dawkins -- implicitly wants God and hence remains permanently fascinated by the things of God. Though the fierce atheists of today profess that they would like to eliminate religious speech and religious ideas, secretly they love to listen as people speak of God. This goes a long way, it seems to me, toward explaining their presence in great numbers on religious blogs.

So I say to Christians and other believers: be ready for a good fight, and get some spiritual weapons in your hands. And I say to the atheists: I'll keep talking -- because I know, despite all of your protestations and sputtering, that your hearts are listening.
In-N-Out's "Secret Menu."

Not so secret anymore.

Friday, June 17, 2011

Nemesis - how fate uses our character to destroy us.

Mickey Kause writes:

Weinergate: The Hunt for Meaning! Early in the Weiner scandal, Josh Marshall emailed his Talking Points Memo staff, telling them to report the news but to remember


that this is fundamentally a moronic story. There’s no deeper issues. No broader anything it gets to. This is a congressman with serious impulse control who’s sending muscle shot and maybe penis shot pictures to women on the internet.

It’s just part and parcel of the ridiculousness of politics and public life in America. We can cover every part of it and not ever lose site of that basic fact. [E.A.]
“No deeper issues”? That’s sort of a challenge isn’t it? I mean, Weinergate is now at the thumbsucking stage. It’s time for slideshows of Weinergate’s Greatest Hits, Howie Kurtz’s traditional piece on how it was obvious all along– and for week-in-review takeouts on the Larger Point. Is the press up to that last task? My own take:

Weiner is a victim of web-driven macho partisan cocooning. That is, it was the fight-back partisanship of the Daily Kos community that gave him a group of linked-up followers he could make himself a hero of. This included dozens or more women (real or virtual) who idolized him whom he could contact in the space of a coffee break. Weiner was arrogant enough to think he could get away with recklessly exploiting his fame and status in this Web niche in part because he figured his pack would always defend him in a pinch. He was too essential to the fight. The ingenious instant wisdom of the Kos crowd would be too powerful in a clinch. He was almost right about that, though in the end it proved a delusion–a delusion encouraged and enabled by the cocooning phenomenon itself, by the always-on flock of “Weiner, yes” netizens giving him positive feedback for whatever he thought or did.

Pre-Web, this wouldn’t have happened. Weiner could have made lewd comments to a few followers, but wouldn’t have had instant, intimate access to so many (initially) starry-eyed women at once. He couldn’t have counted on his crowd to mobilize in rapid-response style, and he wouldn’t have been able to wallow in their like-minded approbation. He’d have of necessity heard a more balanced range of opinions. And he wouldn’t have thought he could get away with it. He’d have repressed.
That’s the best I can do! If you have a deeper deeper meaning., let me or Josh Marshall know.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Weiner ironic to the end.

Weiner's resignation remarks were surreal.  He thanked his parents for the role they played in the formation of his moral character.

Huh?

He apparently still doesn't have a clue that he's a weird exhibitionist.

I also like how he promises everyone that he would find someplace else to use his talents.

It was like a victory speech, instead of a person resigning in embarrassment.



One more bit of evidence that we're slouching to Gomorrah.
Obama - improving America's relationships with its allies.

The Czech Republic pulls out of missile defense plan:

Count the Czech Republic out of any American missile-defense system in Europe. The Czechs formally withdrew from the missile-defense partnership with the US, prompting one lawmaker in Prague to complain that “the current administration doesn’t take the Czech Republic seriously.” They see the Obama administration as more concerned with appeasing Russia — at their expense
6 Insane Fan Theories that Actually Make Movies Better.

From Cracked.

For the record, I think the "Matrix theory" is obvious, not insane.

The Bond theory actually makes a lot of sense, and the Ferris Bueller theory is brilliant.
Liberal Intolerance.

You. Must. Approve:

In 2008, Dr. Turek was hired by Cisco to design and conduct a leadership and teambuilding program for about fifty managers with your Remote Operations Services team. The program took about a year to conduct, during which he also conducted similar sessions for another business unit within Cisco. That training earned such high marks that in 2010 he was asked to design a similar program for about 200 managers within Global Technical Services. Ten separate eight-hour sessions were scheduled.


The morning after completing the seventh session earlier this year, a manager in that session —who was one of the better students in that class—phoned in a complaint. It had nothing to do with content of the course or how it was conducted. In fact, the manager commented that the course was “excellent” as did most who participated. His complaint regarded Dr. Turek’s political and religious views that were never mentioned during class, but that the manager learned by “googling” Dr. Turek after class.

The manager identified himself as gay and was upset that Dr. Turek had written this book providing evidence that maintaining our current marriage laws would be best for the country. Although the manager didn’t read the book, he said that the author’s view was inconsistent with “Cisco values” and could not be tolerated. (Dr. Turek is aware of this because he was in the room when his call came in.) The manager then contacted an experienced HR professional at Cisco who had Dr. Turek fired that day without ever speaking to him. The HR professional also commended the manager for “outing” Dr. Turek.

This firing had nothing to do with course content—the program earned very high marks from participants. It had nothing to do with budget constraints—the original contract was paid in full recently. A man was fired simply because of his personal political and religious beliefs—beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by thousands of your very large and diverse workforce.
I assume the intent of Cisco’s value of “inclusion and diversity” is to ensure that people in that diverse workforce will work together cordially and professionally even when they inevitably disagree on certain political, moral or religious questions. Please note that Dr. Turek agrees with that value and was demonstrating it. The manager and HR professional were not. Dr. Turek was being inclusive working with them. They were being exclusive by refusing to work with him, even though his viewpoint was never discussed during his work at Cisco. (Ironically, the people who say they are fighting for “tolerance” are often the most intolerant!).
This is story that demontrates Windthorst's "organizing principle of liberalism" - "Freedom protects everything except unfreedom, and tolerance endures everything except intolerance"...."unfreedom" and "intolerance' being defined as "people who disagree with us."
Daniel Hannan on the English Relationship to Americans.



Notice how he points out the common place observation that Obama doesn't like the English, including the recent alignment of America with Argentina over the Falklands which the Obama administration has taken to referring to as the "Malvinas."

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

The race for the bottom.

It's hard to hard to decide who is the biggest douche in this story:

Adult film actress / “feature dancer” Ginger Lee today called on Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.) to resign for lying to the press and the public in the wake of the discovery that he sent explicit messages to Lee and a slew of other women. The star of such films as Lesbian Seductions 28 and Busty College Coeds P.O.V. 2 joins the president of the United States and a number of top House Democrats in urging Weiner to step down.


Lee appeared in a paparazzo-packed alcove of the New York City Friars Club (where else?) alongside her attorney, Gloria Allred (who else?). The pair claim to be in possession of hundreds of e-mails and tweets between Weiner and Lee, the product of a correspondence that spanned from March of this year until two weeks ago. The exchange reportedly started out tame, and centered around issues like health-care reform and Planned Parenthood, both of which are “important” to Ms. Lee. Weiner eventually started sending more explicit messages — parts of which Allred quoted for the press. “I have wardrobe demands too: I need to highlight my package,” one read. Another complained that “You aren’t giving my package due credit.”
We need Global Warming!

Everybody needs to start working on having a larger carbon footprint immediately!

Earth may be heading into mini-ice age as solar activity declines:

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.


The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.


The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all.

This could have major implications for the Earth's climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:

An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.
As NASA notes:

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.
During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," says Dr Frank Hill of the NSO. "But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."
Obama shifts the blame from Bush...

...to ATM machines.

ATM machines (and automation) is the reason for high unemployment.

President Obama explained to NBC News that the reason companies aren't hiring is not because of his policies, it's because the economy is so automated. ... "There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."

In the video accompanying the linked post, Obama explains that businesses have become more efficient during the recession by turning to automation.  What he fails to mention is that the uncertainty caused by his policies are a cause of that "efficiency."  Machines don't need health care, and it is unlikely that the government will attempt to impose its social policy by employment laws. 
Mamet on Obama.

According to Roger Simon:

“The question is, can he run on his record in 2012, and the answer is no, because it’s abysmal,” Mamet said. “He took a trillion dollars and where it went, nobody knows. He dismantled healthcare, he weakened America around the world, he sold out the State of Israel. All he’s got to run on is being a Democrat and indicting the other fellow.”

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

The first stage of History asks, "what could it hurt?"  The second stage asks, "How were we supposed to know?"

Homosexual marriage is intended to redefine marriage according to supporter.

Four pols change their stance as effort to legalize gay marriage gains momentum in state Senate



Those who flipped Monday were Democratic Sens. Joseph Addabbo and Shirley Huntley of Queens and Carl Kruger of Brooklyn as well as Rochester Republican James Alesi.


Twenty nine of 30 Dems now support the measure.

"What we're about to do is redefine what the American family is," Kruger said. "And that's a good thing."

Monday, June 13, 2011

So, exactly how many leftist lesbian Muslim bloggers are really...

...leftist Western men?

The hoax involving the true identity of a Syrian lesbian blogger has taken another turn, as another man has acknowledged he is behind a lesbian blog that republished vivid accounts of revolt in Damascus.


A 40-year-old American man living in Scotland apologized earlier Monday for posing as a Syrian lesbian blogger named Amina Arraf, whose reported detention fueled attention that eventually led to the man's confession that his blog posts had been an elaborate ruse.

Later Monday, The Washington Post reported that an editor of lesbian news website Lezgetreal.com — who encouraged Arraf and republished her blog entries — was a man named Bill Graber who used the name Paula Brooks as an online persona.
Jonah Goldberg explains why this scam works - it consists of a leftist feeding authentic leftist tropes to a leftist audience.  After all, who can better connect with a leftist audience, a lesbian Muslim or a leftist man?

Tom MacMaster was raised to be a peace activist. When he was a kid, the family trekked to the Pentagon to hand out origami doves to commemorate the bombing of Nagasaki. He's the co-director of Atlanta Palestine Solidarity and claims to have visited Baghdad on a "student peace mission" to deter the Iraq war.


In an "Apology to Readers" posted on June 12 from his vacation in Istanbul, MacMaster writes, "While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground."

He explains that as a white guy with an Anglo name, people wouldn't take him seriously in online discussion groups. So he made up Amina and her countless fictional experiences in Syria and America.

At first it sounds a bit like the old jokes swirling around the publishing industry: Lincoln sells. Medicine sells. Dogs sell. So let's put out a book about Lincoln's doctor's dog! It'll be a bestseller!

Except McMaster's ploy really worked. People desperately wanted to believe in this "hero": a saucy, sage, left-wing member of the LGBT community who likes to wear the hijab, can't stand Israel or George W. Bush and who parrots every cliche about the romantic authenticity of the Arab people and their poetic yearning for democracy, peace and love. Whereas no one cared about McMaster's "Anglo" arguments, Amina's assertions succeeded with little effort. For instance, "she" writes of the Palestinians' need to return to their homes in Israel: "It's simple but, maybe, you have to be a Levantine Arab to get this. It makes perfect sense to me." Of course it does!
Myth is so much easier to sell than reality.
Orwell v. God.

A pretty interesting essay on George Orwell's conflicted relationship with religion.

Reading the essay, you get a sense that Christopher Hitchens - the discount Orwellian wannabe - has modeled a lot of his attitudes on Orwell.
Another reason to defund NPR...

...because it seems to think that it is the successor to St. Peter.

Which would make it a church, and I believe in the Separation of Church and State.

NPR issues one of its perennial encyclicals that "Female Priests Defy Catholic Church At The Altar."

On a recent June day in Maryland, four more women were ordained as priests. The gallery at St. John's United Church of Christ was filled with Catholic priests and nuns, there to support the women and the ordination movement — though visitors were asked not to photograph them. Witnessing the ceremony was enough to risk excommunication.


The audience turned to watch as the women made their way down the aisle, beaming like brides. The two-and-a-half-hour ceremony ended with Holy Communion — the moment they'd been waiting for. Each woman performed the rites for the first time as a priest, breaking bread and serving wine as tears of joy flowed down their faces.
From a Catholic standpoint, they were women pretending to be priests - they weren't ordained, and the wine and bread they were playing with stayed wine and bread, which insofar as they thought it was the Body and Blood of Christ makes them guilty of idolatry.

That's their problem.

In another cut-and-paste excerpt from a previous story of this kind, NPR offers:

As members of the Roman Catholic Church, these female priests are all breaking church rules, which allow ordination only to baptized males. No member of the Roman Catholic Womenpriests has been excommunicated by the Church, but they have felt repercussions. They've not only been threatened but also have lost friends and colleagues within the Church — many of whom fear they will lose their jobs if they support the women's ordination movement openly.


LaRosa recognizes they are breaking Church law — specifically Canon 10:24 — but says, "when you have an unjust law, sometimes it needs to be broken before it can be changed."
Because, you know it's all about "rules."

My problem is where is the journalist guidelines about giving some deference to reality. If a group of women get together and call themselves the Supreme Court, does NPR start referring them as "justices"?  I doubt it.  So, why does NPR get to appoint itself as a super-magisterium in this situation?

By the way, it is probably too much to expect NPR to get the little facts right when it is acting as the Vicar of Christ, but there is no Canon 10:24.  There is a Canon 1024 which declares that only a baptized male can be licitly ordained, but no Canon 10:24.

Which suggests that NPR couldn't be bothered to check the facts with the Catholic side of this issue even to the extent of reading the on-line Canon Law.

Here is Newsbusters' take.
Arriving on Kindle any second now....

....David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture."

Because I love conversion stories.
For example, there were no "praise bands" or projection screens. 

5 myths about early Christian worship.
Dhimmi Watch.

Christian beheaded by Muslims in northern Iraq.

The decapitated body of a Christian man has been discovered in Kirkuk, northern Iraq, a few days after he was kidnapped.


Ashur Yacob Issa, 29, was abducted late Friday night or early Saturday morning and his mutilated body was discovered Monday morning.

His family had been asked for a ransom but was not able to pay the sum of more than £61,500 (€70,000) the kidnappers demanded.

Speaking to Aid to the Church in Need, the charity for persecuted and other suffering Christians, Archbishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk condemned the killing, and went on to pay tribute to the strength and faith of his community despite the continuing threat of violence.

Archbishop Sako said: “In all these years, I have never heard of a single Christian converting to Islam, despite the many threats.”
Credo.

Dennis Prager's list of Jewish essentials.
Book Review: A distant mirror - Liberals versus Catholics in 19th Century Germany

The War against Catholicism: Liberalism and the Anti-Catholic Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Germany (Social History, Popular Culture, and Politics in Germany)

Go here and vote for my review.

I read The War against Catholicism: Liberalism and the Anti-Catholic Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Germany (Social History, Popular Culture, and Politics in Germany)as part of my project to explore the relationship of Adolf Hitler and Nazism to Catholicism and Christianity. The project has resulted in me going deeper into German religious history.


My reading started with The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 by Richard Steigman-Gall, which discussed the Nazis attempt to draw German Protestantism into the Nazi system. The Nazis originally had a great deal of hope that this effort would work in that Protestantism and German Nationalism were not inherently at odds with each other. It was the Nazi view that to be a good German meant being a good Protestant, and vice versa. In order to accomplish this, the Nazis made efforts to remake Protestant Christianity in the image of Nazi anti-semitism by removing the Old Testament and reconstructing the image of Jesus as the original anti-semite. In their efforts, the Nazis were amazingly successful in that a majority of Protestant German churches joined the German Christian movement and agreed to Nazi theological concepts such as removing the Old Testament from the Christian canon and segregating Christians of Jewish ancestry from Christians of non-Jewish ancestry. [See also The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany.] On the other hand, a minority of Christians were motivated by this fundamental betrayal of Christian tradition into opposing the Nazi's German Christian movement by forming the Confessing Church. At this time - in the mid-to-late 1930s - Hitler's religious attitudes were not Christian in any sense of the word in that his theology ripped the Jewish context out of Christianity. Further, as it became apparent that a large number of Christians were opposing the Nazi reconstruction of Christianity, Hitler soured on his belief that Protestantism and German Nationalism were complementary elements of the German identity. Steigman-Gall leaves no doubt that during this period, when the Nazis were in power, National Socialism was antithetical to Catholicism and that Nazi leaders and members who had come from a Catholic background were apostates and often bitterly opposed to Catholicism. By the time that the Nazis were in power, it was clear to them that institutional Catholicism was opposed to the National Socialism and that being a loyal Catholic meant being loyal to a power that was not German. This attitude contrasted with Nazis from a Protestant background who often remained members in good standing of their church.

Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism: Religious Identity and National Socialism by Derek Hastings was the next in order. Hastings covered an earlier period of Nazi history, the brief moment before National Socialism became a truly national moment. During that short period of time - approximately 1919 to 1923 - National Socialism was a Catholic political party that had its origin in Catholic Bavaria. However, although it was a Catholic political party, it was not the Catholic political party. Bavarian Catholicism divided between Catholics who were "ultramontane," or whose self-identity involved an allegiance to the papacy, and non-ultramontane, or anti-ultramontane, Catholics, whose self-identity involved emphasizing their loyalty to Germany at the expense of the papacy. The source of National Socialism in its earl stage was not with the ultramontanes, but with those Catholics who were looking for a way to accommodate their Catholic identity with their German identity. National Socialism promised such an accommodation until Hitler decided to take his movement nation-wide in an alliance with the virulent Anti-Catholic former general Ludendorff.

The problem that bedeviled German politics for Hitler was how to negotiate around the fact that Germany was split between a majority Protestant population and a minority Catholic population that had a long history of antagonism. Hitler's attempted answer to that was the establishment of "Positive Christianity" - an initially vague notion that promised a way that Catholics and Protestants could cooperate in the reconstruction of German identity.

To anyone acquainted with the current moment, it seems pretty apparent that the Christian opponents of National Socialism would be what we today call "conservative," in their institutional allegiance to the papacy, in the case of Catholics, or to the traditional understanding of Jesus and the canon of the Bible, in the case of Protestants. On the other hand, the Christian supporters of Hitler were those who were willing to resist the papacy in favor of `local control' or radically reconstruct Christian theology in favor of a currently popular academic theory. In short, one can't help but notice that the Protestant and Catholic supporters of Hitler were those who came out of a liberal tradition of Christianity, which will surely come a surprise to those who take Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII by John Cornwell, with its fable that it was the "conservative" Pius XII who was responsible for Hitler's rise to power, as gospel truth.

Gross' The War against Catholicism is the next installment in this archeological approach to the issues presented by the history of the 1920s and 1930s. Gross' book is an analysis of the Kulturkampf, a period immediately after the formation of the German Empire in 1870 when the German state attempted to liquidate Catholicism. Gross' thesis is that the Kulturkampf was a project of German liberalism and represented a principled application of liberal principles as understood by mid-Nineteenth Century German liberals, rather than, as often asserted, a betrayal of those principles.

The Kulturkampf is a period that is often unjustly neglected by people who approach the issues of German religious identity under the Nazis. One might speculate that this fact is evidence of Gross' thesis concerning the antipathy of liberalism for religion in general and Catholicism in particular, in that most scholars view themselves as liberals, and don't seem to have much sympathy for Catholicism, and, therefore, haven't much interest in a period when Catholics were persecuted by liberals. The persecution was very real and included a number of moves that were typical of anti-clerical efforts before and after the Kulturkampf, including prohibiting Catholic religious orders from teaching, depriving the Catholic Church of title to its property, exiling foreign Catholic priests and brothers, and requiring the Catholic church to submit to state control with respect to the appointment of priests and bishops. By the end of the Kulturkampf vast sections of Germany had been deprived of Catholic priests, large numbers of Catholics had been arrested and virtually every bishop in Protestant areas of Germany had been forced into exile. Given that the Kulturkampf was something experienced by the parents and grandparents of Catholics during the 1920s and 1930s, one might think that the Catholic reaction to National Socialism, which raised the specter of a new Kulturkampf, might be of some interest to historians.

Gross points out that the Kulturkampf resulted from a coming together of a variety of cultural development during the Nineteenth Century. One of the important influences was the revival of Catholic culture and its re-orientation in an ultramontane direction by an energetic campaign of preaching and revivals, which began after the failed liberal revolutions of 1848, and which were led by various religious orders including the Jesuits. The revival of Catholicism, particularly a papally oriented Catholicism, stirred a Protestant anti-Catholic backlash, which traded in conventional tropes about Catholic superstition and ignorance. The backlash also promoted the idea of the Jesuits as a conspiring threat to Germany. Often times in reading liberal descriptions of the Jesuits, I was put in mind of Hitler's descriptions of the Jews. [Gross points out that while the Nineteenth Century represented a zenith of anti-Catholic agitation and persecution in Germany, Jews were being freed from the traditional restrictions on their civil rights.] Interestingly, this anti-Jesuit attitude was rampant in America during essentially the same period. This was not entirely an accident when one considers that the famous Anti-Catholic picture of the "American Ganges" was drawn by the Protestant German-immigrant, Thomas Nast, who used tropes and images that would have been familiar to readers of German liberal magazines and newspapers.

Gross also argues that another cultural phenomenon that inspired the Kulturkampf was the involvement of Catholic women in public affairs. Gross spends a chapter discussing the issue of the "Women's Question." In Nineteenth Century Germany, the women's question was answered by liberals with the response that "a woman's place was in the home." Women - and men - were expected to respect the distinction between the public and the private. However, Catholic religious orders and lay movement gave women a prominent place in public, which upset liberal Germans. Further, liberal Germans identified Catholicism, and Catholic priests in particular, with "womanly traits," which further played into liberal Anti-Catholic propaganda.

As Gross documents in the writings of liberal politicians and liberal newspapers, liberals viewed the liquidation of Catholicism as a duty imposed on liberals in order to advance the health of German society by removing what liberals believed to be a retarding, regressive force for superstition and ignorance. Because liberals viewed Catholics as being superstitious and ignorant, and Catholicism as being an institution that fostered superstition and ignorance, liberals justified the persecution of Catholics on the grounds that Catholics were not entitled to the benefits of tolerance. Dr. Gross quotes the liberal leader Eduard Windthorst (who was the nephew of the Catholic faction leader, Ludwig Windthorst) that "Freedom protects everything except unfreedom, and tolerance endures everything except intolerance." (id. at p. 259.)

The result of the Kulturkampf was to energize ultramontane Catholics to support the Catholic political party, which became the Catholic Center Party. For the next 50 years, until it disbanded itself under pressure from Hitler, the Catholic Center Party would invariably be one of the larger parties in the German parliament. It would outlast the liberal parties who had persecuted the Catholic Church. The existence of the Center Party confronted Catholics with a fundamental question as to whether they were primarily Catholic or primarily German. As Hastings points out, Hitler would run an effective campaign against "political Catholicism" and argue for the retirement of the Catholic Church from German politics. This was a theme that appealed to many Catholics who felt torn between their Catholic and German identities. Ultimately, the Concordat between Germany and the Vatican, so condemned by John Cornwell, was an effort to achieve this "liberal" goal.

I am glad that I came at Gross' book in the order I did. As with many academic books of this sort, including the books by Steigman-Gall and Hastings, there are a lot of unfamiliar names to keep track of. Gross' writing is clear and his thesis is engaging and well-supported. One of the interesting take-aways for me was the origin of the "Old Catholic Church." I knew that it had formed in opposition to Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility, but I did not understand why such an apparently "conservative" church should be so liberal in its modern form. The answer is that it was formed as a "liberal" reaction to the conservative or ultramontane direction that Catholicism took in the 19th Century.

This book is well worth the price and time spent in reading it for that kind of insight. Too often, we read the past through our modern lenses. This is the reason that people like John Cornwell and his readers can so misunderstand the history of National Socialism and the Catholic Church and draw the wrong lesson from their misunderstanding. John Cornwell would have been well served if he had had - and attempted to understand - the history set forth in this very worthwhile book.
When "not being called racist" is the highest virtue.

London police accused of covering up violent attempt to turn an area in London into an all Muslim enclave.

Victims say that officers in the borough of Tower Hamlets have ignored or downplayed outbreaks of hate crime, and suppressed evidence implicating Muslims in them, because they fear being accused of racism.


The claims come as four Tower Hamlets Muslims were jailed for at least 19 years for attacking a local white teacher who gave religious studies lessons to Muslim girls.

The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered more than a dozen other cases in Tower Hamlets where both Muslims and non-Muslims have been threatened or beaten for behaviour deemed to breach fundamentalist “Islamic norms.”

One victim, Mohammed Monzur Rahman, said he was left partially blind and with a dislocated shoulder after being attacked by a mob in Cannon Street Road, Shadwell, for smoking during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan last year.

“Two guys stopped me in the street and asked me why I was smoking,” he said. “I just carried on, and before I knew another dozen guys came and jumped me. The next thing I knew, I was waking up in hospital.”
This kind of ethnic cleansing behavior sounds a lot like what mexican gangs are accused of doing in Los Angeles.
Allegations like this may support the claim that "ethnic cleansing" may be hard-wired into human nature.  It also correlates with evidence that mixed cultural neighborhoods have less social cohesion and trust than those which is not "multi-cultural."
The good news about a Democrat being in the White House is that there is never any bad news, and when there is bad news...

...it's always "unexpected."

According to Austin Hill at Townhall:

Have you noticed that economic data seems to almost always be reported as a surprise these days? As bad news emerges, it’s being portrayed as though nobody could have possibly seen it coming!


Michael Barone, the esteemed editorialist and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, along with the “Instapundit” blogger Glenn Reynolds, have both noted that the word “unexpectedly” has often accompanied media descriptions of our economy as of late. Sentences like "Previously owned home sales unexpectedly fall," and "New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly climbed," are pretty standard stuff right now, as President Obama ramps-up his re-election bid.

Barone pointed out that to some degree, this is symptomatic of the political bias of many journalists. “It's obviously going to be hard to achieve the unacknowledged goal of many mainstream journalists -- the president's re-election -- if the economic slump continues” he wrote late last month. “So they characterize economic setbacks as unexpected, with the implication that there's still every reason to believe that, in Herbert Hoover's phrase, prosperity is just around the corner.”

But Barone also noted that many media professionals really believe President Obama’s economic policies – massive government regulation of business, and lots and lots of deficit spending – are actually conducive to economic growth. “A less cynical explanation,” Barone noted about the surprised reporters, “is that many journalists really believe that the Obama administration's policies are likely to improve the economy. Certainly that has been the expectation as well as the hope of administration policymakers.”

I think that Barone is correct on both accounts. But I also believe that journalists and members of the Obama Administration are not the only people who are surprised. Lots of “Obama faithful,” who were quick to embrace his economic rhetoric as the 2008 crisis unfolded, are now genuinely shocked that things haven’t worked out.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Tax Policy in Action.

According to Reason:

The Alternative Minimum Tax was created in 1969 to prevent 155 extremely wealthy taxpayers from using deductions and credits to avoid paying any federal income taxes. Yet as Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy explains in her latest appearance on Bloomberg TV, today the tax overwhelmingly impacts non-millionaires living in just a handful of states. By separating economic myths from economic realities, de Rugy explains the facts about the Alternative Minimum Tax.



All you need is one good year and a single years income approaching $300k to have an extra $10k gouged out of your hide over what you would pay under the normal tax schedules.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Compare and Contrast.

As the media go dumpster-diving through Sarah Palin's e-mails, the media had no interest in Obama's, and still doesn't.

He's only the President. It's not like he's something important like a former governor of Alaska, or something.
From the "Cognitive Dissonance" File - Another new atheist effort to convince you...

...that you do not exist.

Mike Flynn takes on Sam Harris' argument that self-consciousness is an illusion. Harris relies on an experiment that purportedly shows that brain activity purportedly showing that a decision has been made precedes the subject's conscious awareness of the decision.  It is a classic experiment that supposedly cast doubts on self-awareness (but what it may show is that the decision is made by something not subject to measurement before it is communicated to the embodied portion of the self.)

Flynn's post starts thus:

Once more a public thinker has set forth to prove in public that he has no mind. The brain atoms inhabiting the vehicle called "Sam Harris" have moved Mr. Harris's fingers to type a blog post yclept: Free Will (And Why You Still Don't Have It) contending that he did not intend to type a blog post, but was caused to do so by a congeries of external and internal stimuli.


 
The post is an excerpt and/or digest of a section of the book which the brain atoms, responding to information from the external world, internal states of the body, and the ennoiasphere, entitled The Moral Landscape. Like Condorcet before him, Sam Harris expects that he can find morality inductively by means of physical science, as if by knowing the mass of an electron he would tell us whether we should off granny for the inheritance. In the course of this, his brain output replicated the following external stimuli:

 
Maundering Becomes Elektra

 
"The physiologist Benjamin Libet famously demonstrated that activity in the brain's motor regions can be detected some 300 milliseconds before a person feels that he has decided to move. Another lab recently used fMRI data to show that some "conscious" decisions can be predicted up to 10 seconds before they enter awareness (long before the preparatory motor activity detected by Libet). Clearly, findings of this kind are difficult to reconcile with the sense that one is the conscious source of one's actions."
Actually, findings of this kind are difficult to reconcile with the idea that they are scientific experiments, since they invariably over-interpret the actual empirical observations. Identifying the "response potential" with the "moment of decision" is to beg the question.
It seems to me that not only does this beg the question, it is entirely consistent with the Thomistic notion that the self is composed of a physical body and an immaterial intellect, and that the intellect - specifically, the will - is where the decision is made.

Flynn points out:

Now, how did Lisbet know when his subjects made a decision? The subjects self reported where a dot was on a clockface when they "felt" they had decided. But visual processing is sluggish. At the moment of decision, the subject would be "seeing" an earlier time than the present but which had only then been processed by the visual system. Curiously, no one contends that this proves that vision is an illusion.
And:

Lisbet was actually aware of the problem of viscosity in response and tried to correct for it by a separate experiment estimating the time lag. He did this by applying a mild electrical shock to the back of the hand and noting when the subject reported feeling the shock. However, the time lag for tactile sensations is shorter than for visual (or auditory) sensations, thus Lisbet's correction was not enough. The 300 milliseconds appears to be an artifact of this effect.
Two other researchers, Miller and Trevena, also used scalp electrodes, but asked the subjects to wait for an audio tone before deciding whether or not to tap a key. An RP dutifully appeared but the signal was the same whether or not they elected to tap the key. Clearly, the RP is not an actual decision to move. Miller concluded that it might merely signal that the brain is paying attention.


 
Harris's brain atoms did not output this particular external stimulus into his essay.
 
 
Convenient that last, but it is not Harris' fault - it is his faulty brain wiring.
 
Flynn discusses the second experiment which Harris uses to attempt to persuade you that you do not exist:
 
The second experiment mentioned by Harris' brain atoms is that of Chun Siong Soon (et al.), described here. Subjects' brains were scanned by fMRI as they decided to press a button with their right or left index fingers, thus making it really-truly scientificalistic. To peg the moment-of-decision, subjects referred to a stream of letters on a screen. Patterns of brain activity in two areas "correlated" with the left/right decision appeared "up to" ten seconds before participants reported making their conscious decision.


 
Soon's study also predicted whether the subject would use his left or right hand well before they supposedly knew which choice they'd made. None of the accounts I've seen mentioned whether Soon had taken handedness into account. (I can predict pretty near 100% which hand my wife will use to write a note.) Also, in one account, I saw that this prediction was made correctly only about 65% of the time. This is significant only if Ho = 50% and people choose their hands at random. But it is well known that people cannot choose at random, and Soon's study seems to be another, more expensive confirmation of this. In my stat classes I have asked people to randomly choose one of the numbers 1 2 3 4, and about 50% will choose 3 when random chance would predict 25%. Almost no one chooses 1 or 4.

 
That someone might rev up his motor response region in anticipation of an immanent decision seems not to have crossed anyone's mind. Perhaps it was not one of the external stimuli in the "sphere of meaning" in which the Harris brain atoms float.

 
Flynn notes that Harris actually vindicates Thomistic-Aristotelianism:
 
The brain atoms of Mr. Harris output the following response to various external stimuli:


 
"The human brain must respond to information coming from several domains: from the external world, from internal states of the body, and, increasingly, from a sphere of meaning--which includes spoken and written language, social cues, cultural norms, rituals of interaction, assumptions about the rationality of others, judgments of taste and style, etc. Generally, these streams of information seem unified in our experience."
Mr. Harris' brain atoms are to be congratulated for coming up with a nugget of Aristotelian-Thomistic psychology. (Although they seem to refer to "brain" and "mind" as if they were the same thing. This is circular, assuming that which ought to be proved.) I have given the name ennoiasphere to the "sphere of meaning." This provides a suitable pseudo-scientific patina to it. Harris' brain atoms seem to thing this ennoiasphere is something new that "increasingly" provides something called "information." But that "spoken and written language, social cues, cultural norms, rituals of interaction, assumptions about the rationality of others, judgments of taste and style, etc." was well known to Thomas Aquinas, who included it under the term "habits." Habits could be cultural, personal, or (as we now know) genetic. But habit is not a defeater for free will. It was known to Aquinas, and to Aristotle. One suspects even Plato knew of it.
The Aristo-Thomist model of the mind (or "soul") is shown in the figure below. I posted it once before, but it is worth reposting, since Harris and his disciples appear never to have heard of it.


Flynn identifies the "perception" stage with "common sense" which coordinates the disparate and disorganized sense experience into a unified experience.

Flynn observes:

The Harris brain atoms write on and claim:


 
"The truth seems inescapable: I, as the subject of my experience, cannot know what I will next think or do until a thought or intention arises; and thoughts and intentions are caused by physical events and mental stirrings of which I am not aware."
Now the first part is uncontroversial. It is like saying I cannot take a step without making a footprint. That I do not know what I will think until I think it is a tautology. I cannot taste food until I eat it. But the second part is simply to assert what the brain atoms ought to be proving. The Harris vehicle's admission that he has written an entire essay without being aware of the "mental stirrings" is indeed tragic and we ought to entertain the possibility that this is actually what Harris' mind is like.

 
However, it is as logically impossible for brain states to be thoughts as it is for printed text to be thoughts. The letters or patterns are themselves devoid of meaning. The lines that combine to form the shape H do not necessarily give rise to the knowledge of the sound "en." It does so only when a mind uses the Cyrillic alphabet to represent sounds. If erosion scratched into a rock parallel lines and cross-lines that took on the shape НЕТ, it would not be Nature telling us "NO." If we observe a stone in free fall, it does not necessarily give rise to the idea of gravity. It might give rise to the idea of "Run! Avalanche!" Materialistically, we can only ever observe a stone in free fall. Whatever meaning it has depends on the POV from which we view it. Most of life must be lived on automatic pilot. That's why in addition to genetically-induced habits, we deliberately memorize alphabets and multiplication tables (or used to) as well as virtuous habits. Humans are rational animals and a rational animal is of course an animal. I once walked home from the dry cleaners down the block on autopilot while I mulled over some statistical issue, and did not come to until, inserting the key, I missed the lock and had to call on my conscious mind to finish the task. During that brief walk, I experienced something of what it was like to be a non-rational animal.
And:

Recall that the proper object of the will is a concept (not switch flipping or finger-twitching) stripped by the intellect of all the particulars of a percept. This means that the intellect presents to the will a concept that is undetermined to this or that particular "dog." Since the object presented by the intellect is not known perfectly, the will is free to accept or reject it, or to choose this or that means to attain/avoid it. The Harris atoms come close to this by saying that they "cannot know what I [sic] will next think or do until a thought or intention arises," but he seems to think the indeterminacy of the intellect is an argument against the freedom of the will rather than the basis for it!


When the intellect presents to the will a concept such as 2+2=4, the will is perfectly determined toward it and cannot withhold consent. (We assume that the signs have been learned and understood in the normal way.) But when the intellect presents, say, the idea of helping the poor, the concept is not fully grasped. Who are the "poor"? What does it mean to "help" them? A particular means -- say, this program -- does not command assent since it may be ineffective, counterproductive, or less effective than that program. The will is therefore not determined to this or that and may give or withhold assent freely.

 
Think of "free" as being like "play" in engineering. The will is determined always to the good, but the intellect does not always know perfectly what is good, and a particular object may not be good from every perspective. If it were good from every perspective, the will could not freely withhold consent. But then it would be free in the sense that nothing now holds it back from attaining its natural end. Think of a stone in free fall, moving always toward the minimal gravitational potential. In the same manner, the will when unencumbered by ignorance would move toward the perfect good. Makes you wish we had a name for the Perfect Good, hey?

 
"Free" does not mean that the will assents randomly or unpredictably; nor does it mean that it assents without reason or motive or in the absence of external stimuli from the ennoiasphere. Nor even that it might not be hobbled by ignorance, habit, brain injury, and what have you. We do not freely will in a vacuum.
 
 
But then the Harris brain atoms go on to spoil the perfect reasoning:


 
"None of this, however, renders the choices we make in life any less important. ... the fact that our choices depend on prior causes does not mean that they do not matter. If I had not decided to write my last book, it wouldn't have written itself. My choice to write it was unquestionably the primary cause of its coming into being."
Choices? What choices? There is only the wind of causation blowing through the neural trees of the Harris brain. Decided? But that he decided to write the book implies that he could have decided not to write it. (Or that he could have written it differently.) But by his prior account, the book did indeed write itself, because it was only a response to a set of causes passing through the forest of neurons. On what grounds do we privilege those neurons as the cause of the book and not the sundry stimuli beyond them? How do we justify any particular cut-off point in what must be a chain of causation stretching back to the Big Bang and say here is where the choice begins?

"Decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, willpower, etc., are causal states of the brain, leading to specific behaviors, and behaviors lead to outcomes in the world. Human choice, therefore, is as important as fanciers of free will believe."
The Harris vehicle cannot resist flinching at the last and surrendering its materialism. How can there be willpower without a will? How can choice be important when the will is not free? (For that matter, if there is no volition, how can intellect act?) This is utterly incoherent. No one doubts that decisions, intentions, et al. are associated with brain states, but just as footprints don't cause walking, the brain states might not "cause" thinking.

 
Heck, there are interesting cases of people leading normal lives with virtually no brain at all. A young boy lacking a cerebellum should not be able to walk; but he does. A student lacking nearly all his cortex should not get A's in math, but he does. What happens is that in some cases the mind recruits other regions of the brain to carry out functions usually performed by the missing or damaged regions. How this could happen would be an intriguing research topic.
Sure sounds like there is a non-material element of the self.

Rabbi Moshe Averick makes a similar point in "Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist."  From my Kindle, I've excerpted the following observations:

  • “Words” and “ideas” are two separate things The thought “I want a drink,” is not the same thing as the words “I want a drink.” In fact, the two in a certain sense have absolutely nothing to do with each other. My daughter understood by certain sounds her little brother made that he was thinking inside his head “I want a drink,” even though he could not yet speak the words, and in fact he was even too young to think the words. The words themselves mean nothing at all. They are simply arbitrary sounds that we use to express an idea.Read more at location 2775 • Delete this highlight • Undo deletion
  • The idea itself, “I want a drink of water,” is not accessible through any of our physical senses, nor can it be quantified or measured, for the simple reason that it is not physical or material in any way.Read more at location 2793 • Delete this highlight • Undo deletion
  • Evolutionary biologist George Williams put it this way, “You can speak of galaxies and particles of dust in the same terms because they both have mass and charge and length and width. [But] you can’t do that with information and matter…Information doesn’t have mass or charge or length in millimeters…”32Read more at location 2796 • Delete this highlight • Undo deletion
  • This self-declared “proud atheist” manages to seamlessly weave the “m” word into his description of that remarkable faculty called language in the very first paragraph of his award winning book, The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language: You are taking part in one of the wonders of the natural world. For you and I are members of a species with a remarkable ability…That ability is language…The ability comes so naturally that we are apt to forget what a miracle it is.Read more at location 2800
  • A miracle, indeed! All day long we are involved in binding together the spiritual reality of ideas and thoughts, with the physical reality of sound. Speech is nothing less than one soul relaying a spiritual message to another soul through the physical medium of sound. We are just so used to it, that we never take the trouble to think about what is actually happening.Read more at location 2805 • Delete this highlight • Undo deletion
  • All thoughts, ideas, and information are spiritual entities that can only be brought into our material word by being attached to a material entity (i.e. writing, sound, gestures, etc.)

So, not only does the "self" have a spiritual/intellectual component, but ideas are essentially spiritual/intellectual.  That's not surprising since if the "thing" that makes decisions is spiritual/intellectual it will perforce necessarily "use" spiritual/intellectual "things" to perform its function.

Flynn concludes:

As usual when we get to the mountain top we find Thomas Aquinas there with a lemonade stand. Thomas distinguished between "human acts" and "acts of a man." The acts of a man were precisely those mechanical acts that Tallis speaks of and which the Harris brain-states output as being the whole ball of wax. The human acts are precisely the rational acts, the ones that call upon intellect and will.
 
Who links to me?