Lance again
I've been wanting to post an article I read called "Survival of the Fakest" by a guy named Jonathan Wells. The gist is: there are a few basic myths about evolution that are continually propagated in textbooks, including college texts, even though scientists know they are wrong.
I haven't been able to find a working link to it online, and the pdf I have is nearly 5 MB in size. Can you guys handle an email that size?
There is this link, to a series of his articles, but the one I want doesn't seem to work. I also found some criticisms of his opinion after googling his name, but haven't read them thouroughly.
Can some of you who are more educated in the scientists take a look at this, and respond with your thoughts?
Email me and tell me where to send the pdf.
Friday, July 30, 2004
Lance
A sign of old age? Last night at dinner, MJ told me to be sure and leave room for cake. Five years ago, that sentence would have been meaningless to me. Why would someone have to "save" room for cake? I always have room for cake.
Instead, I realized she was right, and forwent my fourth barbequed leg quarter.
A sign of old age? Last night at dinner, MJ told me to be sure and leave room for cake. Five years ago, that sentence would have been meaningless to me. Why would someone have to "save" room for cake? I always have room for cake.
Instead, I realized she was right, and forwent my fourth barbequed leg quarter.
Todd’s back. Front too.
Steve: I wasn’t going to reply to your 7-23 post, because there didn’t seem to be anything to respond to. But I think I’ve figured it out.
The really substantial claim is that I’ve rejected preexisting or absolute truth. That is a fallacy. There is such a thing as absolute truth, but human knowledge is incomplete, so we don’t always know what it is.
I know that I can’t walk through a door without opening it first. I know that the empty rumbling sensation in my gut can be remedied by eating. I know that the Earth is rotating and so the sun will rise in the morning. I know all this because I’ve learned it through experience; that’s called ‘a posteriori’ knowledge (but you probably knew that).
I don’t know how the physical structure of my brain produces my personality, memory, imagination. I don’t know that because human knowledge hasn’t advanced to that level yet. Maybe it never will.
There are lots of things we don’t know. That creates uncertainty. Belief in god eases the uncertainty because where I say ‘I don’t know,’ you can say ‘god did it,’ or ‘god has a plan.’ There’s nothing wrong with ‘I don’t know.’
By the way, if I don’t believe god exists, how am I going to believe he’s looking over my shoulder?
I mean, I don’t hate the Galactic Empire either. Oh, wait…
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Steve Re: Police car still there.
Even after adjusting my rear view mirror to rid my reality of the police car, I didn’t like the new panorama. No problem, I’ll just readjust it again to find something more aesthetic. In my attempt to create a more palatable world view, I can see that that pig is still back there. And he’s got his flashing lights on! Move it again... Ahhh, there’s a beautiful forest framed by the colorful setting sun. How comfortable.
But I can’t quite shake that copmobile situation. It’s really bugging me. And even with my windows up and the air conditioner on, I swear I can hear a siren from time to time. Quick! I’ll duck into my office building parking lot and hustle into the building. Whew! There’s a bathroom. That’s better. What’s that? Rapid footsteps on the tile in the hallway? Into a stall and put my feet up on the bowl in case anyone is searching for me. Good, I’m safe. I’ll wash my hands ‘cause that’s what the sign says. I’m sure a man of high integrity. I’ll even use soap– nahh! What’s that– a zit on my nose? Ahhh! That cop is right behind me! To my cubicle. What’s the boss doing? I wish he’d stop looking over my shoulder. Leave, dammit, leave, pah-leez. Good– he didn’t catch my fudging in the report. Rats! I feel a little guilty. Stinkin’ conscience. Lunch! This little café has the greatest donuts. Mmmm! Oh, crap! Here comes my personal trainer! Quick– swallow and wipe the crumbs from your mouth. Grab that Perrier. Ok, ok, I’ll take the stairs up to the second floor rather than the elevator. Damn boss. I think that Schwartz has been spying and ratfinking on me, too. How’d he swing that supervisor’s job? Frickin’ brown nose. Oooo, that Doris is really hot. Short skirt, tight top. Ooof-dah. D’oh! Frannie caught me droolin’. She’s a friend of my wife. Home at last! Hi, dear. Yes, yes, no... (stop nagging, willya?) Check the mail, crud, another notice from the IRS. Newspaper– Darn! My DUI is listed in the Police Beat section. Get outta here, kid, can’t you see I’m takin’ a crap? There’s my Valium. (Stop nagging, honey!) I’ll do it tomorrow. Ahh– bed– who could be calling at this hour– stupid telemarketer! Arrghh! Nightmare... cop following... conspiracy to get me... Don’t they make an anti-angst drug? Stop nagging, dear. I’ll gladly do it Tuesday.
No wonder I hate God. I’m here just trying to live my own life, trying to mind my own business, but there he always is looking over my shoulder judging every thought, word, and action. (As though I am responsible to him) And I never measure up, ‘cause he’s got this thing about accepting only perfection when all men fall short. And there’s some bunk about Jesus Christ and his ability to save us from our deserved condemnation.
But, you know, I don’t want to be ‘saved’ and have to spend eternity bowing down, worshiping, glorifying, and singing hymns in praise to this god that I hate. What a drag. I don’t really feature going to what they call ‘hell’, but it will sure beat the heavenly alternative. I want to live my own life in my own way, to be my own god.
"La-la-la-la-la!" – Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead." – God
Friday, July 23, 2004
Steve Re: ‘La-La-La-La’
The little child stubbornly stands with his eyes closed tightly and with his hands covering his ears while shouting, "La-la-la-la-la, I don’t see you. I can’t hear you!"
Oh, excuse me. That’s not a bratty little kid, that’s an atheist, an agnostic, a religionist that has created god and the universe in his own image. They are really hard to tell apart.
The tantrum, now resembling a grand mal seizure, knocks Pandora’s Crock from the shelf and breaks it on the floor, leaking its virulent contents. The hissy fit has achieved its purpose– freedom from oppression and liberation from accountability.
The practical lessons in freedom here are manifold. For example, when one is driving and sees a police car in his rear view mirror, the driver no longer has to follow the mythical rules of the road to avoid being ticketed. All that he has to do is adjust the rear view mirror to a position that makes the squad car nonexistent. How good it is to be able to throw off the shackles of old prescientific, superstitious repressions. You are in a white Ford Bronco rolling casually down the freeway without a care in the world of your own creation.
One little problem has developed since you have gained your precious freedom and have been inoculated against any claims of preexisting or absolute truth. Although you are now free to create the world in your own image, so is everyone else. And most of them are really dumb asses! Now there’s a cross to bear. In response you can withdraw altogether or align your dominion with other like minded gods to commingle power in order to affect change toward a better world– a world in conformity to your visionary image.
You and the other select members of your godhead see a problem and take action. In your superior knowledge and being, you needn’t consult the accrued wisdom of the masses throughout time and experience along with their resulting institutions. Their mythological folklore isn’t logical and scientific as is yours.
Don’t bother yourself about disastrous results, you are free from accountability. Just readjust your rear view mirror and keep on sailing. Your goals are holy. Follow the example of the radical homosexual leaders. Their goals are sacrosanct so there is no need to be mortified by their ship’s wake while cutting through the ocean of blood, suffering, and destruction. There are scapegoats aplenty– anyone who dares oppose the pronouncements of the godhead. If you could just assume a little more power..., judges...
All standing institutions, cultural mores, and standards in some way oppress freedom. They must all be destroyed. For these purposes, it is beneficial to have a multitude of ‘useful idiots’, those who would deny God’s authority, but still are intelligent and compassionate, retaining a vestige of Christian cultural conscience. They will lend all manner of support while also ignoring the actual causes of the destruction wreaked. Save the whales! (But the whales, intelligent creatures, are fleeing from their helping hand.) One whale, upon hearing of another liberal salvific solution, was overheard to say, "Thar she blows!"
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Steve Re: The Charge of the Light Brigade
Forty per cent of the brigade was wiped out because the orders were misconveyed and confused. The strategic move, intended for a reasonably safe flanking action, needlessly sent many of Britain’s finest young men to their deaths headlong into the Russian’s heavy guns. It was war and men die. But the horror for the family and nation was multiplied for this needless slaughter of their loved ones.
Tennyson’s poem immortalized these men’s deaths. The U.S. is living through its own version of The Charge of the Light Brigade, but with a few alterations. Our slaughter did not take place on foreign soil. Our version has no famous poets or writers to immortalize it– no famous faces on TV decrying its injustice. Worst of all, ours didn’t occur from miscommunicated orders. It is an intentional, ongoing sacrifice of tens of thousands of our finest young men for a political advantage. And the Light Brigade horsemen are still charging to their doom. Curiously, their commanders are not vilified, but honored, and indeed increasing in political power and influence.
The commander-shepherds rant against oppression and preach rights and liberation. The lambs follow eagerly unto their slow, agonizing deaths. The finger of blame is pointed at an unjust, repressive society and ignorant guilt oozes though its pores.
In some manner our society does bear a great deal of guilt, not for its oppressive nature, but for its cowardice and chosen ignorance. Its cowardice is shown by the fact that the HIV/AIDS epidemic could have been deterred. The steps successfully taken in other public health epidemics could have greatly slowed or halted this one. But they cowed to the threatening demands of the leaders of the liberation movement.
Society’s ignorance developed from its rejection of God. Without him as a final authority, without him as the source of truth there remains nothing solid to stand on. The spines of political leaders and public health experts turned to jell-O before the playground bullying tactics of the radical liberators. (No GUT’s, eh?) Pragmatism + logical relativity + situational ethics= agonizing death within the Light Brigade and untold grief for their friends and families, as well as great loss for the nation.
The commanders of the Light Brigade continue their gains of wealth and power and their sheep to slaughter. They press on abetted by countless ‘useful idiots’ joining the choir. And they call it ‘Gay Liberation’.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Todd
I've been away for a while and don't have too much time right now. Stay with me; I'm reaching back a ways for some of this.
Religion. Steve: "Billy Bob hoped that he would still be able to bring his Bible to school and read it in free time. He hoped he could still write essays on spiritual matters and give Christian literature to and pray for his classmates while telling them about Christ.
Does your ‘freedom of religion’ tenant allow Billy Bob to do this without government opposition?"
Freedom of religion applies to me just as it does to you and Billy Bob. That means not only the freedom to study it, but also the freedom not to have it shoved in one's face. BB should be allowed to do the things you listed (handing out literature is problematic, but since he's a student, not a teacher, I'll go with it) but he has to respect my beliefs and leave me alone when I tell him to.
Gay marriage. I've been pretty vocal about this elsewhere.
Lance: "If two homosexuals want to get married, they can: mail announcements, buy dresses (and/or rent tuxes), have a big ceremony and reception (there are churches and clergy who will perform the ceremony, if that's what the happy couple wants), wear the rings, go on a honeymoon, call each other husband and/or wife, even adopt children. Inheritance, end-of-life arrangements, and so forth can be handled through powers of attorney. Yes, those can be challenged, but that's true of heterosexual marriages, too, even with the state involved.
The only thing a homosexual couple can't have right now, that I can in my marriage, is the government benefits - the tax breaks, the employer benefits (although those are increasingly being offered to gay couples). Gay activists say it's not about the money - great. Then what's the problem?"
'What's the problem' back atcha. You're saying they already have all these things, and (my inference) that it's okay, while arguing that they shouldn't have the right to them.
I've gotta bottom-line this (I'm a little tired): the government should offer its benefits to all or to none.
Steve: "I do not advocate discrimination against homosexuals in all this marriage hoopla. I believe that a homosexual man may marry a woman just as a straight man may. Where's the discrimination?"
There is so much wrong with this argument...focus, man, focus. Short answer, a homosexual man cannot marry the person he would choose to marry. For the long answer, I'll send you here (do we have a policy on the ethics of siccing other bloggers on each other?). You'll like him, Steve, his posts are really long.
I am grateful that the 'gay marriage would destroy the institution' and 'gay marriage would open the door to polygamy, bestiality, incest, etc, etc' arguments haven't come up here. Those things make me want to throw things at the TV screen.
Finally, Dad: "Mr. Pterry has been reading and reporting an explanation for how this old game works! Thank you Mr. Pterry!! I'm sure that the string theory is just what we all needed!!"
What the heck are you talking about? And while I'm at it, could you go a little easy with the colors?
I've noticed that the discussion here has mainly been you/me vs. Lance/Steve. We should find something to disagree about too. Not the war though, we've done that to death.
I've been away for a while and don't have too much time right now. Stay with me; I'm reaching back a ways for some of this.
Religion. Steve: "Billy Bob hoped that he would still be able to bring his Bible to school and read it in free time. He hoped he could still write essays on spiritual matters and give Christian literature to and pray for his classmates while telling them about Christ.
Does your ‘freedom of religion’ tenant allow Billy Bob to do this without government opposition?"
Freedom of religion applies to me just as it does to you and Billy Bob. That means not only the freedom to study it, but also the freedom not to have it shoved in one's face. BB should be allowed to do the things you listed (handing out literature is problematic, but since he's a student, not a teacher, I'll go with it) but he has to respect my beliefs and leave me alone when I tell him to.
Gay marriage. I've been pretty vocal about this elsewhere.
Lance: "If two homosexuals want to get married, they can: mail announcements, buy dresses (and/or rent tuxes), have a big ceremony and reception (there are churches and clergy who will perform the ceremony, if that's what the happy couple wants), wear the rings, go on a honeymoon, call each other husband and/or wife, even adopt children. Inheritance, end-of-life arrangements, and so forth can be handled through powers of attorney. Yes, those can be challenged, but that's true of heterosexual marriages, too, even with the state involved.
The only thing a homosexual couple can't have right now, that I can in my marriage, is the government benefits - the tax breaks, the employer benefits (although those are increasingly being offered to gay couples). Gay activists say it's not about the money - great. Then what's the problem?"
'What's the problem' back atcha. You're saying they already have all these things, and (my inference) that it's okay, while arguing that they shouldn't have the right to them.
I've gotta bottom-line this (I'm a little tired): the government should offer its benefits to all or to none.
Steve: "I do not advocate discrimination against homosexuals in all this marriage hoopla. I believe that a homosexual man may marry a woman just as a straight man may. Where's the discrimination?"
There is so much wrong with this argument...focus, man, focus. Short answer, a homosexual man cannot marry the person he would choose to marry. For the long answer, I'll send you here (do we have a policy on the ethics of siccing other bloggers on each other?). You'll like him, Steve, his posts are really long.
I am grateful that the 'gay marriage would destroy the institution' and 'gay marriage would open the door to polygamy, bestiality, incest, etc, etc' arguments haven't come up here. Those things make me want to throw things at the TV screen.
Finally, Dad: "Mr. Pterry has been reading and reporting an explanation for how this old game works! Thank you Mr. Pterry!! I'm sure that the string theory is just what we all needed!!"
What the heck are you talking about? And while I'm at it, could you go a little easy with the colors?
I've noticed that the discussion here has mainly been you/me vs. Lance/Steve. We should find something to disagree about too. Not the war though, we've done that to death.
Monday, July 19, 2004
Lance Re: gay marriage
Todd, focus, man, focus back atcha. I'm saying homosexuals already have all these things because they do. I'm not arguing they shouldn't have the right to them. Never have. I didn't write that.
That post you cited wasn't meant to be a full analysis of my view on the issue: it was aimed specifically at the pro-gay marriage argument that it's not about the benefits, but about acceptance. Just some thoughts about that I've been kicking around. I actually have yet to come to a comfortable position on the issue, so I reserve the right to argue different points until I do.
Let me put it a different way: three of us on this blog are married. If there were no financial benefits to marriage, would that have stopped any of us? Marriage existed long before the government marriage license and employer benefits.
Maybe homosexuals would do themselves better simply by living their lives the way they've chosen to live them. I do not need government approval to validate my life choices, and they should not need it, either.
Todd, focus, man, focus back atcha. I'm saying homosexuals already have all these things because they do. I'm not arguing they shouldn't have the right to them. Never have. I didn't write that.
That post you cited wasn't meant to be a full analysis of my view on the issue: it was aimed specifically at the pro-gay marriage argument that it's not about the benefits, but about acceptance. Just some thoughts about that I've been kicking around. I actually have yet to come to a comfortable position on the issue, so I reserve the right to argue different points until I do.
Let me put it a different way: three of us on this blog are married. If there were no financial benefits to marriage, would that have stopped any of us? Marriage existed long before the government marriage license and employer benefits.
Maybe homosexuals would do themselves better simply by living their lives the way they've chosen to live them. I do not need government approval to validate my life choices, and they should not need it, either.
Steve Re:tort to Todd
Todd, I do apologize for my lack of focus. I really do need to show more consideration for the potential readers of my posts. From now on I will try to write more s-l-o-w-l-y.
I am especially concerned that it appears that you may be suffering from the same drug and alcohol problem that I used to have.
In your school days did you score poorly on the reading comprehension section of any standardized tests that you may have taken? I believe that even Evelyn Wood requires that you read it all and consider context.
I claimed that the word marriage means man and woman; not man and women, woman and men, man and man, woman and woman. As Todd 'Webster', you, by some unknown warrant, change it to man and person, or woman and person. The post that you sicced on me (It was very good, by the way!) derided those who would change the word to mean man and the one he loves, woman and the one she loves. And why not? You alter the meaning in one way, someone else another. That opened the can of worms that you claim to so dearly love-- beastiality, children, the dead, and life-like dolls. (Considering your aim, I don't thing your TV screen is in jeopardy unless it is very, very large!)
General George Washington writes home to his wife after a successful day of routing Hessians. "My dear, I am feeling particularly gay this day." I expect that neither Martha nor the kids would have considered questioning his sexuality. But if George W. Bush wrote that...
You didn't want little Billy Bob shoving it in your face. The Massachusetts Supreme Court appears to be shoving their agenda in a lot of faces and that far beyond the borders of their own state. (The article to which you sent me stated, "...the issue of gay marriage should not be slipped through using arcane legal arguments before a court. It is fundamentally a political question, and it should be decided using political processes, taking into account the attitudes and opinions of the collective citizenry."
I did bring up the beastiality issue-- Timmy's gettin' some weird ideas about Lassie.
I did try to pick a fight with Lance-- The monkeys without enough panache to seduce a frog. (Evolution is a big joke.)
Todd, I'm afraid that if you keep up this kind of shoddy work, you will be banished from the 'Rising Stars' list on the place you directed me.
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Steve Re: Opportunity, education, courts, culture
Jack: Geez, I had forgotten that Twinkies were invented, too. Crap! That just blows the hell out of all my assertions. I guess I’m just too dull witted to assimilate all the endarkenment photons of the last 50- 60 years.
The idea of equal education/equal opportunity has to send the liberal into spin city. Assuming that unequal results actually represent a problem and that inner city dwellers are not innately inferior, the liberal has no choice but to convict the society of sin and develop a policy of atonement. The Liberal Credo (which for brevity I’ll shorten to Libido) must tweak the rights/responsibilities section to say, ‘Exercising our [society’s] rights means taking responsibility for our actions, and their effects on others. [Inner city students, et. al.]’ Since interpretation of any written document can vary according to need, this spin activity brings no difficulty. (Freedom of [from] conscience) This is the same tactic used in a recent attempt to extract compensation for descendants of slaves.
His Libido ‘must respect the life choices of others’ so he cannot act or speak against the inner city subculture itself. So ‘Abracadabra’ and Poof! We need an even more comprehensive safety net to bring salvation to those who are falling through the cracks.
The character of the inner city subculture is most greatly to blame and until that changes no amount of financing, education, or opportunity will alter the outcomes. ‘...not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.’ I would go so far as to claim that some or many of the fundamentalist disciples of the Libido actually do think that the ‘downtrodden’ minorities are innately inferior and cannot work out a meaningful quality of life without the help of the libs.
Historically, there have been many groups/subcultures that have immigrated and lived in the depths of poverty in this country. Without any substantial government aid they raised themselves despite their lacks of education and initial opportunity. How were they successful? And how did the Asian immigrants of the past century promote themselves out of the depths?
While living near the Gulf Coast of Texas, I was able to observe the Vietnamese community successes. From destitution they lived frugally, worked extremely hard, and saved. They bought and lived on their own shrimp boats, not taking time off or giving up. The first generation required their children to achieve a quality education and language proficiency. In one generation they had vaulted to a high standard despite all the natural and societal hardships placed on them.
I also regularly read editorials by a writer named Newberry in the Houston Post. His theme usually involved the racist nature of our society and how blacks were shut out because of it. In one editorial he started with the same criticisms, but in the middle he recounted his conversations with Nigerian immigrants who extolled the innumerable opportunities this country held forth. Then Newberry ended his article in the same racist tone with which he began along with the obligatory demands for further government intervention. D’oh!
"U.S.S. Enterprise to Liberal Exploration Team."
"Aye, Captain."
"Set your phasers to STUNT."
"Been there, done that, Captain."
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Lance
Do I believe kids in inner city Milwaukee have equal opportunity for a good education?
I believe the state is providing the same level of opportunity for kids in inner city Milwaukee that they're providing for kids in Baraboo. Thirteen years of free education.
Just look at your assertion again: Equality of opportunity requires all Americans to have access to a basic education.
Every child in Wisconsin has the opportunity to attend thirteen years of school, for free. All of these schools are required to offer a certain number of classes in all the basics - the three R's plus a few things. All are staffed by professional teachers who went to college to become teachers and successfully graduated.
That's equality of opportunity. It's there. It's being provided. In reality, we know that not everyone is able to fully take advantage of that opportunity. I'll come back to that.
I think you're looking at the outcomes - the low test scores - and assuming that means that opportunity isn't equal.
Note that, when the paper reports "low test scores" for MPS, what they're saying is a very high percentage of students score low. There are still students scoring very high in those schools: they are taking advantage of the opportunities before them. In Baraboo, a district with "high test scores," there are still students scoring in the lowest percentiles. These students are not taking advantage of their opportunities.
Why is that? The opportunities are equal. The environments in which individuals live aren't.
As a human being, I find it tragic that so many kids are going to grow up without a good education. As a conservative, I admit that there's a limit to what we can do about that. No matter how much money we spend on education, no matter how many programs we create, the state can't do everything.
One child lives in a home where the parents (or, more likely, parent) is rarely home, whether because the parent has to work a lot, or because the parent is out drinking all the time (or worse). No supervision, no books, nobody checking homework. This child has a very poor chance of getting a good education, no matter how much money the state spends.
Another child has college-educated parents who stress the importance of education, encourage the child to read, and insist that the child do his/her best in school. This child has a very good chance of getting a good education, even if conditions at school aren't the best.
Note that having parents home a lot isn't the only factor: Todd and I were latchkey kids for most of our school years, as I recall. We both did fine in school. I think we can attribute that to having college educated parents who stressed the importance of education.
But some kids don't have that. What are we supposed to do? Take them away from their homes?
In the same way, there's very little the state can do to make sure people live healthy lives. It would be better all around - for individuals and for society - if everybody ate right, exercised regularly, and quit smoking. We all have the opportunity to do these things. Some of us take that opportunity, some of us don't.
This is, I think, a basic tenet of American-style conservatism: the state does what it can, but we can't (and shouldn't) depend on it for everything. Individuals have to take responsibility for themselves.
Do I believe kids in inner city Milwaukee have equal opportunity for a good education?
I believe the state is providing the same level of opportunity for kids in inner city Milwaukee that they're providing for kids in Baraboo. Thirteen years of free education.
Just look at your assertion again: Equality of opportunity requires all Americans to have access to a basic education.
Every child in Wisconsin has the opportunity to attend thirteen years of school, for free. All of these schools are required to offer a certain number of classes in all the basics - the three R's plus a few things. All are staffed by professional teachers who went to college to become teachers and successfully graduated.
That's equality of opportunity. It's there. It's being provided. In reality, we know that not everyone is able to fully take advantage of that opportunity. I'll come back to that.
I think you're looking at the outcomes - the low test scores - and assuming that means that opportunity isn't equal.
Note that, when the paper reports "low test scores" for MPS, what they're saying is a very high percentage of students score low. There are still students scoring very high in those schools: they are taking advantage of the opportunities before them. In Baraboo, a district with "high test scores," there are still students scoring in the lowest percentiles. These students are not taking advantage of their opportunities.
Why is that? The opportunities are equal. The environments in which individuals live aren't.
As a human being, I find it tragic that so many kids are going to grow up without a good education. As a conservative, I admit that there's a limit to what we can do about that. No matter how much money we spend on education, no matter how many programs we create, the state can't do everything.
One child lives in a home where the parents (or, more likely, parent) is rarely home, whether because the parent has to work a lot, or because the parent is out drinking all the time (or worse). No supervision, no books, nobody checking homework. This child has a very poor chance of getting a good education, no matter how much money the state spends.
Another child has college-educated parents who stress the importance of education, encourage the child to read, and insist that the child do his/her best in school. This child has a very good chance of getting a good education, even if conditions at school aren't the best.
Note that having parents home a lot isn't the only factor: Todd and I were latchkey kids for most of our school years, as I recall. We both did fine in school. I think we can attribute that to having college educated parents who stressed the importance of education.
But some kids don't have that. What are we supposed to do? Take them away from their homes?
In the same way, there's very little the state can do to make sure people live healthy lives. It would be better all around - for individuals and for society - if everybody ate right, exercised regularly, and quit smoking. We all have the opportunity to do these things. Some of us take that opportunity, some of us don't.
This is, I think, a basic tenet of American-style conservatism: the state does what it can, but we can't (and shouldn't) depend on it for everything. Individuals have to take responsibility for themselves.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Steve RE: Freedom of religion
...of religion You have the right to worship as you please. The government has no business either supporting or opposing religion.
Jack, you didn’t react to my feeler:
"Billy Bob hoped that he would still be able to bring his Bible to school and read it in free time. He hoped he could still write essays on spiritual matters and give Christian literature to and pray for his classmates while telling them about Christ."
Does your ‘freedom of religion’ tenant allow Billy Bob to do this without government opposition?
Would it be allowable to offer elective courses: ‘The Bible as Literature’, ‘The Bible as History in the Light of Archaeological Evidence’, ‘Old Testament Survey’, ‘New Testament Survey’, ‘Christian History’, or ‘Major Christian Doctrines’?
I know that, in general, the liberal philosophy would denounce this notion, but your ‘freedom of religion’ statement would, on its face, seem to allow it. As these would be elective choosings, it would appear that government is neither supporting nor opposing. (I know that the courts have declared these all illegal, including most of Billy Bob’s activity. But, I want to know what you think.)
It seems odd to me that activities that were constitutional for over 150 years magically became unconstitutional in the last 50- 60. I hadn’t seen the amendments passed in support of these changes.
Let’s get real... the Constitution don’t mean nuthin’. It has a nose of wax that can be reformed in the image of whoever has usurped the power to do so– usually judges who consider themselves far more intelligent, wiser, and insightful than the rest of us. They bypass the lawful means of making these changes, since they would have to rely on votes by the ignorant masses or even their duly elected commoners. It would be tough to make the case that "I also think that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Actions have consequences. Since God had been effectively expelled from government schools in 1962 there have been results. (You'll say coincidences, but it’s definitely worth pondering.) In the subsequent 30 years births to unwed teens jumped from 15 to 45 per thousand (legalized abortion has even slowed that rate) , cases of teen gonorrhea jumped from 14 to 54 per thousand, female headed, single parent households jumped from 5 to 12 million, the growth of violent crime jumped from 300,00 to 1.9 million cases.
For 10 years I taught and administrated in a small school. I would receive information from organizations such as SAT and ACT. Their data indicated that, although grade point averages were rising since 1962, achievement scores had dropped considerably. SAT scores dropped 90 points in less than 15 years. They later ‘dumbed down’ the test to get scores falsely to a higher level. We tested our own students annually with the California Achievement Test using 1963 norms even though the CAT testing board had since lowered the norms twice.
"Progress is what Liberalism really means; moral progress, economic progress, and social progress to benefit all humanity. This represents the path towards a better world. At its heart, Liberalism is an optimistic philosophy."
It is my claim that liberal government involvement has been the major impetus in exacerbating problems in education, health care, crime, and poverty. So please pardon my skepticism when someone looks to the federal government to solve a cultural crisis and blaze ‘the path towards a better world.’
Would you buy a Yugo from this man?
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Lance Re: gay marriage
One more thought on this. I read an article in the State Journal about state-licensed marriage some time ago. It's not so long ago that there was no such thing as a marriage license. People wanted to get married, so they just did.
Legal marriage, according to that article, isn't an arrangement between two people - it's an arrangement between each of those two people, individually, and the state. We've codified marriage to make things like divorce and inheritance easier to handle.
If two homosexuals want to get married, they can: mail announcements, buy dresses (and/or rent tuxes), have a big ceremony and reception (there are churches and clergy who will perform the ceremony, if that's what the happy couple wants), wear the rings, go on a honeymoon, call each other husband and/or wife, even adopt children.
Inheritance, end-of-life arrangements, and so forth can be handled through powers of attorney. Yes, those can be challenged, but that's true of heterosexual marriages, too, even with the state involved.
The only thing a homosexual couple can't have right now, that I can in my marriage, is the government benefits - the tax breaks, the employer benefits (although those are increasingly being offered to gay couples).
Gay activists say it's not about the money - great. Then what's the problem?
I think the next argument is: our relationship should be recognized, like heterosexual relationships.
Well, okay. If you say so. But I think needing government approval in order to be happy indicates either a deeper problem, or a more complex agenda than simple "fairness."
One more thought on this. I read an article in the State Journal about state-licensed marriage some time ago. It's not so long ago that there was no such thing as a marriage license. People wanted to get married, so they just did.
Legal marriage, according to that article, isn't an arrangement between two people - it's an arrangement between each of those two people, individually, and the state. We've codified marriage to make things like divorce and inheritance easier to handle.
If two homosexuals want to get married, they can: mail announcements, buy dresses (and/or rent tuxes), have a big ceremony and reception (there are churches and clergy who will perform the ceremony, if that's what the happy couple wants), wear the rings, go on a honeymoon, call each other husband and/or wife, even adopt children.
Inheritance, end-of-life arrangements, and so forth can be handled through powers of attorney. Yes, those can be challenged, but that's true of heterosexual marriages, too, even with the state involved.
The only thing a homosexual couple can't have right now, that I can in my marriage, is the government benefits - the tax breaks, the employer benefits (although those are increasingly being offered to gay couples).
Gay activists say it's not about the money - great. Then what's the problem?
I think the next argument is: our relationship should be recognized, like heterosexual relationships.
Well, okay. If you say so. But I think needing government approval in order to be happy indicates either a deeper problem, or a more complex agenda than simple "fairness."
Lance Re: one nation, indivisible
This is one of those issues I just can't get excited about. There's a line here somewhere, between the government not establishing or encouraging religion, and the government actively discouraging religion.
If the words "under God" are removed from the pledge, it won't affect me one bit. It will have no effect on my beliefs. If it's important to me, I'll just continue to say "under God" when we come to that part of the pledge, whether it's an official part of the pledge or not.
So, fine, remove it. I don't think it matters a hill of beans. Why does it matter so much to you?
Having the words in the pledge doesn't force anyone to believe anything. No one is forced to say those two words: one can simply skip them when we come to that part.
One could make the argument that having the words in there indicates a government endorsement of belief in a higher being. Since our kids say the pledge in school, one could argue that the government is pushing a belief system on our kids, whether the parents want it or not.
To this, I say the same thing I said to the guy who didn't think our Sunday School classes should go see a performance of Jesus Christ, Superstar, because it was blasphemous. I say the same thing I told myself when my daughter came home spouting a load of politically correct environmental semi-facts.
We and our children, all of us, will constantly be exposed to influences we don't like. We will always be exposed to opinions we disagree with.
For us adults, the best thing to do is to be secure in our beliefs, and to frequently revisit our reasons for believing what we do. For our kids, the best thing is to teach them why we believe what we believe, and also to think for themselves.
So remove the words, or don't remove them. I don't see how it's hurting anybody either way.
This is one of those issues I just can't get excited about. There's a line here somewhere, between the government not establishing or encouraging religion, and the government actively discouraging religion.
If the words "under God" are removed from the pledge, it won't affect me one bit. It will have no effect on my beliefs. If it's important to me, I'll just continue to say "under God" when we come to that part of the pledge, whether it's an official part of the pledge or not.
So, fine, remove it. I don't think it matters a hill of beans. Why does it matter so much to you?
Having the words in the pledge doesn't force anyone to believe anything. No one is forced to say those two words: one can simply skip them when we come to that part.
One could make the argument that having the words in there indicates a government endorsement of belief in a higher being. Since our kids say the pledge in school, one could argue that the government is pushing a belief system on our kids, whether the parents want it or not.
To this, I say the same thing I said to the guy who didn't think our Sunday School classes should go see a performance of Jesus Christ, Superstar, because it was blasphemous. I say the same thing I told myself when my daughter came home spouting a load of politically correct environmental semi-facts.
We and our children, all of us, will constantly be exposed to influences we don't like. We will always be exposed to opinions we disagree with.
For us adults, the best thing to do is to be secure in our beliefs, and to frequently revisit our reasons for believing what we do. For our kids, the best thing is to teach them why we believe what we believe, and also to think for themselves.
So remove the words, or don't remove them. I don't see how it's hurting anybody either way.
Lance Re: definition of a liberal
An excellent post, John. Did you write that yourself, or did you find it somewhere?
Sorry to tell you, it looks to me like you're defining a conservative. I think both sides would make a claim to your definition. It's just a question of degree.
For example:
As a conservative, I'm going to make the case that we're already doing that, and more. At some point, it has to become the responsibility of the student and/or parents to make sure the student is taking advantage of the opportunities we provide through 13 years of free education. The liberal (actually, the Democrat) side, however, believes we need to spend much much more.
Amen. That's how the welfare system got started, and that's where we tried to get it back to with the welfare reform of the 1990s. Should a family that makes $40,000 be eligible for the federal reduced lunch program? They are, under current guidelines.
See, it depends on what you think "reasonable and responsible" are.
One more:
Amen, Brother! um, Father! And now for the rest of that paragraph:
This is where liberals and conservatives will part company: not that we disagree with the statement as it's written, but on how far government has to go for the "good of society."
I see the difference between liberals and conservatives thus: conservatives believe people are better off when they do for themselves. Being a conservative means accepting that we can't remove all pain and suffering from the world, and we can never make everything absolutely equal for everyone. The best we can do is to create an environment in which everyone can succeed, if everyone takes advantage of their opportunities.
Being a liberal means wanting the government to solve everything. If people are struggling to pay their bills, the government should help financially. If school kids are struggling to learn decently, the government should provide more resources. The government should discriminate against one group, if that group is perceived to have an advantage over another group.
An excellent post, John. Did you write that yourself, or did you find it somewhere?
Sorry to tell you, it looks to me like you're defining a conservative. I think both sides would make a claim to your definition. It's just a question of degree.
For example:
Equality of opportunity requires all Americans to have access to a basic education
As a conservative, I'm going to make the case that we're already doing that, and more. At some point, it has to become the responsibility of the student and/or parents to make sure the student is taking advantage of the opportunities we provide through 13 years of free education. The liberal (actually, the Democrat) side, however, believes we need to spend much much more.
a basic social safety net shall be available to all who need it, not as a permanent lifestyle, but rather as a helping hand to get back on one's feet.
Amen. That's how the welfare system got started, and that's where we tried to get it back to with the welfare reform of the 1990s. Should a family that makes $40,000 be eligible for the federal reduced lunch program? They are, under current guidelines.
Contrary to some people's opinions, it is possible to both protect the environment and sustain economic growth. We support taking all reasonable and responsible steps to protect the environment and the species contained therein.
See, it depends on what you think "reasonable and responsible" are.
One more:
The capitalist economic system is the most efficient solution to providing for peoples' wants and needs.
Amen, Brother! um, Father! And now for the rest of that paragraph:
any regulation must only be for the good of society as a whole, and not for the benefit of any one entity.
This is where liberals and conservatives will part company: not that we disagree with the statement as it's written, but on how far government has to go for the "good of society."
I see the difference between liberals and conservatives thus: conservatives believe people are better off when they do for themselves. Being a conservative means accepting that we can't remove all pain and suffering from the world, and we can never make everything absolutely equal for everyone. The best we can do is to create an environment in which everyone can succeed, if everyone takes advantage of their opportunities.
Being a liberal means wanting the government to solve everything. If people are struggling to pay their bills, the government should help financially. If school kids are struggling to learn decently, the government should provide more resources. The government should discriminate against one group, if that group is perceived to have an advantage over another group.
Steve
Jack– Sending a posting at 4:34AM? If you were a conservative, I’d say your conscience was bothering you, but since you are a liberal, it had to have been another bad case of gas!
You have asked for examples of schizojuristics. That will be tough since the rulings will probably have changed again in the time it takes to post this on the Blog. I do like one particular example that immediately comes to mind. Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore was ordered to remove the Ten Commandments from the court building. This ruling was finalized in the U.S. Supreme court where the Ten Commandments are displayed twice.
The plethora of relativistic rulings has a foundation in modern judicial theory:
“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”– Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, 1930- 1941.
“The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” – Chief Justice Earl Warren, in 1953.
“I take judge-made law as one of the existing realities of life.” – US Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo, in 1921.
“The justification of a law for us cannot be found in the fact that our fathers always have followed it. It must be found in some help which the law brings toward reaching a social end.” – Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in 1920.
“The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories...the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed.” – O. W. Holmes, Jr., in 1881.
In Washington’s farewell address in 1796, he warned, “If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or the modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
I suspect Washington’s warning is coming to pass.
Jack– Sending a posting at 4:34AM? If you were a conservative, I’d say your conscience was bothering you, but since you are a liberal, it had to have been another bad case of gas!
You have asked for examples of schizojuristics. That will be tough since the rulings will probably have changed again in the time it takes to post this on the Blog. I do like one particular example that immediately comes to mind. Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore was ordered to remove the Ten Commandments from the court building. This ruling was finalized in the U.S. Supreme court where the Ten Commandments are displayed twice.
The plethora of relativistic rulings has a foundation in modern judicial theory:
“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”– Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, 1930- 1941.
“The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” – Chief Justice Earl Warren, in 1953.
“I take judge-made law as one of the existing realities of life.” – US Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo, in 1921.
“The justification of a law for us cannot be found in the fact that our fathers always have followed it. It must be found in some help which the law brings toward reaching a social end.” – Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in 1920.
“The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories...the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed.” – O. W. Holmes, Jr., in 1881.
In Washington’s farewell address in 1796, he warned, “If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or the modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
I suspect Washington’s warning is coming to pass.
Hodo
I hope you told Gee Dub I said hello.
I'll get around to some of your topics eventually. In the meantime I found this quiz - are you red or blue? - via Rantingprofs and thought you loony lefties and religious wackos would enjoy it. I came out a little bit red which apparently means a little bit Republican/conservative.
Before you ask, I have no idea what white pantyhose have to do with anything.
I hope you told Gee Dub I said hello.
I'll get around to some of your topics eventually. In the meantime I found this quiz - are you red or blue? - via Rantingprofs and thought you loony lefties and religious wackos would enjoy it. I came out a little bit red which apparently means a little bit Republican/conservative.
Before you ask, I have no idea what white pantyhose have to do with anything.
Lance
Just one quick post now, and then I'll talk about John's posts a little later.
The family and I got to go see Dennis Miller and Wayne Newton last night. Surprise surprise, I enjoyed Newton more than Miller. He did a guitar vs. banjo thing, and had a great violin (or I guess I should call it a fiddle, the way he was playing it) solo.
Oh, and President Bush was there, too.
Just one quick post now, and then I'll talk about John's posts a little later.
The family and I got to go see Dennis Miller and Wayne Newton last night. Surprise surprise, I enjoyed Newton more than Miller. He did a guitar vs. banjo thing, and had a great violin (or I guess I should call it a fiddle, the way he was playing it) solo.
Oh, and President Bush was there, too.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Steve
An old army buddy from Butte always used to say, "Montana-- where men are men, women are scarce, so sheep shudder."
I do not advocate discrimination against homosexuals in all this marriage hoopla. I believe that a homosexual man may marry a woman just as a straight man may. Where's the discrimination?
My philosophical beef here is with the adulteration of language. For example, if you cut yourself and asked me to get you a band-aid and I bring you an anvil claiming that it is a band-aid... The word gay used to mean joyful... Now the meaning of marriage is supposed to magically mean something else.
Why don't they call same sex unions veteranages so they can get veteran's benefits? We surely couldn't discriminate against them just because they didn't serve in the military, could we?
...equal under the law... It's a fine sounding idea, but in the liberal world the 'law' means whatever the judge says it means. It need not have any relation to the actual wording or intent of the law when written. Tomorrow he may rule on it in another way as his epiphany dictates.
"Lassie... Lassie, where are you, girl?"
"Arf, I'm bookin'. That freakin' Timmy is gettin' weird ideas about marriage. Maybe I can get myself stuck in the well this time. Billy Bob! Get the hell out of there, I saw it first!"
An old army buddy from Butte always used to say, "Montana-- where men are men, women are scarce, so sheep shudder."
I do not advocate discrimination against homosexuals in all this marriage hoopla. I believe that a homosexual man may marry a woman just as a straight man may. Where's the discrimination?
My philosophical beef here is with the adulteration of language. For example, if you cut yourself and asked me to get you a band-aid and I bring you an anvil claiming that it is a band-aid... The word gay used to mean joyful... Now the meaning of marriage is supposed to magically mean something else.
Why don't they call same sex unions veteranages so they can get veteran's benefits? We surely couldn't discriminate against them just because they didn't serve in the military, could we?
...equal under the law... It's a fine sounding idea, but in the liberal world the 'law' means whatever the judge says it means. It need not have any relation to the actual wording or intent of the law when written. Tomorrow he may rule on it in another way as his epiphany dictates.
"Lassie... Lassie, where are you, girl?"
"Arf, I'm bookin'. That freakin' Timmy is gettin' weird ideas about marriage. Maybe I can get myself stuck in the well this time. Billy Bob! Get the hell out of there, I saw it first!"
Steve
Welcome back, Jack! I was really becoming concerned about you. I was going to ask the boys to go and check on you to see if they could find a pulse. But I realized that you haven’t generally shown a lot of life for quite some time. Finding any of your vital signs could only successfully be performed by highly trained professionals.
Little freckle-faced Billy Bob skipped happily into the school’s front doors. Being a Bible Belt Christian, he wasn’t very smart, but he worked hard. And as the old saying goes, “Even a blind hawg finds an acorn every now and then”, Billy Bob had regularly had a small measure of success. And, besides, today was the first day that he actually had a pair of shoes.
Ordinarily class started with the recitation of the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’, but today, as the teacher explained, this pledge had to be altered. Billy Bob was stunned. After all, it took him halfway through his second year in the 1st grade before he could fully recite it from memory. And now he had to learn it all over again. The explanation given left him unsure whether he was afoot or horseback. One thing he did understand, however, was that a panel of federal judges actively opposed religion, ruling that God could have no place wherever government was involved. He knew God wasn’t dead, but why wasn’t he welcome anymore? Why didn’t those judges study the history of the Constitution and its formation? When did they amend the 1st Amendment to read, “The government has no business either supporting or opposing religion.”?
Billy Bob hoped that he would still be able to bring his Bible to school and read it in free time. He hoped he could still write essays on spiritual matters and give Christian literature to and pray for his classmates while telling them about Christ.
Billy Bob knew that civil government had tentacles in almost everything these days and wondered how much further it would choose to exercise its sovereignty in the affairs of the plebeians.
Billy Bob was a landlubber, but wondered if Dennis could spare a little room.
...one nation, under liberals, indivisible...
In Liberals We Trust
Liberal Antonio, Texas
Liberal Francisco, California
The Supreme Court Building has ordered itself to replace the Ten Commandment twice existing within itself with The Thirteen Liberal Commandments as listed on a previous post.
Trivia Question– Who said the following?
“But the greatest injury of the “wall” notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights... The “wall of separation between church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”
Welcome back, Jack! I was really becoming concerned about you. I was going to ask the boys to go and check on you to see if they could find a pulse. But I realized that you haven’t generally shown a lot of life for quite some time. Finding any of your vital signs could only successfully be performed by highly trained professionals.
Little freckle-faced Billy Bob skipped happily into the school’s front doors. Being a Bible Belt Christian, he wasn’t very smart, but he worked hard. And as the old saying goes, “Even a blind hawg finds an acorn every now and then”, Billy Bob had regularly had a small measure of success. And, besides, today was the first day that he actually had a pair of shoes.
Ordinarily class started with the recitation of the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’, but today, as the teacher explained, this pledge had to be altered. Billy Bob was stunned. After all, it took him halfway through his second year in the 1st grade before he could fully recite it from memory. And now he had to learn it all over again. The explanation given left him unsure whether he was afoot or horseback. One thing he did understand, however, was that a panel of federal judges actively opposed religion, ruling that God could have no place wherever government was involved. He knew God wasn’t dead, but why wasn’t he welcome anymore? Why didn’t those judges study the history of the Constitution and its formation? When did they amend the 1st Amendment to read, “The government has no business either supporting or opposing religion.”?
Billy Bob hoped that he would still be able to bring his Bible to school and read it in free time. He hoped he could still write essays on spiritual matters and give Christian literature to and pray for his classmates while telling them about Christ.
Billy Bob knew that civil government had tentacles in almost everything these days and wondered how much further it would choose to exercise its sovereignty in the affairs of the plebeians.
Billy Bob was a landlubber, but wondered if Dennis could spare a little room.
...one nation, under liberals, indivisible...
In Liberals We Trust
Liberal Antonio, Texas
Liberal Francisco, California
The Supreme Court Building has ordered itself to replace the Ten Commandment twice existing within itself with The Thirteen Liberal Commandments as listed on a previous post.
Trivia Question– Who said the following?
“But the greatest injury of the “wall” notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights... The “wall of separation between church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”
Monday, July 12, 2004
Lance
Oh, Lord. What is a dedicated Packer fan and good Republican to do?
Mike Ditka emerges as possible Senate candidate
Oh, Lord. What is a dedicated Packer fan and good Republican to do?
Mike Ditka emerges as possible Senate candidate
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Steve
A beautiful gorilla princess strolls leisurely along a countryside path on a gorgeous early summer day. Despite the wealth and privilege she enjoyed from her status in life, she yearned for something more. She wasn't overtly aware of it, but she could feel her biological clock ticking away. Her romantic nature longed for a soul mate, but her suitors, well bred and mannered, were all toads. As she walked alongside a serene pond lost in thought, she suddenly heard the deep croaking of a frog. As she sought the source of the song, she spotted the large frog calmly seated on a lily pad near the low bank. He remained still as she approached. She bent down and softly began grunting to him. As he proved such a good listener, she playfully gave him a peck on the head. And, voila, the frog turned into a handsome prince. Ya-da, ya-da, ya-da, and they lived happily ever after.
This story spread quickly, becoming theory, then widely accepted as fact with only one minor revision. The voila time frame changed from the instantaneous to millions of years. This fact was faithfully taught to millions of school children year after year and became the paradigmatic basis for all stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human/cultural developments.
Some sillies may ask, “Why are there still monkeys?”. For gosh sake– they are the poor bastards without the panache to seduce a frog! Some people just don’t have the intellects to think things out with scientific logic!
And Aesop blushed.
A beautiful gorilla princess strolls leisurely along a countryside path on a gorgeous early summer day. Despite the wealth and privilege she enjoyed from her status in life, she yearned for something more. She wasn't overtly aware of it, but she could feel her biological clock ticking away. Her romantic nature longed for a soul mate, but her suitors, well bred and mannered, were all toads. As she walked alongside a serene pond lost in thought, she suddenly heard the deep croaking of a frog. As she sought the source of the song, she spotted the large frog calmly seated on a lily pad near the low bank. He remained still as she approached. She bent down and softly began grunting to him. As he proved such a good listener, she playfully gave him a peck on the head. And, voila, the frog turned into a handsome prince. Ya-da, ya-da, ya-da, and they lived happily ever after.
This story spread quickly, becoming theory, then widely accepted as fact with only one minor revision. The voila time frame changed from the instantaneous to millions of years. This fact was faithfully taught to millions of school children year after year and became the paradigmatic basis for all stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human/cultural developments.
Some sillies may ask, “Why are there still monkeys?”. For gosh sake– they are the poor bastards without the panache to seduce a frog! Some people just don’t have the intellects to think things out with scientific logic!
And Aesop blushed.
Friday, July 09, 2004
Steve
I have taped on my bookshelf a ‘Non sequitur’ cartoon strip by Wiley from long ago that I think is the best ever.
Two men wearing sandwich boards stand facing each other in an apparent stand-off. The one’s sign says, “The truth as I see it.” The other’s, “The facts as they are.”
Back in the ‘70's I wanted Jack to run for president so I could become the next Billy Carter. (After all we were sons of factory workers and soybean farmers– we were too poor to raise peanuts.)
I voted for George McGovern in 1972, although he was really far too right wing for me.
I was evidence to the old adage, ‘If you’re not liberal when you’re young, you don’t have a heart. If, as you age, you don’t become conservative, you don’t have a brain.’ (Trade of sandwich boards.)
I remember 3 people that were instrumental in my change of thought– a big, dumb Army sergeant, an intellectual anarchist in the student union, and a virulent communist in a Cincinnati bus station. Two spewed nothing but destruction (in the name of humanity), the sergeant simply stated that the Berlin Wall was not built to keep people out but to keep them in. I couldn’t name any of these people, but their honest statements and consistent attitudes made a lasting impression.
It is easy to be a liberal. As a politician one can lure votes by a promise of redistribution of the public purse (as Lance pointed out) and can offer a vision of utopia created through a compassionate heart and great wisdom. The conservative has to try to make presentable the idea that government should not make more obstacles in an already cold, cruel world. The liberal, in his superiority, wants control of man and his environment. The conservative thinks one is wiser in the ways of his own life and is responsible enough to respond to life’s conditions to build his own life. The liberal promises salvation; the conservative, a lessening of man-made obstacles.
Modern liberalism is a preacher, but fancies itself a god. It creates the world after its own image and thunders out against the evils of all other gods. It promises to lead its sheep beside still waters, to restore their souls, and to make their cups run over. But woe to those of another faith. Eventually they must be sent to hell– in the form of a gulag (government school?) or guillotine. (Exaltation of diversity is simply a metaphor for ‘divide and conquer’.)
Although liberalism may succeed in gaining power for some of its adherents, its promises to its congregation always fail. Regardless of the high ideals, innovative planning, and state of the art technology, blood will liberally flow. Atlas will eventually have to scratch his ‘nads.
“... all who hate me love death.”
I have taped on my bookshelf a ‘Non sequitur’ cartoon strip by Wiley from long ago that I think is the best ever.
Two men wearing sandwich boards stand facing each other in an apparent stand-off. The one’s sign says, “The truth as I see it.” The other’s, “The facts as they are.”
Back in the ‘70's I wanted Jack to run for president so I could become the next Billy Carter. (After all we were sons of factory workers and soybean farmers– we were too poor to raise peanuts.)
I voted for George McGovern in 1972, although he was really far too right wing for me.
I was evidence to the old adage, ‘If you’re not liberal when you’re young, you don’t have a heart. If, as you age, you don’t become conservative, you don’t have a brain.’ (Trade of sandwich boards.)
I remember 3 people that were instrumental in my change of thought– a big, dumb Army sergeant, an intellectual anarchist in the student union, and a virulent communist in a Cincinnati bus station. Two spewed nothing but destruction (in the name of humanity), the sergeant simply stated that the Berlin Wall was not built to keep people out but to keep them in. I couldn’t name any of these people, but their honest statements and consistent attitudes made a lasting impression.
It is easy to be a liberal. As a politician one can lure votes by a promise of redistribution of the public purse (as Lance pointed out) and can offer a vision of utopia created through a compassionate heart and great wisdom. The conservative has to try to make presentable the idea that government should not make more obstacles in an already cold, cruel world. The liberal, in his superiority, wants control of man and his environment. The conservative thinks one is wiser in the ways of his own life and is responsible enough to respond to life’s conditions to build his own life. The liberal promises salvation; the conservative, a lessening of man-made obstacles.
Modern liberalism is a preacher, but fancies itself a god. It creates the world after its own image and thunders out against the evils of all other gods. It promises to lead its sheep beside still waters, to restore their souls, and to make their cups run over. But woe to those of another faith. Eventually they must be sent to hell– in the form of a gulag (government school?) or guillotine. (Exaltation of diversity is simply a metaphor for ‘divide and conquer’.)
Although liberalism may succeed in gaining power for some of its adherents, its promises to its congregation always fail. Regardless of the high ideals, innovative planning, and state of the art technology, blood will liberally flow. Atlas will eventually have to scratch his ‘nads.
“... all who hate me love death.”
Lance
Okay, I know you guys think I just sit around all day doing nothing (thus taking after my father, except that instead of sleeping with my head resting on a microscope, I sleep sitting up at my computer wearing sunglasses). Just so you understand a little more just how hard this job is, here's an example of the email I have to slog through every day.
The email offers a website, where you can see the video. Unfortunately you have to pay for it, and I, a lowly state employee, cannot afford the $5.95.
Here's a couple other nice little bits from the same email (these links don't require a subscription):
Kerry and Edwards Will Use Campaign to Push Domestic Spy Agency
White House Insider: Bush Could Launch Nuke Attack on Iran, N Korea to Swing Election
Osama Warms Up For His Next CIA Gig
Of course, having no direct evidence with which to refute any of this, I suppose I have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Right?
Okay, I know you guys think I just sit around all day doing nothing (thus taking after my father, except that instead of sleeping with my head resting on a microscope, I sleep sitting up at my computer wearing sunglasses). Just so you understand a little more just how hard this job is, here's an example of the email I have to slog through every day.
Subject: Prison Planet Daily News Digest
Thursday I will be posting Eric Hufschmid's 9/11 Painful Deceptions video. The people who claim Flight 77 hit the Pentagon have almost no supporting evidence, as this video shows.
Summary of the Video's Accusation:
Flight 77:
There is no evidence of Flight 77 or the dead passengers at the Pentagon. The Pentagon security video suggests a Global Hawk was shattered by a missile. The missile may have been launched from a defensive missile system around the Pentagon.
The World Trade Center Towers:
Explosives were placed in both towers before the attack to cause the towers to disintegrate into dust. Explosives were detonated via radio by a computer in Building 7.
Building 7: It was a 47 story, steel-framed building that disintegrated later in the day, also from explosives. The 23rd floor was the Mayor’s "Emergency Command Center," which had its own air supply. This appears to be the command center for destroying the towers.
The video also includes: an explanation of turbofans, explosives, the Oklahoma City bombing, the media that Americans mistakenly refer to as our "Free Press," and why deception is the main weapon in this war to control us.
The email offers a website, where you can see the video. Unfortunately you have to pay for it, and I, a lowly state employee, cannot afford the $5.95.
Here's a couple other nice little bits from the same email (these links don't require a subscription):
Kerry and Edwards Will Use Campaign to Push Domestic Spy Agency
White House Insider: Bush Could Launch Nuke Attack on Iran, N Korea to Swing Election
Osama Warms Up For His Next CIA Gig
Of course, having no direct evidence with which to refute any of this, I suppose I have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Right?
Thursday, July 08, 2004
"In Desperate Move, Kerry Adopts Puppy":
Not one of Coulter's best columns, but don't you have to love that title?
Not one of Coulter's best columns, but don't you have to love that title?
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Lance
Chicago Tribune | No clouds in your coffee
Coffee, as many of us already knew, is good for you.
Chicago Tribune | No clouds in your coffee
Coffee, as many of us already knew, is good for you.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Lance
That's my question: why are there still monkeys? There are examples of tool usage among some primates - I don't remember what kind of monkey it was, but they stripped bark off sticks, broke off the protruding pieces, and stuck them into anthills, then ate the ants off them.
That's use of tools, which only humans are supposed to do. They're breaking the rules. They should be punished.
But have the monkeys improved their technique at all? Invented new improved tools? Or are they still using whatever stick they find on the ground?
Nope. They're still using whatever stick is within reach. No development of suction technology to improve the harvest. No domestication of ant populations for breeding to ensure a consistent food supply. No specializing in ant hunting to create a system based on opportunity cost. While we develop ever better and further-reaching ideas, they continue squatting in the dirt sticking sticks down anthills all day.
Here's another one: I was looking at the MIGHTY BARABOO river today. Steep banks, where I was. Erosion created those, but they're only about 3-5 feet high. Why aren't there more Grand Canyons?
That's my question: why are there still monkeys? There are examples of tool usage among some primates - I don't remember what kind of monkey it was, but they stripped bark off sticks, broke off the protruding pieces, and stuck them into anthills, then ate the ants off them.
That's use of tools, which only humans are supposed to do. They're breaking the rules. They should be punished.
But have the monkeys improved their technique at all? Invented new improved tools? Or are they still using whatever stick they find on the ground?
Nope. They're still using whatever stick is within reach. No development of suction technology to improve the harvest. No domestication of ant populations for breeding to ensure a consistent food supply. No specializing in ant hunting to create a system based on opportunity cost. While we develop ever better and further-reaching ideas, they continue squatting in the dirt sticking sticks down anthills all day.
Here's another one: I was looking at the MIGHTY BARABOO river today. Steep banks, where I was. Erosion created those, but they're only about 3-5 feet high. Why aren't there more Grand Canyons?
Ptodd
Sorry I've been away. Busy. Steve, I have no idea what you're talking about. Pray continue. Alfie, quit following me around. Lance: I say again, why are there still monkeys?
Somewhere in all this there's a discussion about taxes going on. I had meant to continue researching TABOR but got sidetracked (busy!). Positive so far. Otherwise, I'll just share a story from blog stud James Lileks.
"The other day a young girl came to the door to solicit my support for her presidential candidate. I asked her why I should vote for this man. She was very nice and earnest, but if you got her off the talking points she was utterly unprepared to argue anything, because she didn’t know what she was talking about. She had bullet points, and she believed that any reasonable person would see the importance of these issues and naturally fall in line. But she could not support any of her assertions. Her final selling point: Kerry would roll back the tax cuts.
"Then came the Parable of the Stairs, of course. My tiresome, shopworn, oft-told tale, a piece of unsupportable meaningless anecdotal drivel about how I turned my tax cut into a nice staircase that replaced a crumbling eyesore, hired a few people and injected money far and wide - from the guys who demolished the old stairs, the guys who built the new one, the family firm that sold the stone, the other firm that rented the Bobcats, the entrepreneur who fabricated the railings in his garage, and the guy who did the landscaping. Also the company that sold him the plants. And the light fixtures. It’s called economic activity. What’s more, home improvements added to the value of this pile, which mean that my assessment would increase, bumping up my property taxes. To say nothing of the general beautification of the neighborhood. Next year, if my taxes didn’t shoot up, I had another project planned. Raise my taxes, and it won’t happen – I won’t hire anyone, and they won’t hire anyone, rent anything, buy anything. You see?
“'Well, it’s a philosophical difference,' she sniffed. She had pegged me as a form of life last seen clicking the leash off a dog at Abu Ghraib. 'I think the money should have gone straight to those people instead of trickling down.' Those last two words were said with an edge.
“'But then I wouldn’t have hired them,' I said. 'I wouldn’t have new steps. And they wouldn’t have done anything to get the money.'
“'Well, what did you do?' she snapped.
“'What do you mean?'
“'Why should the government have given you the money in the first place?'
“'They didn’t give it to me. They just took less of my money.'
That was the last straw. Now she was angry. And the truth came out:
“'Well, why is it your money? I think it should be their money.'
Then she left.
And walked down the stairs. I let her go without charging a toll. It’s the philanthropist in me.
Sorry I've been away. Busy. Steve, I have no idea what you're talking about. Pray continue. Alfie, quit following me around. Lance: I say again, why are there still monkeys?
Somewhere in all this there's a discussion about taxes going on. I had meant to continue researching TABOR but got sidetracked (busy!). Positive so far. Otherwise, I'll just share a story from blog stud James Lileks.
"The other day a young girl came to the door to solicit my support for her presidential candidate. I asked her why I should vote for this man. She was very nice and earnest, but if you got her off the talking points she was utterly unprepared to argue anything, because she didn’t know what she was talking about. She had bullet points, and she believed that any reasonable person would see the importance of these issues and naturally fall in line. But she could not support any of her assertions. Her final selling point: Kerry would roll back the tax cuts.
"Then came the Parable of the Stairs, of course. My tiresome, shopworn, oft-told tale, a piece of unsupportable meaningless anecdotal drivel about how I turned my tax cut into a nice staircase that replaced a crumbling eyesore, hired a few people and injected money far and wide - from the guys who demolished the old stairs, the guys who built the new one, the family firm that sold the stone, the other firm that rented the Bobcats, the entrepreneur who fabricated the railings in his garage, and the guy who did the landscaping. Also the company that sold him the plants. And the light fixtures. It’s called economic activity. What’s more, home improvements added to the value of this pile, which mean that my assessment would increase, bumping up my property taxes. To say nothing of the general beautification of the neighborhood. Next year, if my taxes didn’t shoot up, I had another project planned. Raise my taxes, and it won’t happen – I won’t hire anyone, and they won’t hire anyone, rent anything, buy anything. You see?
“'Well, it’s a philosophical difference,' she sniffed. She had pegged me as a form of life last seen clicking the leash off a dog at Abu Ghraib. 'I think the money should have gone straight to those people instead of trickling down.' Those last two words were said with an edge.
“'But then I wouldn’t have hired them,' I said. 'I wouldn’t have new steps. And they wouldn’t have done anything to get the money.'
“'Well, what did you do?' she snapped.
“'What do you mean?'
“'Why should the government have given you the money in the first place?'
“'They didn’t give it to me. They just took less of my money.'
That was the last straw. Now she was angry. And the truth came out:
“'Well, why is it your money? I think it should be their money.'
Then she left.
And walked down the stairs. I let her go without charging a toll. It’s the philanthropist in me.
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Steve
“You’re in denial.”
“No, I’m not!”
“See?”
Proponents of the idea that the ‘general welfare’ clause in the Constitution permits the federal government to delve into the entire gamut of culture generally fathom this superficial depth. This position is further buoyed by the fact that the omnipotent State is already omnipresent and therefore ‘godfathered’ in.
If one were so daringly impudent as to press this question further upon the omniscient, the responses usually run some variation on two themes. One is that the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, is a living document ratified for its flexibility to tackle and repair evolving cultural dilemmas. The second theme debases the prescientific, slave-owning WASP founders.
The deep draft taken from the sage’s cup is sweet to the taste, but after rumination, it quickly becomes deathly bitter as it courses through the society’s GI system. Although an encephalotoxin, it is indigestible by those fortunate enough to have been properly inoculated. I hope peristalsis moves it quickly to its proper end.
The nation’s intellectual coroners have declared God’s death, the courts have ruled his words inapplicable to law– there are no absolutes. The Constitution, as it was literally written is only accepted by naive whimsy. It waxen form is deconstructed and reconstructed daily by the wisdom de jour. The culture today is far advanced in comparison to those superstitious, medieval founding fathers. Man is in charge.
A funny thing happened on the road to man’s glorious success– logical fruit stemmed naturally from the seeds sown. For example, one sprout– We have determined that an unborn baby is not a human. It is legal and often considered highly moral to destroy it, even suck his brains out as it is being born. Subsequent logic says that 5 minutes, 5 or 50 years later, really can’t make a difference, either. (In fairness to the liberals here, I have to be honest with my data. After 50 years of action by the aforementioned E-toxin, there are no brains left to suck out.) Anyone should be able to determine for himself who is human and how they may be treated. After all, God is dead, the Constitution is just old words on aged parchment, and by logical extension, any law with which I disagree is equally worthless. The only valid law is my own and I can change that upon caprice. The ‘Lord of the Flies’ Jam. With a name like Smucker’s it’s gotta be good.
The liberal vision’s fruit was succinctly stated in song in Jethro Tull's own inimitable way:
Sitting on a park bench...
Eying little girls with bad intents...
While spitting out pieces of his broken lung...
Watching the little panties run...
Snot is running down his nose...
Aqualung...
There's a sucker born every minute.
Caveat emptor.
Why are the nations in a uproar
And the peoples devising a vain thing?
The kings of the earth take their stand
And the rulers take counsel together
Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
“Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!”
He who sits in the heavens laughs,
The Lord scoffs at them.
“You’re in denial.”
“No, I’m not!”
“See?”
Proponents of the idea that the ‘general welfare’ clause in the Constitution permits the federal government to delve into the entire gamut of culture generally fathom this superficial depth. This position is further buoyed by the fact that the omnipotent State is already omnipresent and therefore ‘godfathered’ in.
If one were so daringly impudent as to press this question further upon the omniscient, the responses usually run some variation on two themes. One is that the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, is a living document ratified for its flexibility to tackle and repair evolving cultural dilemmas. The second theme debases the prescientific, slave-owning WASP founders.
The deep draft taken from the sage’s cup is sweet to the taste, but after rumination, it quickly becomes deathly bitter as it courses through the society’s GI system. Although an encephalotoxin, it is indigestible by those fortunate enough to have been properly inoculated. I hope peristalsis moves it quickly to its proper end.
The nation’s intellectual coroners have declared God’s death, the courts have ruled his words inapplicable to law– there are no absolutes. The Constitution, as it was literally written is only accepted by naive whimsy. It waxen form is deconstructed and reconstructed daily by the wisdom de jour. The culture today is far advanced in comparison to those superstitious, medieval founding fathers. Man is in charge.
A funny thing happened on the road to man’s glorious success– logical fruit stemmed naturally from the seeds sown. For example, one sprout– We have determined that an unborn baby is not a human. It is legal and often considered highly moral to destroy it, even suck his brains out as it is being born. Subsequent logic says that 5 minutes, 5 or 50 years later, really can’t make a difference, either. (In fairness to the liberals here, I have to be honest with my data. After 50 years of action by the aforementioned E-toxin, there are no brains left to suck out.) Anyone should be able to determine for himself who is human and how they may be treated. After all, God is dead, the Constitution is just old words on aged parchment, and by logical extension, any law with which I disagree is equally worthless. The only valid law is my own and I can change that upon caprice. The ‘Lord of the Flies’ Jam. With a name like Smucker’s it’s gotta be good.
The liberal vision’s fruit was succinctly stated in song in Jethro Tull's own inimitable way:
Sitting on a park bench...
Eying little girls with bad intents...
While spitting out pieces of his broken lung...
Watching the little panties run...
Snot is running down his nose...
Aqualung...
There's a sucker born every minute.
Caveat emptor.
Why are the nations in a uproar
And the peoples devising a vain thing?
The kings of the earth take their stand
And the rulers take counsel together
Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
“Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!”
He who sits in the heavens laughs,
The Lord scoffs at them.
Friday, July 02, 2004
Lance
More of my thoughts on the government taxing us all into third-world status here.
By the way (I refuse to use the web acronyms), that is the LAST time I try to put a chart into a blog entry. What a pain.
More of my thoughts on the government taxing us all into third-world status here.
By the way (I refuse to use the web acronyms), that is the LAST time I try to put a chart into a blog entry. What a pain.
Lance again.
Here's an interesting article: Petite skull reopens human ancestry debate. A new wrinkle in the search for our anthropological past.
The theory I find most interesting is that two or more higher species of primates developed at the same time, but one, homo sapiens, either became dominant, which led to the extinction of the others, or was the result of interbreeding among them.
The questions that theory leaves behind are: why did they all develop in the same general area, and why did other primate species not develop the same cognitive abilities?
Here's an interesting article: Petite skull reopens human ancestry debate. A new wrinkle in the search for our anthropological past.
The remnants of a remarkably petite skull belonging to one of the first human ancestors to walk on two legs have revealed the great physical diversity among these prehistoric populations.
But whether the species Homo erectus, meaning "upright man", should be reclassified into several distinct species remains controversial.
The theory I find most interesting is that two or more higher species of primates developed at the same time, but one, homo sapiens, either became dominant, which led to the extinction of the others, or was the result of interbreeding among them.
The questions that theory leaves behind are: why did they all develop in the same general area, and why did other primate species not develop the same cognitive abilities?
Lance
Which one of us is Alfalfa? And am I the only one who's concerned that so far Steve's posts are the most interesting? Where's the outrage?
Even when Steve writes a short post, he asks a question that would take a looooong time to answer.
I'm not quite clear on the punctuation in Article I, Section 8. Interesting use of the semicolon there. Is the list of duties supposed to be an exclusive list of what the feds can do? I think that's how it's been interpreted, and from what I've read, it's the second clause: "To regulate commerce...among the several states..." that's the basis for most of the spending we do.
Are there areas in which we haven't tinkered? I, of course, believe most things are better left to the private sector, including private charity. Not true for all things, though - police protection and road maintenance are better done by the government. I am also not opposed to a minimal level of government-run welfare, but only a minimal level. We'll keep you from starving and from freezing to death. That's it.
But we can't leave it at that. Even moderately well-off people are eligible for benefits. My family, for example, should not be eligible for the free and reduced lunch program, but we are. This has happened because the people have discovered that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.
Which one of us is Alfalfa? And am I the only one who's concerned that so far Steve's posts are the most interesting? Where's the outrage?
Even when Steve writes a short post, he asks a question that would take a looooong time to answer.
I'm not quite clear on the punctuation in Article I, Section 8. Interesting use of the semicolon there. Is the list of duties supposed to be an exclusive list of what the feds can do? I think that's how it's been interpreted, and from what I've read, it's the second clause: "To regulate commerce...among the several states..." that's the basis for most of the spending we do.
Are there areas in which we haven't tinkered? I, of course, believe most things are better left to the private sector, including private charity. Not true for all things, though - police protection and road maintenance are better done by the government. I am also not opposed to a minimal level of government-run welfare, but only a minimal level. We'll keep you from starving and from freezing to death. That's it.
But we can't leave it at that. Even moderately well-off people are eligible for benefits. My family, for example, should not be eligible for the free and reduced lunch program, but we are. This has happened because the people have discovered that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Steve
TAXATION-- I have about 10,000 pages ready to post as the need requires, but for now...
Does the 'general welfare' clause in the preamble and Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution authorize the use of tax monies for many of our present outlays?
Are we wise enough to tinker in these targeted situations without exacerbating them or creating others?
In the areas with which we have already tinkered, what have been the results?
TAXATION-- I have about 10,000 pages ready to post as the need requires, but for now...
Does the 'general welfare' clause in the preamble and Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution authorize the use of tax monies for many of our present outlays?
Are we wise enough to tinker in these targeted situations without exacerbating them or creating others?
In the areas with which we have already tinkered, what have been the results?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)