I Had a Dream

I woke up today under the impressions of a vivid dream. Perhaps I have been blogging too much as of late, but I distinctly remember reading a blog, comment, or article involving a 'No' vote on the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment. I cannot remember who had written it or even what the writing was in its specifics, just the general tenor. It considered that a 'Yes' vote amounted to discrimination against homosexuals, not only by the refusal of cultural recognition, but also by governmental recognition through tax breaks and the like.

Even while dreaming I remember my thoughts upon reading. First, by an unauthorized sleight-of-hand, the writer changed the meaning of 'marriage' from 'a union between one man and one woman' to 'a union of two consenting adults'. I reject that premise out of the sleight hand. A 'Yes' vote on the amendment using the latter meaning would, indeed, be discriminatory. By the former meaning, however, such a vote would not be discriminatory. Since the 'one man, one woman' definition is the culturally accepted form and has been from the formation of the nation, it is disingenuous to sneak a twisted definition in the back door. (Pun intended- I bet I even chuckled aloud while asleep, because when I did wake up, the drool spots were scattered about my pillow.)

Tax discrimination? What's new? Unless the ghostly writer was willing to accept 'One man, one vote, one tax' (amount, not rate), I suspect this particular complaint of discrimination is discriminatory in itself.

Anyway... that all was pretty weird. Must be the season. This is G.J.'s post number 1300. Spooky.

Happy Halloween!

(Flashback: I used to work nights at a convenience store in a pretty shady part of Victoria. On Halloween, every costumed customer was a potential armed robber avoiding camera identification.)

Entreprenurial Democrats

John Fund, author a new book, Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, released today from Encounter Books writes:

"Democrats are far more skilled at encouraging poor people — who need money — to participate in shady vote-buying schemes.

"I had no choice. I was hungry that day," Thomas Felder told the Miami Herald in explaining why he illegally voted in a mayoral election. "You wanted the money, you were told who to vote for."

Sometimes it's not just food that vote stealers are hungry for. A former Democratic congressman gave me this explanation of why voting irregularities more often crop up in his party's back yard: "When many Republicans lose an election, they go back into what they call the private sector. When many Democrats lose an election, they lose power and money. They need to eat, and people will do an awful lot in order to eat."" (Emphasis mine)

(Via: Dr. Sanity.)

God's Country?

Walter Russell Mead writes an interesting, even-handed essay concerning Christianity and American foreign policy. Mead is Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Here are the first and last paragraphs of the long article:

"Summary: Religion has always been a major force in U.S. politics, but the recent surge in the number and the power of evangelicals is recasting the country's political scene -- with dramatic implications for foreign policy. This should not be cause for panic: evangelicals are passionately devoted to justice and improving the world, and eager to reach out across sectarian lines."

"Evangelicals are likely to focus more on U.S. exceptionalism than liberals would like, and they are likely to care more about the morality of U.S. foreign policy than most realists prefer. But evangelical power is here to stay for the foreseeable future, and those concerned about U.S. foreign policy would do well to reach out. As more evangelical leaders acquire firsthand experience in foreign policy, they are likely to provide something now sadly lacking in the world of U.S. foreign policy: a trusted group of experts, well versed in the nuances and dilemmas of the international situation, who are able to persuade large numbers of Americans to support the complex and counterintuitive policies that are sometimes necessary in this wicked and frustrating -- or, dare one say it, fallen -- world."

Mead writes an insightful essay in this area. By his definitions, I would fall toward the fundamentalist end of the evangelical category.

It is recommended reading. I have only read it once, but plan on reading it a couple more times.

Lance

It's about time for you to post the official Grandpa John's election endorsements for this year. I need to know who to vote for.

Two Articles, Oddly Related

1.) "If It's Not the Crusades, It's the Cartoons",
"Mired in Diplomacy", &
"The Trifecta of Eurocool"

Mark Steyn:

"The host, Paul Orgel, had asked me what I thought of President Bush and I replied that, whatever my differences with him on this or that, I thought he was one of the most farsighted politicians in Washington."...

"But suppose the ''Anyone But Bush'' bumper-sticker set got their way;..."

"What then?"

"Nothing, that's what. The jihad's still there. Kim Jong Il's still there. The Iranian nukes are still there. The slyer Islamist subversion from south-east Asia to the Balkans to northern England goes on, day after day after day. And one morning we'll switch on the TV and the smoke and flames will be on this side of the Atlantic,..."

"And, riffing on the endless list of Islamist grievances, Bush concluded with an exasperated: "If it's not the Crusades, it's the cartoons.""...

""We are on the offense," he insisted, sounding sometimes as frustrated as us columnists that so much of the wider momentum had become (in Charles Krauthammer's words) "mired in diplomacy.""...

"The invaluable Brussels Journal recently translated an interview with the writer Oscar van den Boogaard from the Belgian paper De Standaard. A Dutch gay "humanist" (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool), van den Boogaard was reflecting on the accelerating Islamification of the Continent and concluding that the jig was up for the Europe he loved. "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.""

"Too many of us are only good at enjoying freedom. That war-is-never-the-answer 25 percent are in essence saying that there's nothing about America worth fighting for, and that, ultimately, the continuation of their society is a bet on the kindness of strangers -- on the goodnaturedness of Kim Jong Il and the mullahs and al-Qaida and what the president called "al-Qaida lookalikes and al-Qaida wannabes" and whatever nuclear combination thereof comes down the pike. Some of us don't reckon that's a good bet, and think America's arms-are-for-hugging crowd need to get real. Van den Boogaard's arms are likely to be doing rather less of their preferred form of hugging in the European twilight."

2.) Be Ye Men or Be Ye Infincks?

Michael Bywater:

"My grandfather was born in 1888 and he didn't have a lifestyle. He didn't need one: he had a life."...

"The crucial difference is my grandfather's lack of self-consciousness, and that self-consciousness is a hallmark of the perpetual, infantilised adolescents we have all become, monsters of introspection hovering twitchily on the edge of self-obsession, occasionally aware that the life that exists only to be examined is barely manageable; barely, indeed, a life."

"It is a preparation for a life. The consistently introspective life of the Big Baby is as much a simulacrum as life on Big Brother."

"To keep the simulacrum going we need help. And we need that help because that help is available."

"It's the old paradox. We need distraction from our fragmented and solitary lives because the distractions available to us have rendered our lives fragmented and solitary."

"And we need lifestyle advice from magazines and websites and newspaper supplements and health advisers and personal trainers precisely because we are being nagged about our lifestyle all the time by magazines and websites and newspaper supplements and health advisers and personal trainers…"

"If one of the markers of adulthood is autonomy, then one of the preconditions of autonomy is being left alone."

"But the Big Babies have no such autonomy, and are harangued to death; nor have they learned the adult trick of simply ignoring the fishwife-and-huckster voices. Instead, Baby tries to comply."

"Believing it when he is told that he is unhappy, he then believes the cure the same fishwives and hucksters proceed to offer."

"And it is all a world of make-believe, a set of status symbols notable only for symbolising someone else's status… except that when there is nothing but status for the Big Baby in the Age of Distraction, then our symbols are our status."

"We live on a diet of shadows, and we can only imitate them, stuck in the playpen, waiting to be distracted."

"Admittedly, it's tricky, being grown up. The great thing about being a Big Baby is it's so easy and so rewarding, and everybody else can just bugger off."

"Once one has embraced the 'isms' that characterise the Baby Boomer's creed of modernity - individualism, relativism, voluntarism - and lapsed into the hooting, crooning self-validating babyhood that inevitably follows, then one is beyond criticism."

"Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't understand us and, what is more, is just plain wrong."

"Being grown up is not nearly as comfortable. Let's, just for a moment, beg the question and say that one of the qualities of being a grown-up is what the Romans called discrimen and what we would perhaps call 'discrimination', though that doesn't quite cover it."

"Discrimen is the ability to judge a situation and to take right action without being sidetracked by peripheral considerations. Sailors would call it 'seamanship'."

"Surgeons speak of 'decisiveness'. In all cases, discrimen is about knowing what to do in the circumstances, even if there is no guarantee of pulling it off."

"But if discrimen is a cardinal virtue of adulthood, the tenets of infantilism work against it. Discrimen calls for right judgment; but the idea of something being 'right' is in profound conflict with individualism (which says I can only claim my judgment as being right for me)."

"It is in conflict with relativism (which says others may have different ideas, which are right for them) and with voluntarism (which says that those different ideas are just as valid as mine, because they, too, have been chosen)."

"As the body ineluctably decays (the mind's long gone, of course; who needs it?), perpetual infantility glosses over the rheum, the pains and creaks and flaccidities. As the opportunities dwindle, perpetual infantility offers us illusion on easy terms with pick-'n'-mix spirituality, self-improvement, angels and goddesses, diversion and aspiration."

"As time slides past, doling out its irreversible quanta, perpetual infantility offers us… the perfect wristwatch: shockproof, waterproof, antimagnetic, a perpetual movement which says everything about us except the single intolerable truth: that we have had it and are headed for oblivion, tick by tick."

There you have it... George W. Bush has gravitas AND discrimen.

Wisconsin Marriage Amendment

It is indeed unfortunate that this November's midterm elections also contain the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment proposal. Not long ago an action such as this would have been thought unnecessary. Times are achangin' and the few are finding the present judicial sentiments favorable to the pressing forward of their agendas.

Perhaps it is needless to say, but I will be voting for the implementation of the amendment. Primarily, there is assuredly Biblical warrant, but also many political and cultural reasons as well.

Homosexual activity is sin.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6: 9-10, NASB)

Notice that at least seven elements on this list are not generally judged to be illegal in our culture, but all are nonetheless aspects of wickedness.

God takes His stand in His own congregation. He judges in the midst of the rulers. How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? (Psalm 82: 1-2, NASB)

Rulers or judges that grant special rights or favors to the wicked are held responsible for those actions. The whole culture will suffer as well.

As this upcoming vote is in the public sector, the meme of 'separation of church and state' lifts its raucous voice. God has no say or place in this matter. It is as though the default position is that He doesn't exist and should have no say in governmental matters even if He did. So I shouldn't be bring that argument or philosophy to bear. Concerning these matters, however, I am not the one who first brought it up.

From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..."

From the Preamble of The Constitution of the State of Wisconsin:

"We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, do establish this constitution."

Nevertheless, God is no longer 'allowed' a voice. Since neither unalienable rights nor a level of equality have been endowed by the Creator, where, praytell, do they come from? The only plausible answer is that the government creates and defines them according to their sentiments at the time. Therefore The Declaration of Independence has been altered to read, "That to create and secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers without the consent of the governed."

Therein lies another reason for which I will vote for the Marriage Amendment. I wish to make it more difficult for the judicial aspect of government to create and secure a 'right' without the consent of the governed. I do not want them to redefine marriage by fiat, feelings, or sentiment, according to their rationale of what should be, contrary to that which has already been defined by tradition, natural law, common law, as well as positive law.

Power to define is power to control. For example, we have allowed a redefinition of human life. A baby is not defined as human until its head clears the birth canal. Until then you may manipulate a breech 'birth' and before the head presents, you may insert a catheter to suck out his brains. It is the moral equivalent to pithing a frog in a high school biology lab.

That which the government 'endows', the government can take away. Only the government's rights remain unalienable.

Purell Expands Its Market

Scott Ott announces the introduction of the newest personal hygiene application from Purell; Mouth Sanitizer.

"According to a news release from the company, “Just a quick squirt, swish and spit before stepping up to the microphone and Purell Mouth Sanitizer eliminates not only the words that make others sick, but it even protects a politician from speech that can harm one’s own career, thanks to a special ingredient we call Gaffe-B-Gone.”"

I suspect that Purell has also surreptitiously produced a blog sanitizer under contract with Blogger. Judging by the high quality of posts here on Grandpa John's lately, it also must have been applied here in maximum dosage. The quality, the integrity, and the civility have been extremely high.

Theory of Evolution Bites Atheists on Buttocks

Darwin's theory and the consequent corollaries were once hailed by atheists to be the straws that finally broke the Christian camel's regressive back. However, the subsequent 125 years have failed to align the atoms and molecules to bring the dawning of the age of Aquarius.

Dinesh D'Souza writes in The San Francisco Chronicle:

"A group of leading atheists is puzzled by the continued existence and vitality of religion."

"As biologist Richard Dawkins puts it in his new book "The God Delusion," faith is a form of irrationality, what he terms a "virus of the mind." Philosopher Daniel Dennett compares belief in God to belief in the Easter Bunny. Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith" and now "Letter to a Christian Nation," professes amazement that hundreds of millions of people worldwide profess religious beliefs when there is no rational evidence for any of those beliefs. Biologist E.O. Wilson says there must be some evolutionary explanation for the universality and pervasiveness of religious belief." [...]

"My conclusion is that it is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation. It seems perplexing why nature would breed a group of people who see no purpose to life or the universe, indeed whose only moral drive seems to be sneering at their fellow human beings who do have a sense of purpose. Here is where the biological expertise of Dawkins and his friends could prove illuminating. Maybe they can turn their Darwinian lens on themselves and help us understand how atheism, like the human tailbone and the panda's thumb, somehow survived as an evolutionary leftover of our primitive past." [...]

The Rev. Ron Carlson: "In the secular account, "You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago. You are a mere grab bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You came from nothing and are going nowhere."" [...]

"Lacking the strong Christian identity that produced its greatness, atheist Europe seems to be a civilization on its way out. We have met Nietzsche's "last man" and his name is Sven." [...]

"The old principle was, "Be fruitful and multiply." The new one is, "Have as many children as enhance your lifestyle."" [...]

"Russia is one of the most atheist countries in the world, and there abortions outnumber live births 2 to 1. Russia's birth rate has fallen so low that the nation is now losing 700,000 people a year. Japan, perhaps the most secular country in Asia, is also on a kind of population diet: its 130 million people are expected to drop to around 100 million in the next few decades. And then there is Europe. The most secular continent on the globe is decadent in the literal sense that its population is rapidly shrinking."

Although I wouldn't yet place atheists on the Endangered Species List, I am adding them onto Wisconsin's Threatened Species List:

-Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)
-Pitcher's Thistle (Cirsium pitcheri)
-Northern Wild Monkshood (Aconitum noveboracense)
-Fassett's Locoweed (Oxytropis campestris chartacea)
-Darwinian Atheist (Homo sapien d'amoebus)

Bush Lied-- Through Mildred's Teeth

(H.T. Wicked Thoughts.)

Dems Using Performance Enhancers

(H.T. John Ray.)

Michael J. Rat Supports
Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Much of the critique of embryonic stem cell research contains the assertion that there are zero successes through this therapy relative to that of adult stem cells. That is not entirely true, however.

The Red Chinese have been working feverously on this research with mixed results as have the radical Islamists who are trying to increase the number and ferocity of jihadists.

In my basement laboratory, we have also been working on this for years. Until now I've had to do this important work in secret. Being a former member of PETA, I feared for the safety of my family, fellow researchers, as well as myself. But, now, during the present controversy, I feel compelled to release my results.

My studies have all been done on rats, but I believe that with slight modification these results can easily be duplicated in humans.

In preparation for my testing I spent years developing three separate strains of rat; homosexual, liberal, and conservative. The homosexual rat strain was easy to discern, but difficult to repopulate. Artificial insemination of lesbian rats was required.

The identification of the liberal and conservative populations initially proved more difficult. At one point, however, it finally became a simple matter. The conservative elements of the population worked hard, took care of their own families, and learned to run mazes quickly. The liberal population formed a commune, or kibbutz, and did a lot of rat-whining while raiding the fruits of the conservatives' labors.

We were then able to begin our embryonic stem cell research. We extracted the stem cells from conservative rat embryos and began therapies on the other two populations.

Very quickly the homosexual population began exhibiting signs of heterosexual behaviors. All 'pawing' practices soon stopped. After three months of therapy, 97.6% had become fully heterosexual. We suspected, also, that the other 2.4% may have been similarly changed, but their raucous complaints did not allow us to conclude their switch. This population grew so quickly that we now have two lab cats that weigh over 36 pounds.

The therapies tested on the liberal rats proved total failures. After several trials the liberal rats increased in whining, urinated and defecated all over themselves and others. Following a few more injections, they began refusing water and the Purina Rat Chow, prefering their own bodily excretions. Most pregnancies were aborted and the population dwindled. Most indicated a desire to move to Hindu portions of India, where they expected to be worshiped according to their due. We refused, since we didn't want to be accused of shipping jobs overseas.

Unfortunately, we have not yet made progress with the treatment of rat diseases with embryonic stem cells. Like other studies, these tests had to be terminated because the tested populations all developed tumors. However, we have obtained some good results with adult rat stem cells.

Our favorite test subject, named Michael J. Rat, was developed both as a liberal and homosexual rat. His therapy not only turned him to heterosexuality, but also ran counter to the results on the other liberal test subjects. He became a conservative, upstanding, and productive member of rat society.

Obviously, Michael J. cannot vote in support of the controversial embryonic stem cell research to be funded by the federal government. He did confide in us, however, that the Democrat Party has contacted him and promised him at least 2 or 3 votes.

We all assured Michael J. that we would support a bill that outlawed the use of garbage to fuel Dr. Brown's Flux Capacitor upgrade. Michael J. Rat feared that such an 'advance' would threaten the livelihood of his progeny.

Call In Tumor Protective Services

James Slack reports in London's Daily Mail:

Hospital Admits to Burning Aborted Babies in Waste Incinerator

"One of the country's leading hospitals is throwing aborted babies into the same incinerator used for rubbish to save only £18.50 each time, it has emerged."

"Addenbrooke's Hospital, in Cambridge, said it was no longer able to afford the dignified disposal at a local crematorium of foetuses from unwanted pregnancies."

"Instead, they are being burnt in the hospital's main incinerator - which is normally used for rubbish and clinical waste.

The revelation sparked anger and distress among church leaders and pro-life groups, as well as women whose pregnancies were terminated at the hospital." [...]

"From the Royal College of Nursing Guide: 'Therefore, it is important to respect the wishes of parents who may not want to be involved, but to ensure also that sensitive and dignified disposal is carried out.'" [...]

"One local woman, who asked not to be named, said after the heartache of deciding to have an abortion she was mortified to find the hospital had used the same furnace they burn rubbish in to incinerate her terminated baby."

"She said: "I am furious and very hurt. Imagine my horror when I discovered that my baby was incinerated in the same furnace as the hospital rubbish.""

Yeah... They should have given your 'tumor' a decent burial!

(H.T. James Taranto Best of the Web.)

Tidbits

--Back in 2004, Lashawn Barber referred to Barack Obama as "The Great Black Hope". I think she was on to something.

--Will Governor Doyle withdraw support for Democrat Steve Kagen's run for Congress in Wisconsin's 8th Congressional District for uttering a racial slur against Doyle's monied Indian friends?

--The standard Democrat slogan for this election, "Speak Spoof to Power!"

--In a Democratic Underground article, philosopher Ernest Partridge labels Conservatives/Republicans as 'Regressives'. In this context I gladly accept the moniker. As a Christian, I expect to be promoted to 'Radical Regressive'. I am not quite ready to 'take it to the streets'. However, I think I may take a nap, though.

More Moral Authority

Mary L. Davenport, M.D., has written an article, The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox, in The American Thinker dated October 25th, 2006. Here is her summation:

"In short, the claims made in the Michael J. Fox political ads are false and reprehensible, an insult to the voters of Maryland, Missouri and New Jersey, and to all Americans."

The reader may notice that Dr. Davenport did not include criticism for Fox's support of Governor Jim Doyle in Wisconsin. Neither will I. If embryonic stem cell research shows even the slightest potential to cure Governor Doyle's political Alzheimer's disease, I may actually change my mind and support it.

Capable of Logical Thought?
What Would We Do With Them?

From Richard Mitchell's book, Less Than Words Can Say:

"Truncheons are for louts. The great masters of social manipulation use language. They know, furthermore, that the establishment of a flexible and subtle language for the ruling classes is only half of what’s needed. The other half is the perpetuation of an ineffective and minimal language among the subjects. Ordinarily, the second half is assured by man’s natural propensity to bother himself as little as possible, but history occasionally requires that the rulers take some special pains to preserve the ignorance of their subjects."

"The simple matter of being logical is a function of language. A million high school graduates capable of fluent English would be a million Americans capable of logical thought. What would we do with them[…] ? You think they’re going to buy those lottery tickets and lamps in the shape of Porky Pig?"

Bureaucratic control of education: 'No Child Left a Mind', but 'some are still achieving through the cracks'. (Damn parents) The 'ruling class' and some in the NEA and WEAC benefit, while quality education suffers.

Taxpayers: Send more money.

(H.T. Fred Sanders through Joe Carter.)

Imagine: A World Without People

A Bob Holmes article in New Scientist Magazine revels over that very thing. Call me jaded during this political time of year, but I would suggest that whenever this October 12th article refers or alludes to 'people' read 'Republicans'. Even with the self-inclusive 'us' or 'we' read 'humanity under the thumb of the Bush/Cheney/Rove regime'.

Imagine Earth without People
12 October 2006
Bob Holmes

"Humans are undoubtedly the most dominant species the Earth has ever known. In just a few thousand years we have swallowed up more than a third of the planet's land for our cities, farmland and pastures. By some estimates, we now commandeer 40 per cent of all its productivity. And we're leaving quite a mess behind: ploughed-up prairies, razed forests, drained aquifers, nuclear waste, chemical pollution, invasive species, mass extinctions and now the looming spectre of climate change. If they could, the other species we share Earth with would surely vote us off the planet."

"Now just suppose they got their wish. Imagine that all the people on Earth - all 6.5 billion of us and counting - could be spirited away tomorrow, transported to a re-education camp in a far-off galaxy. (Let's not invoke the mother of all plagues to wipe us out, if only to avoid complications from all the corpses). Left once more to its own devices, Nature would begin to reclaim the planet, as fields and pastures reverted to prairies and forest, the air and water cleansed themselves of pollutants, and roads and cities crumbled back to dust."

""The sad truth is, once the humans get out of the picture, the outlook starts to get a lot better," says John Orrock, a conservation biologist at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, California."

"The first few years after people evacuated the zone, rats and house mice flourished, and packs of feral dogs roamed the area..."

"On the whole, though, a humanless Earth will likely be a safer place for threatened biodiversity. "I would expect the number of species that benefit to significantly exceed the number that suffer, at least globally," Wilcove says."

"If another intelligent species ever evolves on the Earth - and that is by no means certain, given how long life flourished before we came along - it may well have no inkling that we were ever here save for a few peculiar fossils and ossified relics. The humbling - and perversely comforting - reality is that the Earth will forget us remarkably quickly."

If George W. Bush spoke and there was nobody there to hear him, would he still be lying?

The moral of the article: Vote Democrat!

Bono Pontified & Children Died

Eursoc reports:

"U2 were performing in Hampden Park, Glasgow, to a sell-out audience.

In the middle of the concert Bono hushed the crowd, asking for complete silence. Then he slowly started clapping his hands, clap-clap-clap-clap-clap.

Holding the audience in awestruck silence he says softly and seriously into the microphone "You know every time I clap my hands a child in Africa dies..."

A voice from the back row shouts "well f***ing well stop doin' it then!""

That reminds me of an old Thomas Sowell comment of statistics usage:

"Statistics say that in New York a pedestrian is hit by a car every twenty seconds. Boy, I bet he isn't very happy about that!"

(H.T. Commonsense and Wonder.)

What Would You Do with...
A Ph.D. in Psychology?

Lyn Davis Lear, a Ph.D. in Psychology and the wife of Norman Lear, wrote an article in Huffpo anticipating Republican dirty tricks in November. She concludes:

"But whether it is hubris, loony tunes, or both, the White House's freakish calm about the elections makes me as nervous as the hell we seem to be headed for. Therefore we should all be on alert. If for whatever reason we don't win back Congress in November the only real answer will be to take to the streets."

Blue Crab Boulevard comments, "That's right Lyn, incite rioting and whatnot. Send in all the hired help and those you can convince. You really won't need the chauffeur if the streets are blocked anyway."

"Because you sure as heck won't see Mrs. Norman Lear at a shabby barricade. Might break a nail. Besides, much too far away from the Fernet Branca."

I still have my riot gear from my MP days. I'll sure stop that Grandpa John from looting and pillaging. We then could sell brother v. brother movie rights to our story and both become rich. Sorry about those knots on your head, GJ!

(H.T. The Anchoress.)

Flashback- 1972

At this time in 1972, I was serving as a Security MP on Patch Barracks in Stuttgart-Vaihingen, West Germany, the home of the US European Command (EUCOM) and the headquarters for the US Armed Forces in Europe (HQ-USAREUR). I carried both a .45 semi-automatic and a 12 gauge pump to sit at a desk and check ID's of anyone wishing to enter the particular building. (Perhaps I should have become a public school teacher.)

It had been a tough summer. The Munich Summer Olympics suffered the massacre. The Baader-Meinhof Gang of terrorists had bombed and killed several American servicemen and directly threatened to bomb us. Race riots had taken place on several American posts so we spent many evenings dressed in full riot gear ready for action.

Morale wasn't too bad considering that many of our number were draftees. At least we weren't vacationing in Viet Nam. Several of us had drawn orders to go to Nam, but had them changed at the last moment. And the German beer was awfully good!

I also particularly remember three hit tunes that were commonly played, sung, hummed, and jived to. One was a tune by the O'Jays, 'Backstabbers', 'Smile in your face when all they want to do is take your place-- Backstabbers.' Basically a good FTA type song. Young soldiers are often like other regular people, accusing 'The Man' of regularly stabbing you in the back. Quite a bunch of whiners! (I was actively campaigning for George McGovern.)

The second of the 'Hit Parade' was Joe Cocker's 'The Letter'. 'Give me a ticket for an air-o-plane, ain't got time to take a fast train. Lonely days are gone, I'm a goin' home. My baby, she wrote me a letter.' Almost everyone had an accurate count of days remaining until discharge. (Perhaps I should have become an accountant.)

The third song, probably not a general favorite, but was one to which I personalized the lyrics. This was Bob Dylan's 'Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again'. The version I sang contained the lyrics, 'Oh, Mama, can this really be the end? To be stuck inside of Stuttgart with the Janesville blues again.' Of course, it was sung with my best Dylan-esque rasp. (I coulda been a contendah... had American Idol been around then!)

After returning to Janesville, I stayed for a couple of years and moved away for another 20. I left as a young, brash atheist and leftist and returned a mature, dignified Christian and conservative.

"With Friends Like Dawkins,
Atheists Don't Need Enemies"

I hadn't intended to continue with discussion of Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, until I read the lament by Keith Burgess-Jackson in Anal Philosopher, "With friends like Dawkins, atheists don't need enemies." With this comment he linked to JIM HOLT in The New York Times Sunday Book Review

THE GOD DELUSION
By Richard Dawkins.
406 pp. Houghton Mifflin Company. $27.

Since the Eagleton review appeared to come from a theist's point of view, I expected this one to be much different. However, it is fundamentally quite similar.

"The book fairly crackles with brio. Yet reading it can feel a little like watching a Michael Moore movie. There is lots of good, hard-hitting stuff about the imbecilities of religious fanatics and frauds of all stripes, but the tone is smug and the logic occasionally sloppy. Dawkins fans accustomed to his elegant prose might be surprised to come across such vulgarisms as “sucking up to God” and “Nur Nurny Nur Nur” (here the author, in a dubious polemical ploy, is imagining his theological adversary as a snotty playground brat). It’s all in good fun when Dawkins mocks a buffoon like Pat Robertson and fundamentalist pastors like the one who created “Hell Houses” to frighten sin-prone children at Halloween. But it is less edifying when he questions the sincerity of serious thinkers who disagree with him, like the late Stephen Jay Gould, or insinuates that recipients of the million-dollar-plus Templeton Prize, awarded for work reconciling science and spirituality, are intellectually dishonest (and presumably venal to boot). In a particularly low blow, he accuses Richard Swinburne, a philosopher of religion and science at Oxford, of attempting to “justify the Holocaust,” when Swinburne was struggling to square such monumental evils with the existence of a loving God. Perhaps all is fair in consciousness-raising. But Dawkins’s avowed hostility can make for scattershot reasoning as well as for rhetorical excess. Moreover, in training his Darwinian guns on religion, he risks destroying a larger target than he intends."

"The beauty of Darwinian evolution, as Dawkins never tires of observing, is that it shows how the simple can give rise to the complex. But not all scientific explanation follows this model. In physics, for example, the law of entropy implies that, for the universe as a whole, order always gives way to disorder; thus, if you want to explain the present state of the universe in terms of the past, you are pretty much stuck with explaining the probable (messy) in terms of the improbable (neat)."

"Instead, he attributes religion to a “misfiring” of something else that is adaptively useful; namely, a child’s evolved tendency to believe its parents. Religious ideas, he thinks, are viruslike “memes” that multiply by infecting the gullible brains of children. (Dawkins coined the term “meme” three decades ago to refer to bits of culture that, he holds, reproduce and compete the way genes do.) Each religion, as he sees it, is a complex of mutually compatible memes that has managed to survive a process of natural selection."

Science is an excellent tool, but when scientists assume the role of High Priests, it becomes rather foolish.

Grandpa John's Wannabees

In the London Review of Books, Terry Eagleton reviews The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins · Bantam, 406 pp, £20.00

A Grandpa John's style excerpt from 'Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching':

"Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that. For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief. (Where, given that he invites us at one point to question everything, is Dawkins’s own critique of science, objectivity, liberalism, atheism and the like?) Reason, to be sure, doesn’t go all the way down for believers, but it doesn’t for most sensitive, civilised non-religious types either. Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason. We hold many beliefs that have no unimpeachably rational justification, but are nonetheless reasonable to entertain. Only positivists think that ‘rational’ means ‘scientific’."

The America Show

Madison- Full of Nerds, Dorks, and Dweebs

I used to think that Madison was Liberal Cool, like Berkeley, only with bad weather. You can only imagine my disappointment at finding out that, by bumper sticker standards, Madison is almost conservative. In my frequent trips there I have never seen any of these up-to-date Liberal Coolies on any bumper, even on the UW campus or near the capitol:



No problem... Thinking in governments schools is also unconstitutional.




Free Saddam! Vote for Osama!




Partial-Birth Abortion-- It's Not Just for Breakfast Anymore!




Parents Ain't Qwalifyd to Teech Dare Kids Nuttin'

(H.T. Right Wing News via Tigerhawk.)

Bush Acknowledges Tet

According to Timesonline: "Asked in an interview last night if he agreed with the opinion of Tom Friedman, a New York Times columnist who compared the strife in Iraq with the Tet Offensive, the President responded: "He could be right. There’s certainly a stepped-up level of violence.""

I presume that many commenters on the Left are elated that Bush finally sees the light that our actions in Iraq have become a quagmire just like Viet Nam. This is a sad misinterpretation. Iraq's similarity to Viet Nam is not of the quagmire variety. The similarity is that American Leftists have not changed stripes in over 40 years.

The following is a recycled post that I wrote back in June:

Recycled Chumps-
The Legacy of Walter Cronkite

Many Lefties try to equate our situation in Iraq to that which existed during our presence in Viet Nam almost 4 decades ago. However, even the present connotation of the Viet Nam war does not equate to the reality that was Viet Nam in the field of battle. One aspect that does remain constant throughout the 40 years is the promotion of a destructive political position by the MSM.

"The one great similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is that our enemies, despairing of victory on the battlefield, sought to win with a propaganda campaign.

In Vietnam, this strategy succeeded. If it fails in Iraq, it will be chiefly because of the emergence of the new media.

The turning point in Vietnam was the Tet Offensive of February, 1968. It was a crushing defeat for the Viet Cong.

"Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise," said North Vietnamese Army Col. Bui Tin in a 1995 interview. "Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out. It took until 1971 to re-establish our presence."

"The Tet Offensive proved catastrophic to our plans," said Truong Nhu Tang, minister of justice in the Viet Cong's provisional government, in a 1982 interview. "Our losses were so immense we were unable to replace them with new recruits."

The news media reported this overwhelming American victory as a catastrophic defeat.

"Donning helmet, Mr. Cronkite declared the war lost," recounted UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave. "It was this now famous television news piece that persuaded President Lyndon Johnson...not to run for re-election."

Shaken by Tet, he planned to seek terms for a conditional surrender, the North Vietnamese commander, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, wrote in his memoirs. But our news media's complete misrepresentation of what had actually happened "convinced him America's resolve was weakening and complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp," Mr. de Borchgrave said."1

Facts such as these cause one to remember the wisdom of the ancients. The Latin root for our present word 'sinister' means 'on the left'.

Still grits my gall bladder.
____________________________

There are other facts that I failed to mention in this post. The Vietnamese 'insurgents' lost 60,000 troops within a two month period after the initiation of the Tet offensive. More importantly, they failed to win the support of the South Vietnamese people on which they had counted.

When the North Vietnamese regulars first captured Hue, they slaughtered 4,000 or more civilians.

And this infamous photo by Eddie Adams:

If a picture tells a thousand words, this one was surely misquoted and taken out of context. The shooter is the Saigon police supervisor, the shootee, a Viet Cong who had just slaughtered an entire family. According the The History Channel, Adams apologized to the cop for taking and publishing the photo.

Yes, the war in Iraq is like Viet Nam after the Tet Offensive. At least, to the Walter Cronkite clones who are invested in American defeat.

The Science of Evolution

The BBC.

Human species 'may split in two'

"Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years' time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said."

"Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge."

"The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures."

"The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans similar to the Eloi and Morlocks foretold by HG Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine."

The upper class Graciles, AKA Democrats:

"Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals."

"Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams."

"Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile."

Apparently, the Democrats have already evolved into much of this prediction. The 'Christianized Republicans', too, have surely evolved into 'dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures'.

Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics? And people make fun of Pat Robertson?

How long before this is taught in our school's science classrooms?

Madonna With Child

In a Fox News article, Susan Estrich writes about the flap over Madonna's attempt to adopt a Malawian child. Here are a couple of paragraphs that stirred up a memory:

"In whose interest are these human rights and childrens rights groups protesting this adoption? Under which set of circumstances will this child be better off? What is their mission? Why wouldn’t more children be better off if more people stepped up and followed Madonna’s example? Am I missing something here?"

"So the do-gooders could have their way and the baby could go back. So that laws that protect no one and will deprive one child of a future his family could not have dreamed of can be enforced. So that adoption, which should be encouraged, can be discouraged instead."

"I don’t think so."

The boy's mother had just died, the father was too destitute to appropriately take care of him...

Be careful, Madonna. Janet Reno may kick down your door, take the child, and send him back home. Don't, under any circumstances, name the boy Elian.

Todd, Lance...

Is this what Grandpa John is like (the one in the back) when none of us are around?



Mmmmm.... NASCAR...

(H.T. Dissecting Leftism.)

Top-Notch Fodder with which
to Chew Our Cud

Here's an interesting article by Raymond S. Kraft (I believe he's a lawyer) that amounts to a call for Congress to write legislation clarifying the meanings of several 'ambiguous' clauses in the Bill of Rights that regularly come up to the Courts for clarification.

"H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA) sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) and the Senate version S. 3696, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), are winding their way through Congress and, I hope, will soon be passed and signed into law by the President. These bills are meant to put a crimp in the long line of lawsuits brought by the ACLU (the American Civil Liberties Union, aka the American Communist Liberties Union) attacking certain acts and practices which are offensive only to a very minute minority of pathologically thin-skinned people, such as prayer at high school graduations, the display of the Ten Commandments in or near courthouses, the erection of crosses at military cemeteries, the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and so forth, by barring the courts from awarding attorney fees to any party in any Establishment Clause lawsuit."

"This is an excellent idea. A good beginning. But it will not prevent the ACLU from filing, and sometimes winning, its lawsuits, which generally take the position that any reference to the religious faiths and heritage of the American people on public (government) property is a violation of the first clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .""

"The ACLU does not give equal attention, of course, to the rest of that sentence, which continues: " . . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .," which, it seems to me, should include the freedom to express religious ideas and traditions in public places for the more than 90% of all Americans who are religious, and the more than 90% of those who are Christian. The ACLU seems to take the position that the First Amendment does not guarantee freedom of religion, but freedom from religion, as it did in the Pledge of Allegiance cases, in which Dr. Newdow and the ACLU asserted that the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional because it was personally offensive to Dr. Newdow, claiming, in effect, that any acknowledgment of religious faith in a public context that is offensive to anybody is an "establishment" of religion."

"While the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA) will bar the courts from awarding attorney fees to the ACLU in Establishment Clause cases, it will not prevent, or deter, the ACLU from continuing to bring these cases, which can be financed by private contributions."

"I think we can go farther and do even better."

"Some of the biggest Constitutional controversies are misunderstood, even by some Supreme Court Justices. The Court is more or less split between the "living constitution" liberals, who think the Constitution is malleable and its meaning must evolve with changes in social mores and culture; and the "originalist" and "strict constructionist" conservatives who think the Founding Fathers had the last word. But there is another reality at work - and both of these schools of thought seem to miss it - which is that most of the controversial clauses in the Constitution are controversial because they are ambiguous. They are not defined in, or by, the Constitution."

"What, precisely, does "an establishment of religion" mean? Does it mean that there shall be no reference at all to any religion on any public property? Or does it only mean that Congress shall not establish an official church, the Church of America, as England has the Church of England? The Constitution doesn't say. Or, again in the First Amendment, what, exactly, does "the free exercise thereof [religion]" mean? Are there any limitations at all to my freedom to do anything in the name of religion?"

"What does "the right to keep and bear arms" mean? "Unreasonable search and seizure?" The 5th Amendment allows the government to take private property for public use, with just compensation, but what does "public use?" mean? This question lay at the center of the recent Kelo case, in which the Supreme Court held that the taking of a private home to build a private office and commercial park which would have the public benefit of increasing jobs and tax revenues for the city fell within the meaning of "public use," much to the dismay of millions of Americans."

"Since these terms, and others, are not defined by the Constitution, every time there is a lawsuit about them, somebody has to define them, in order to decide the case. And since Congress has not passed legislation to define these terms, the responsibility to define them has fallen, by default, to the courts, ultimately to the Supreme Court."

"It is generally accepted legal doctrine that if a law is vague, ambiguous, or uncertain, the court can, should, and must define the law in such manner as to give effect to the apparent intent of the law (the "legislative intent"), unless it is so vague, ambiguous, or uncertain, as to be unenforceable or void for ambiguity. The court must either look at the law and say, "This isn't well written, but it's pretty obvious what it's supposed to say, so we're going to say that it means what we think it was meant to say;" or, "This is so badly written that we can't be sure what it means, we can't decide what the legislative intent was, so we are going to declare it void for ambiguity, we won't enforce it.""

"Section 1 of Article 1 of the Constitution begins: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.""

"Now, the power to write and rewrite, or amend, legislation, and the Constitution, obviously lies in Congress. Congress can amend its laws, or the Constitution (a long process that requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the states), to remove or clarify terms that are vague, ambiguous, unclear, or undefined. For the most part, it doesn't so this, thereby abdicating its legislative power to amend laws and define the terms and meanings of laws to the courts, which must then act in a quasi-legislative capacity to resolve undefined terms in the Constitution and other laws."

"Thus, for more than two centuries, the Supreme Court has been acting, of necessity, as a 9-person quasi-legislature, whenever it is called upon to define an undefined term in the Constitution. Since it must resolve the case somehow, and since Congress hasn't provided the definition of "an establishment of religion" to clarify the First Amendment, it falls to the Court to do so. Of course, it is an unelected legislative body, and a small one, and what it decides necessarily reflects the beliefs, philosophies, and biases, of whoever the Justices happen to be at the time. Which may or may not coincide with the will of the people, or of Congress. And, since Supreme Court decisions are sometimes decided by a split court, 3 to 6, or 4 to 5, a decision interpreting the Constitution or applying a law to the entire nation can sometimes be made - in effect - by just one Supreme Court Justice, whoever cast the tie-breaking vote."

"But there is a Third Way here - and that is for Congress to debate and define, by legislation, the controversial and undefined terms in the Constitution, such as "an establishment of religion." I cannot find or think of any reason why it would not be within the power of Congress to do so, and it would not require an amendment of the Constitution, so long as the legislated definition was consistent with a plausible and reasonable reading of the Constitution. Congress would not remove or change the phrase, "an establishment of religion." It would simply define the phrase - deciding what "an establishment of religion" means - something that the courts have been grappling with for decades. This might be a long and controversial debate in Congress, but it would be a good debate for us to have."

"And this would not be unconstitutional, as long as the legislative definition of "an establishment of religion" was consistent with the apparent intent of the First Amendment - which is, obviously, to protect the broadest possible scope of religious freedom, and to prohibit an official or State religion."

"Most importantly, by defining these controversial clauses and phrases in the Constitution, Congress could dramatically limit the ability of the ACLU and its ilk to challenge the free exercise of religion in public places, and other liberties that the ACLU and others do not think Americans should have. So long as the legislation was not vague and ambiguous, and was not clearly unconstitutional, the Court would be bound by the definitions adopted by Congress, since, unless the law is vague and ambiguous, or clearly unconstitutional, the Court must defer to the legislative power of Congress. Congress writes the laws, the courts interpret and enforce them. If the law is clear there is little room for interpretation, and the courts can only enforce it."

"So, we can propose what might be called the Constitutional Clarification Act of 2007 to help put a stop to some of the frivolous litigation brought by the ACLU, and others, that is offensive to a vast majority of Americans, and contrary to the spirit of liberty that permeates the Constitution."

"The First Amendment reads (in controversial part):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ""

"I propose this be clarified, by separate legislation, as follows:

"(a) No ceremonial act or memorial on public property which recognizes, or acknowledges, the religious faith and heritage of the American people shall constitute an 'establishment of religion' within the meaning of the First Amendment, so long as it confers no material benefit upon, nor exacts any material detriment from, any person, as a consequence of his, or her, religious faith, or lack thereof."

"This should make it clear that ceremonial prayers, crosses at war memorials, Ten Commandments at courthouses, and so forth, which are "ceremonial acts or memorials," do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and should pretty much put a stop to ACLU litigation over these things. The provision that such practice must not confer any material benefit, or exact any material detriment, should help protect against the establishment of any official religion or church, and also bar plaintiffs from having "standing to sue" on the basis of immaterial, trivial, "injuries," such as having been "offended" by hearing a prayer, or seeing a cross or the Ten Commandments."

Kraft goes on to discuss ideas to clarify the meanings of 'to keep and bear arms', 'unreasonable search and seizure', and 'public use'.

(H.T. John Ray in Tongue Tied 3.)

The Tortured Course of Human Events

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

What intolerant, toothless, knuckle-dragging, superstitious, opiated bigot wrote this crap? 'Nature's God', 'Creator'... Ha! What drivel! And even worse, I think that they actually believed in it!!

And just what did this scatalogic pile sprout? Just the most evil empire that the Earth has ever seen, now led by a humanoid named 'W' who invents new evils daily. The whole Earth and her children suffer daily at the hands of this devil and his cadre.

If only we would have instituted a French-like, sophisticated atheistic revolution instead. Sure some blood was shed, but you gotta break some eggs to make a perfect omelette. If we had done so, we would have today become... well, France.

Or perhaps we could have undertaken a scientific, atheistic Bolshevic revolution. Sure, a couple of people were starved or executed along the way, but have you ever had a borscht and vodka breakfast?

Or perhaps we could have chosen the simple, rustic, atheistic Chinese 'Great Leap Forward'. Sure a few bullets and tanks mangled human flesh, but "the intensive marshaling of America's energies would have drawn manual and mental labor together into a final harmonious synthesis and would have thrown a bridge across the chasm of America's poverty to the promised socialist paradise on the other side." And we would all have evolved into truly red states today. Styrofoamic rice cakes for breakfast! Hmmmm... rice cakes...

How short-sighted, ignorant, and foolish were America's founders. Even today we are still working to shake off the vestigial, deleterious effects of antiquated belief in a nonexistent 'Nature's God' and 'Creator'. But, hopefully soon, the A.C.L.U. will work its way out of a job.

Perhaps someday we can achieve the glorious levels of the modern civilizations of France, Russia, or China. There are also many other 'high-achiever' secular societies to which Jesusisjustalrightwithme alludes: "The truth is that the general rule in this world is that the more secular a society is, the stronger the economy and the longer the average lifespan, and the higher the average level of happiness. The more religios a society? You know the answer to that."1

Awomen, sister!

Using the Title Box This One Time

While researching for a later post I stumbled upon this Sports Illustrated article that caught may attention. Here are some excerpts of the more germane passages:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any educational programs or activity receiving federal financial assistance. -- From the preamble to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

"...interpreted by the Department of Education, which hews to the misguided concept of "proportionality": that if 61 percent of a student population is female, then 61 percent of the student athletes must be female, too."

"But since its enactment more than 170 men's wrestling teams have disappeared. Eighty men's tennis teams, 45 track teams and 106 men's gymnastics teams have been axed."

"Forty schools have dropped football. Walk-on male athletes in all sports are routinely turned away to keep rosters at a minimum so the male/female ratios in college sports programs don't get thrown off."

"That wasn't the idea behind Title IX. It was designed to create, not eliminate, opportunity."

And its ultimate achievement...

"UCLA's men's swimming team, which boasted 22 Olympic medals, is gone,..."

Is that progressive applause I'm hearing from Grandpa John?

Yep, Todd, I'm playing the 'victimology' card again! (Bwa-ha-ha-ha)

Don't ask me what it is, you're the one who brought it up...

This argument (sorry, 'conversation') is spiraling toward the land of agree-to-disagree. Unfortunate but inevitable. Let's move it along.

First: "I have no complete logical path to belief in God. If that makes me a hypocrite, then oh, well." But you expect me to have one? That is a little hypocritical. Second: "Atheists BELIEVE that there IS NO GOD." Arrogant. I'm an atheist, and you don't get to tell me what I believe. Understand?
What you're doing is asking me to add something to my beliefs that I regard as unnecessary and irrelevant. "You won't explain your belief...except to say that nobody has proven any other belief yet." This is a pretty loose reading but it'll do: if nobody has proven any other belief, why should I change my mind?

The truth is we both regard our views as 'default,' that's why we can't see eye to eye. That's why we're both insisting that the other provide an explanation. You say "there is plenty of reason not to rule it out," but are you willing to 'not rule out' that I might have a point too?
You want me to lay out a 'logical path' to atheism? Here it is: there is not one single solitary reason for me to believe in god (just as important, for me to believe in a specific god). Not good enough for you? Tough, that's all there is. You wrote that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That's true, but meaningless in this context. Nothing follows from that.

This is likely to be my last contribution to this thread, as we're starting to talk in circles.

Well if it's not a title box, then what the hell is it?

I said in my previous post that I have no complete logical path to belief in God. If that makes me a hypocrite, then oh, well.

I think there is plenty of reason not to rule it out, though. I'll address that more later.

But, Todd, excuse me for saying that I find your non-arguments to be a cop-out. You won't explain your belief (and it IS a belief) except to say that nobody has proven any other belief yet.

If you're an atheist only because nobody's proven the existence of God to you, then that's not true atheism. Atheists BELIEVE that there IS NO GOD. That's a positive statement - atheists ARE making a statement, just like believers - that ought to be supportable somehow, and not just by default. Besides, atheism is considered the logical, reasoned choice. Isn't it? It's the believers who are superstitious.

I'll address my logical path (such as it is) next week. But I still think the atheists among us should be able to do the same.

We do not either have a title box

Bonus points to anyone who gets that joke. Believe me, it's hilarious.

Steve: first, every so often you post about separation-of-church-and-state, or some other thing those dastardly minority atheists (mwa ha ha) are imposing on you poor majority Christians. I usually wonder if you've read something somewhere that set you off, or if it just has to do with the lunar cycle. If the former, it's time to start naming names. We're all big kids here.
Second, the First Amendment has, in fact, "erected a wall between church and state." That seems to be your real issue, and I'll address it in another post.
Third, I'm sure you're sincere about not intending to lump me in with the 'militant atheists,' as you put it, but you really can't avoid doing so. 'Hundreds of atheists' is a pretty feeble disclaimer.
Finally, saying that a statement is 'unproven' (or 'unprovable') does not mean that the opposite is true. I've argued this repeatedly; see my post about whatshername, Coulter. Stating that evolution is not 'proven fact' does not leave the field to creationism/intelligent design. And if the assertion 'there is no God' isn't provable through formal logic [it isn't] it does not follow that 'there is a god' must be true. I am astonished that you can't see that. And if you can, you don't act like it.

Lance: 'how do atheists know there isn’t a God?' How do believers know there is one?

What you're doing here is trying to shift the burden of proof to me, and you're doing it in a not-entirely-honest way. When I say that atheists 'don't need to make a statement,' I mean that the believers already have. They've stated that 'this is true: this exists, and it has the following properties...' If you weren't saying that, there wouldn't be any atheists, would there?
Now, instead of criticizing, you could be discussing how you came to your beliefs, why you believe in your particular god, but you aren't. Why not?
It gets back to the concept of 'god.' Or 'gods,' which probably came first. At some point, somewhere, somebody started talking about that. Somebody brought up the idea of a deity. You say we're just having a conversation; well, that's when the conversation started. "But why is atheism the default position? One side has to explain their belief, while the other side gets a pass. That doesn’t make sense." It makes sense. One side has a belief. the other doesn't.
"The assertion ‘God doesn’t exist.’ is just as much a positive statement as 'God exists.' It implies a logical conclusion. A logical conclusion implies that facts have been ascertained. Facts can be verified. You must have followed some logical path to reach that conclusion." Beautiful. Lay your facts and logical path on me. Can you?

Live From Pyongyang-
It's Saturday Night!

"To nuclear power plants!"

We have a title box, you know. The rest of you can use it, too.

I’m looking out my office window, and I see two little girls.

I see no evidence that the first little girl has a father. Sure, I can assume she does. Somebody lent the DNA to her birth. But looking at her, I see no evidence that he is in her life at all. As far as I can tell, she’s being raised by a single mom. Maybe even by grandparents.

I see no evidence that the other little girl has parents at all. I see no reason to believe that she wasn’t created in a test tube, placed into a surrogate for gestation and birth, and then raised in a laboratory.

These are facts, just like the facts that Grandpa John lists in his last post. However, that I see no evidence means absolutely nothing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

More recently, Todd writes: “I have repeatedly stated that atheists don't need to make such a statement. We don't need any statement at all. It's the religious believers who make the assertion: 'God exists and has the following characteristics...' My response to this assertion is, and has always been, 'gee, how do you know that?'”

In one way, Todd’s correct. Nobody needs to make any statement. Christians generally hope to spread their faith to others, while atheists, as far as I know, don’t. Neither do agnostics. So Christians are more likely to make some kind of argument, but nobody has to.

But why is atheism the default position? One side has to explain their belief, while the other side gets a pass. That doesn’t make sense.

The assertion ‘God doesn’t exist.’ is just as much a positive statement as “God exists.” It implies a logical conclusion. A logical conclusion implies that facts have been ascertained. Facts can be verified. You must have followed some logical path to reach that conclusion.

I should mention that there's nothing wrong with not being sure. With not choosing a side. I'm not always sure of myself - in fact, I rarely am. I’m frequently unsure of what I believe, mostly because I can’t logically prove the existence of God. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite. Whatever. Seems to me that everybody thinks atheism is more logical than Christianity, so if anybody should have to logically prove something, it’s atheists.

We’re just having a conversation here. Just trying to satisfy my own curiosity. Nobody’s trying to convince anybody else of anything. Surely we can discuss this in the abstract. My question to this group of people who grew up (or raised their kids) with a serious appreciation for logic and critical thinking: how do atheists know there isn’t a God?

Steve: I can only think of one word to describe my reaction to your recent posts: disappointed.

I've repeatedly stated that I'm not hostile to religion. I've tried to explain my personal beliefs in a way that you would understand. I hoped that you would have the courtesy to address me directly; instead you prefer to treat with your secular bugaboos, such as this "Left" that "whines about President Bush leading the country toward a theocracy and considers Christians in mocking tones as knuckle-dragging, intolerant, anti-intellectual, toothless boobs."

In lieu of discussion, you have only insults: "atheofascists," "Atheism is at least as old as other forms of prostitution." "Atheism is a power religion that must be evangelized by brainwashing and force." "...A response matching the depth of thought would be something like, 'D'uh', or 'Nanny-nanny boo-boo', or 'Pfffffttt'."

And victimology: "...has resulted in the favored status of the minority atheist religious faith over that of the majority." "Due to the separation of church and state, Christians will not be allowed to vote. Since their voting selections would be instructed by their faith, this must be prohibited."

And, finally, straw men: "Rational philosophers know that proving a negative such as 'there is no God' is impossible. The basis for atheism, therefore, starts with an act of blind faith," "...we have proven that there is no God, that humans are descendents of and closely related to Treponema pallidum, and that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights actually does say 'separation of church and state'."

I'll address that last one: 'separation of church and state'. I defy you to produce one person who makes such an assertion, anyone with half a brain could learn the truth of it in about five seconds. Is this, then, merely a dodge to avoid discussing what the 1st Amendment actually does say? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." To me this means "go ahead and worship however you want, just don't expect the government to help you do it." How hard is that?

I can't keep doing this. I have to conclude that you're unable to have a serious discussion about religion with someone like me. It has nothing to do with intelligence or education; you're just not able to conceive of any other viewpoint than your own, even hypothetically. I'd love to be proven wrong, but that's the only way I can see it.

Descriptive Observation

After being hit scrambling for his second lost fumble, Badger receiver, Paul Hubbard, staggered off the field. The announcer stated, "He's on Rubber Leg Street." I haven't heard that one for a long time.

Bumper Stickers of the Middle East

Gagdad Bob has compiled a list of Palestinian bumper stickers and comments:

-Practice Premeditated Acts of Violence and Gratuitous Cruelty
-Obey Authority
-My Other Car is a Truck Bomb
-Jihad is Not Healthy for Infidels and other Vile Creatures
-Follow Me, I'm Lost
-My Son Graduated Summa Boom Loudly from Arafat High
-Pray for World Conflagration
-After a bomb lab was discovered in the Palestinian territories, I asked, "Isn't qualifying it as a Palestinian bomb lab redundant, like Bozo the clown?"
-There was a story about money laundering in the Palestinian Authority, to which I remarked, “Sources close to Arafat say that money was the only thing he ever laundered.”

B.S. UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg gives a list of Community Inactivist bumper stickers:

-Visualize me ignoring you.
-How about "let's not."
-Don't honk if you can't be bothered.
-Don't Act, NOW!
-If not now, whenever.
-Leave well enough alone
-Slacking: It's not just for kids.
-YOU Save the Whales!
-Practice Random Acts of Self-Restraint.
-Ask Not.
-Future Site of Political Statement.

'Splain It to Me, Pleez, 'Cause I's Stoopid
And Speek Slow Usin' Small Werds

The blogger/commenter Jesusisjustalrightwithme has made several assertions that I would like to see corroborated in further detail. Many of his statements are made with such confidence that they must be simple to substantiate. Since I am an Evangelical Christian without a college degree or Mensa credentials, he plainly sees the need:

"The General Social Survey says we are statistically smarter by the way. The GSS says fundamentalists have 1.9 fewer years of education. They also score markedly lower on the GSS's IQ test."1

Often in our discussions we clash over the primacy of evolutionary theory in the modern-modern scientific paradigm. I place macro-evolution and intelligent design firmly in the camp of faith more than in any solidly based scientific genre.

JIJAWM cogently explains science and the scientific method:

"Scientific method uses observations and reasoning to propose tentative explanations for natural phenomena, termed hypotheses. Scientists make predictions from these hypotheses. An important aspect of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be conceivable to prove the hypothesis to be false. If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it is not a hypothesis, and instead an opinion or statement not based upon the scientific method. These hypothesies are tested by various experiments. These experiments should be reproducible."

"Once a hypothesis is repeatedly verified through experiment, it is considered to be a theory and new predictions are based upon it. Any erroneous predictions, internal inconsistencies or unexplained phenomena, initiate the generation of correction to hypotheses, which are themselves tested, and so on. Any hypothesis which is cogent enough to make predictions can be tested in this way." 2

No problems there, even for a mental midget like me.

To continue:

"It is important to understand the terms "hypothesis," "theory," "law," model," and also "fact." It is important to understand that a theory is not something less than a fact. All of these terms refer to different and important things." 3

Please explain what is meant by "...a theory is not something less than a fact."

Likewise:

"NOBODY THINKS EVOLUTION IS A FACT. That’s not what a fact is. Evolution is a theory. But a theory is not something less than a fact. It has nothing to do with belief. It has everything to do with reasonable conjecture based on observed evidence." 4

I wish you would delineate some of the observed evidence and reasonable conjecture that places macro-evolution at the level of theory and not that of faith. It should be easy since the hypothesis has had lengthy time and study to place it firmly there. 'Micro-evolution' is not at issue here. The species of Peppered Moths contains a genetic pool for both light and dark colors. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane are both dogs whose genes could be combined to get another 'breed' of dog.

Here's another statement from our discussions that requires verification:

"The truth is that the general rule in this world is that the more secular a society is, the stronger the economy and the longer the average lifespan, and the higher the average level of happiness. The more religios a society? You know the answer to that. Perhaps in some ways, the US is an exception to that rule, but for how long? 5

Discuss. I'll be out in left field looking for the spot from which any solid reasoning may be gleaned. Do you have a secret map showing an 'X' to mark the spot?

Pistol Packin' Plato

The List

One interesting occurence shadowing the Mark Foley sex-by-instant-message affair has been the report of a list going around that 'outs' top-level Republican congressional aides who are gay.

There are two basic conservative responses to 'The List'. One is that the Democrats are desiring to deter Evangelical Christians from their support of the Republican Party. The second is that the Democrats are showing themselves as hypocrites and 'gay-bashers'. Although both responses have much merit, they don't quite hit the bullseye.

For the Democrats this is not technically 'gay bashing'. It is gay Republican/Conservative bashing. Since these gays are off the Liberal reservation, they are not truly gay after all. Just as a Black Conservative has forsaken his blackness and is called an Oreo or an Uncle Tom, a conservative homosexual is not truly gay and is called an Aunt Bruce (or Bruthe). Another analogous example is Senator Joe Lieberman. One toenail strayed over the party line and he was thrown under the bus.

"I am not surprised that this is where we are headed. But my question is…. why have our national gay organizations (HRC, Log Cabin, NGLTF) not stepped in to stop this witchhunt which originated on the Gay Left in the first place? I think we know the answer. Tolerance and diversity of opinion is a one-way street for the Gay Liberals and their masters in the Democrat Party."--The Gay Patriot

One gay Congressional aide, wishing to remain anonymous, told me, "We wanted to fight back by compiling a list of Liberals who were fully straight, but the list came up empty. Even Bill Clinton prefered fellating a cigar over succumbing to Monica's feminine wiles."

Washington, where morality is legislated, is a nasty place.

Modernizing Voter Registration and Immigration Policy

The time has finally come. After years of struggle with the help of highly technological forensics (as seen on TV) we have proven that there is no God, that humans are descendents of and closely related to Treponema pallidum, and that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights actually does say 'separation of church and state'. Who knew the framers had invisible ink available in the later 18th Century? All other primary source documentation that appears to dispute the 'separation' interpretation from the founding era have proven to be forgeries by an ancestor of Dan Rather.

Now we can freely step away from the antiquated morals of that 'shitty book' and slide into the advanced modernity equal to that of Western Europe or even the ancient civilizations of the Egypt, Bablyon, or Persia.

The Pledge of Allegiance can now state, "One Nation under Squat," and our currency, "E Unum Pluribus." The caricatures on our bills and coinage will be converted from Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Jackson (who were more than likely Christians) to those of Madeline Murray O'Hare, Stephen Hawking, Fidel Castro, and Michael Moore. San Antonio and San Francisco will become Antonio and Francisco respectively. Los Angeles will become Los Ratoncitos Fuertes de Abuelo Juan.

These cosmetic changes will be accompanied by a modernized voter registration system. Due to the separation of church and state, Christians will not be allowed to vote. Since their voting selections would be instructed by their faith, this must be prohibited. They must keep their votes limited to church on Sundays concerning matters of elections of elders, deacons, or carpet color.

The Mexican border must also be closed to immigration at all costs. Almost all Mexicans are Roman Catholic and will taint our society with all that impudent 'crossing' of themselves.

At this point our culture will be able to advance and 'be all we can be'. The sky will be the limit. Well, the sky AND the reach of the bullets from the barrels of all-powerful government guns unencumbered by conscience.

Stepping Up School Security

Eric Rich article in the Washington Post, October 3, 2006:

"Amber Mangum was a frequent reader during lunch breaks at her Prince George's County middle school, silently soaking up the adventures of Harry Potter and other tales in the spare minutes before afternoon classes. The habit was never viewed as a problem -- not... until the book she was reading was the Bible."

"A vice principal at Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School in Laurel last month ordered Amber, then 12, to stop reading the Bible or face punishment..."

Whew! Another government school disaster averted.

(Ironically, it was during Eisenhower's first term that 'one nation under God' was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.)

Atheism: The Religion of Peace

As the Left whines about President Bush leading the country toward a theocracy and considers Christians in mocking tones as knuckle-dragging, intolerant, anti-intellectual, toothless boobs, I find it necessary to exercise some knuckle-dragging, intolerant boobery. This will allow me to speak at the level of the scoffers.

For many years now we have been being forced toward an atheocracy, not by the will of the citizens through their duly elected officials, but by rulings of the puppets of the atheofascists; the courts. Some may claim that the Constitution requires this in its demand for the separation of church and state. In addition to the use of laughable revisionist history and irrational 'logic', this faith has resulted in the favored status of the minority atheist religious faith over that of the majority.

Many may think that atheism is not a faith, but simply the result of rational philosophy. By definition, however, this cannot be the case. Rational philosophers know that proving a negative such as 'there is no God' is impossible. The basis for atheism, therefore, starts with an act of blind faith. From this jello-esque foundation, they unabashedly snicker like children at others of a different faith and often refuse to even hear, let alone consider, the rhetoric and opinions given by them. Third graders often show more maturity.

Many atheists are fond of saying that wars and other 'evils' are caused by religious beliefs. With this I tend to agree. The Nazi's many Crusades, the Soviet Witch Trials, and the Chinese Inquisitions are some of but a few examples of the religious faithful. Of course the Christian cultures also suffer their similar black eyes, but in comparison the Christians are made to look like pikers. This is probably because Christians don't hold their faith with an equivalent depth of jealousy and religious fervor.

Although atheism is at least as old as other forms of prostitution, in more modern times it has been given an hallusinogenic erection by the disciples of Charles Darwin and his scientifically proven fact of evolution. Atheism's Old Testament of materialism soon proved to be incomplete in the incarnation of the savior so a New Testament edition of postmodernism was acquired by revelation. The Christian assertion of 'God's Word says it, I believe it, and that settles it' has been replaced with 'I believe it and that settles it'. The Law of Parsimony proscribed by Occam's razor has been fulfilled. It has to be true.

Absolutes are dead. Truth is also dead. To each his own. Whatever floats your boat. If someone asks an atheist why it is wrong to rape, kill, butcher, and eat babies he cannot (or should not be allowed to) appeal to a dead absolute. Has he found it in our genes, molecules, or atoms? Other aspects of evolution? Human tradition? Self interest? Whatever the answer, he should be required to examine that faith statement with the same rigor with that by which he rejects God's existence.

In reality, such proof is not required. Without an external absolute, 'truth' becomes the result of judges, guns, and money. Atheism is a power religion that must be evangelized by brainwashing and force. The aforementioned Nazi, Soviet, and Chinese examples list only a few of the more colorful atheofascist pastorates. They are creative and fervent, however, and will continue their apostolic ministries with vigor.

(I don't want to give the impression that all atheists fall into the atheofascist sect. In fact, there are hundreds of atheists who would be content to live, work, and play alongside others who live and talk their faith outside of Sunday morning.)

At present in the United States shoving the atheistic faith down our throats has not yet come at the end of a gun barrel. Mockery is one basic weapon. Since that strains the imagination to view that as intellectual superiority, it really is kind of funny. A response matching the depth of thought would be something like, "D'uh", or "Nanny-nanny boo-boo", or "Pfffffttt". More serious, however, is the favoritism to the atheistic faith forced by the courts and bureaucracy into the schools and laws. The atheocracy has made many strides toward a monopoly in these areas.

An atheocracy has nothing to offer a culture other than 'freedom' to pursue prurient interests. That will succeed for awhile and will produce several cultures, both medically and balkanly, but will fail to impel Culture forward.

If one considers medieval times to be the Dark Ages, one should consider in depth the darkness that would be created by men seeking power to wield their own salvific visions without a classical United States to stop or contain them by force.


*Now here's a post by Todd, the semi-negligent proprietor of Mr. Pterodactyl that demonstrates what I would consider a profound intellect of a non-Christian. It was written on June 11th, 2004, and I have been mulling it since.

"Well, it happened again. Somebody asked me about my religion.

I suppose it doesn't really happen that often. It seems like it does though. Somebody asks me, so I say I'm an atheist.

[By the way, I don't really think 'atheist,' but having no belief in supernatural entities that are responsible for the creation of the universe and expect me to behave in certain ways, it's the only word people understand. Agnostic, maybe, but that’s for another post.]

Often, the person then comments, "what made you choose that?" Or something similar. I never could answer that to my own satisfaction until the other day.

One does not choose beliefs. One comes to them. I don't remember ever deciding to become atheist; that is a result of experience and reflection. Likewise, I didn't choose my political views.
I do choose what books I read, what movies I watch, what foods I eat, based on what I like or prefer, but I never consciously chose what books, movies, foods to like.

So where do these things come from? I cited ‘experience and reflection,’ but that’s not completely satisfactory either. What experiences can I credit with having formed my religious/political views? Or my food preferences, for that matter? I can’t turn to the influence of others; I was raised in a (more or less) Christian atmosphere, the people around me have had widely varying political opinions, I just can’t get enough kimchi (most Americans can’t stand the stuff). I can’t assert superior intelligence, much as I’d like to; there are many perfectly intelligent people who I disagree with on any issue you care to name. I can’t claim some special knowledge that others lack; how would I even know I had it?"

If John Calvin were an agnostic, that's probably how he would have stated it. (Except the part about kimchi!)