I don't watch Fox News, so I'm usually alerted to their craziness only when Jon Stewart calls attention to it. One of the more hilarious recent segments on The Daily Show was his sendup of Bill O'Reilly's tirade against marijuana and texting. (Lest you accuse me of some kind of liberal TV news bias, I also never watch the garbage on MSNBC, CNN, or the histrionic pap local TV sprays across the airwaves.)
In the Fox News segment, after O'Reilly claims that smoking weed is "literally Russian roulette," he notes that 75% of teenagers have cell phones and text (!). As if marijuana is the gateway drug to texting. O'Reilly then says that American kids should study harder and be more competitive, like the kids in the People's Republic of China (where kids text even more than they do in America).
Well, old white men have heard O'Reilly's call to action and fired the first shots in the battle for freedom from texting. An ex-cop in Florida shot and killed a man for texting during the previews at a movie theater. This appears to be the reason why we need to carry guns wherever we go: a good guy with a gun is needed to stop texting wherever it might break out.
The victim, Chad Oulson, 43, was texting his three-year-old daughter. His wife was also shot in the hand by the same bullet. That little girl sure is precocious, having her own cell phone and able to read at the tender age of three. Too bad her daddy was vile, low-down movie-preview texter, a dog too dirty to let live because he was filling that little girl's innocent mind with poisonous . . . texts.
The shooter, Curtis Reeves, 71, retired from Tampa Police Department 20 years ago. He was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. This is another in a long string of gun madness by crazy old coots, like the old man who shot a 13-year-old boy on the street in front of his mother, or the old man who abducted a boy and held him hostage at gun point in a bunker in Alabama.
The NRA likes to say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But if Reeves hadn't had a gun in that theater he wouldn't be in jail, and Oulson's daughter would still have her father.
Guns are like a drug. They give men delusions of grandeur, strip them of their normal inhibitions and incite them to violence. Without guns, these old coots -- and probably the vast majority of people who kill with guns -- would never dare attack others with their fists. At best they'd simply be pulled off their victims. At worst they'd be beaten to a bloody pulp. But a gun in their hand gives them the power and the courage to kill on the slightest impulse.
So, I have to wonder. Did Curtis Reeves watch Bill O'Reilly's tirade against texting? Did Fox News incite this old coot to murder a man texting his little daughter?
Yes, I can hear the defense attorney addressing that typical Florida jury of little old white ladies, all Fox News viewers: "Bill O'Reilly told my client that texting was like marijuana, and when that man said he was texting his daughter my client knew he had to protect her from that monster at any cost!"
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Eight Inches
Remember a couple of weeks back when that ship carrying scientists and adventure tourists got stuck in the Antarctic and the 12 year olds laughed and pointed? Well, it turns out that there was no connection between that event and climate change.
The episode had little connection to climate change — shifting winds had caused loose pack ice to jam against the ship — and this was far from the first time that a ship had been trapped, even in the Antarctic summer. But sea ice cover in the Antarctic is changing, and scientists see the influence of climate change, although they say natural climate variability may be at work, too. “The truth is, we don’t fully understand what’s going on,” said Ted Maksym, a researcher at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Unlike the Arctic, where sharp declines in recent decades in the ice that floats on sea surfaces have been linked to warming, sea ice in the Antarctic has actually increased, scientists who study the region say. Averaged over the entire Antarctic coast, the increase is slight — about 1 percent a decade. At the same time, larger increases and decreases are being seen on certain parts of the continent.
In short, listen to science, not the right wing blogsphere.
This incident calls for a reminder of the Top Ten Right Wing Lies Regarding Climate Change with special attention to this one. Another great resource on all the lying is Skeptical Science. Here is their analysis of the Antarctic lie.
Meanwhile we have eight inches...
The episode had little connection to climate change — shifting winds had caused loose pack ice to jam against the ship — and this was far from the first time that a ship had been trapped, even in the Antarctic summer. But sea ice cover in the Antarctic is changing, and scientists see the influence of climate change, although they say natural climate variability may be at work, too. “The truth is, we don’t fully understand what’s going on,” said Ted Maksym, a researcher at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Unlike the Arctic, where sharp declines in recent decades in the ice that floats on sea surfaces have been linked to warming, sea ice in the Antarctic has actually increased, scientists who study the region say. Averaged over the entire Antarctic coast, the increase is slight — about 1 percent a decade. At the same time, larger increases and decreases are being seen on certain parts of the continent.
In short, listen to science, not the right wing blogsphere.
This incident calls for a reminder of the Top Ten Right Wing Lies Regarding Climate Change with special attention to this one. Another great resource on all the lying is Skeptical Science. Here is their analysis of the Antarctic lie.
Meanwhile we have eight inches...
A Responsible Gun Owner
Check out this story.
Three neighbors said a neighborhood meeting was held last Sunday so that Bauerle could talk about his fears about surveillance around his home, but they described his fears about the surveillance as “quirky” and “made you scratch your head.” Bauerle’s fears and suspicions about surveillance occur at a time when he has been on the air, criticizing the governor for sponsoring the new gun control laws in New York State and accusing Cuomo of seeking retribution.
At least he voluntarily submitted himself for a psych evaluation.
And people wonder why there is so much gun violence in this country...
Three neighbors said a neighborhood meeting was held last Sunday so that Bauerle could talk about his fears about surveillance around his home, but they described his fears about the surveillance as “quirky” and “made you scratch your head.” Bauerle’s fears and suspicions about surveillance occur at a time when he has been on the air, criticizing the governor for sponsoring the new gun control laws in New York State and accusing Cuomo of seeking retribution.
At least he voluntarily submitted himself for a psych evaluation.
And people wonder why there is so much gun violence in this country...
Monday, January 13, 2014
Picking And Choosing
Evangelical Christians continually rip liberal Christians by saying that they pick and choose what verses of the Bible to follow and which ones not to follow. This is ridiculous when one considers, for example what God told Moses in Leviticus.
“‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head. (Leviticus 20:9)
‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
“‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire. (Leviticus 21:09)
Considering I don't see any conservative Christians putting their kids to death for mouthing off to them, they pick and choose as well just like every other Christian. So, their protestations are completely ridiculous. In fact, nearly all of the 600+ commands of the Old Testament are no longer applicable today. Most Christians do not follow them unless they are Messianic Jews. What remains applicable today are the Ten Commandments + Jesus's New Commandment.
It would seem, then, that the issue of homosexuality should also be swept away with archaic OT laws and commands as it is mentioned with all the rest of them. The problem is that homosexuality is mentioned in the New Testament in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28. Paul, not God, is talking here so that should be the first clue as to how much weight it should hold. Further, something has clearly been lost in the translation from Greek to English as noted in this excellent piece from St. John's Metropolitan Community Church.
If Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior in general, the word for it at the time was paiderasste. What he did, rather than simply use one of the many existing, quite precise Greek terms for aspects of homosexuality (or for homosexuality in general) – words that he would have been quite aware of – is to coin a new word from the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13.
In the Septuagint, Leviticus 20:13 is something like hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos (And not lie-down with mankind [in] beds [of] a woman/wife). Notice the words arsenos koiten together there? It would have surprised no one for the scholar Paul to have compounded the noun arseno with the following Greek verb koiten into a new word, thereby repeating the prohibition of the abuse of temple prostitution in Leviticus – and it would be no surprise that his learned audience had no need of a translation or an explanation of the new word for an old idea; they, too, would have been familiar with the passage in Leviticus. (This would not be Paul’s only reference to earlier Scriptural phrasings; for example, when he wanted a phrase for ‘female’ and ‘male’ other than more common pairs, he used thelusi and arsen, words that had appeared together in the narrative of creation in Genesis.)
Once Paul’s warnings helped temple prostitution disappear from the landscape, the force of his words very likely caused later Christians to extend the meaning of arsenokoites to cover other behaviors that Christians found regrettable. Early Christians and Jews also applied the word to incest and orgiastic conduct. For a time it designated masturbation (arseno is singular, as masturbation generally is…). The only certain statement that can be made about the word is that it has changed in its perceived meaning and translation over time.
St. John's Metropolitan Community Church also offers this link and this link for more background on the two words that Paul uses. Given this evidence, it's quite clear that society, not God, decided that homosexuality was a sin and put that bias into later English translations of the Bible. This means that our changing culture is not violating anything in accepting gay Christians as how God made them as opposed to evil sinners who need to be deprogrammed.
When Jesus said "Keep My Commandments," He meant it quite literally. The rest of it can either be viewed as kind advice (Psalms and Proverbs) or a code of laws that no longer applies to today's society.
“‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head. (Leviticus 20:9)
‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
“‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire. (Leviticus 21:09)
Considering I don't see any conservative Christians putting their kids to death for mouthing off to them, they pick and choose as well just like every other Christian. So, their protestations are completely ridiculous. In fact, nearly all of the 600+ commands of the Old Testament are no longer applicable today. Most Christians do not follow them unless they are Messianic Jews. What remains applicable today are the Ten Commandments + Jesus's New Commandment.
It would seem, then, that the issue of homosexuality should also be swept away with archaic OT laws and commands as it is mentioned with all the rest of them. The problem is that homosexuality is mentioned in the New Testament in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28. Paul, not God, is talking here so that should be the first clue as to how much weight it should hold. Further, something has clearly been lost in the translation from Greek to English as noted in this excellent piece from St. John's Metropolitan Community Church.
If Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior in general, the word for it at the time was paiderasste. What he did, rather than simply use one of the many existing, quite precise Greek terms for aspects of homosexuality (or for homosexuality in general) – words that he would have been quite aware of – is to coin a new word from the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13.
In the Septuagint, Leviticus 20:13 is something like hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos (And not lie-down with mankind [in] beds [of] a woman/wife). Notice the words arsenos koiten together there? It would have surprised no one for the scholar Paul to have compounded the noun arseno with the following Greek verb koiten into a new word, thereby repeating the prohibition of the abuse of temple prostitution in Leviticus – and it would be no surprise that his learned audience had no need of a translation or an explanation of the new word for an old idea; they, too, would have been familiar with the passage in Leviticus. (This would not be Paul’s only reference to earlier Scriptural phrasings; for example, when he wanted a phrase for ‘female’ and ‘male’ other than more common pairs, he used thelusi and arsen, words that had appeared together in the narrative of creation in Genesis.)
Once Paul’s warnings helped temple prostitution disappear from the landscape, the force of his words very likely caused later Christians to extend the meaning of arsenokoites to cover other behaviors that Christians found regrettable. Early Christians and Jews also applied the word to incest and orgiastic conduct. For a time it designated masturbation (arseno is singular, as masturbation generally is…). The only certain statement that can be made about the word is that it has changed in its perceived meaning and translation over time.
St. John's Metropolitan Community Church also offers this link and this link for more background on the two words that Paul uses. Given this evidence, it's quite clear that society, not God, decided that homosexuality was a sin and put that bias into later English translations of the Bible. This means that our changing culture is not violating anything in accepting gay Christians as how God made them as opposed to evil sinners who need to be deprogrammed.
When Jesus said "Keep My Commandments," He meant it quite literally. The rest of it can either be viewed as kind advice (Psalms and Proverbs) or a code of laws that no longer applies to today's society.
Common Ground On The Role Of Government
The liberal and conservative positions on abortion have never made sense to me. Liberals should want more government in people's personal lives so why not be able to tell women what to do with their bodies? And conservatives complaint's about the long nose of government goes out the window when it comes to the womb of a private citizen.
Yet the issue of how much control the government has in terms of someone's right to life was illustrated in a very sad way in this recent piece in the New York Times. The womb of Marlise Muñoz is essentially a ward of the state of the Texas. Children’s Hospital Oakland, not the family of Jahi McMath, has decided that their patient is legally brain dead so they are well within their right (by law) to remove the ventilator. Part of their decision is financial but they are acting as a result of government law.
Even though these stories are gut wrenching, maybe they can be the start of some common ground between liberals and conservatives in defining the role of government in every day life. I would imagine that most people, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, are sickened by this. In each case, the government is clearly in the wrong. The families of each of these women should have ALL legal authority over their child and the government should stand out of the way. These stories also stress the vital importance of having living wills that are spelled out in the greatest possible detail.
Yet the issue of how much control the government has in terms of someone's right to life was illustrated in a very sad way in this recent piece in the New York Times. The womb of Marlise Muñoz is essentially a ward of the state of the Texas. Children’s Hospital Oakland, not the family of Jahi McMath, has decided that their patient is legally brain dead so they are well within their right (by law) to remove the ventilator. Part of their decision is financial but they are acting as a result of government law.
Even though these stories are gut wrenching, maybe they can be the start of some common ground between liberals and conservatives in defining the role of government in every day life. I would imagine that most people, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, are sickened by this. In each case, the government is clearly in the wrong. The families of each of these women should have ALL legal authority over their child and the government should stand out of the way. These stories also stress the vital importance of having living wills that are spelled out in the greatest possible detail.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
How Sadly Our Society Has Changed
From the Variety section in today's Strib...
Bravo 1985: “Jazz Counterpoint.” Billy Taylor chats with fellow pianists about their craft. Today: “The Real Housewives of Atlanta.” Rich women take turns backstabbing and berating each other.
A&E 1991: “Breakfast With the Arts.” A tribute to the finest in music, theater, dance and other art forms. Today: “Duck Dynasty.” A Louisiana family markets its duck calls and conservative views.
Discovery 1988: “World Monitor.” A nightly news show produced by the Christian Science Monitor. Today: “Deadliest Catch.” A look at the rocky life of fishermen in the Bering Sea.
TLC 1987: “Captain’s Log With Mark Gray.” A low-key, boating-safety series. Today: “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.” A high-energy reality series revolving around a child beauty-pageant contestant in Georgia.
Well, the certainly explains why some people vote the way they do!
Bravo 1985: “Jazz Counterpoint.” Billy Taylor chats with fellow pianists about their craft. Today: “The Real Housewives of Atlanta.” Rich women take turns backstabbing and berating each other.
A&E 1991: “Breakfast With the Arts.” A tribute to the finest in music, theater, dance and other art forms. Today: “Duck Dynasty.” A Louisiana family markets its duck calls and conservative views.
Discovery 1988: “World Monitor.” A nightly news show produced by the Christian Science Monitor. Today: “Deadliest Catch.” A look at the rocky life of fishermen in the Bering Sea.
TLC 1987: “Captain’s Log With Mark Gray.” A low-key, boating-safety series. Today: “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.” A high-energy reality series revolving around a child beauty-pageant contestant in Georgia.
Well, the certainly explains why some people vote the way they do!
Good Words
It is not fair to expect secular journalists to be biblical scholars, nor should it be anticipated that they would spend the necessary time to research the issue. It is for that reason that they tend to accept uncritically the oft-repeated Evangelical Protestant and Conservative Roman Catholic definitions that the Bible is anti-gay. If these people were honest, they would have to admit that the Bible is also pro-slavery and anti-women.
There is also a widely accepted mentality that if the Bible is opposed, the idea must be wrong. That is little more than nonsensical fundamentalism. The rise of democracy was contrary to the "clear teaching of the Bible," as the debate over the forced signing of the Magna Carta by King John of England in 1215 revealed. The Bible was quoted to prove that Galileo was wrong; that Darwin was wrong; that Freud was wrong; that allowing women to be educated, to vote, to enter the professions and to be ordained was wrong. So the fact that the Bible is quoted to prove that homosexuality is evil and to be condemned is hardly a strong argument, given the history of how many times the Bible has been wrong. I believe that most bishops know this but the Episcopal Church has some fundamentalist bishops and a few who are "fellow travelers" with fundamentalists.
The Bible was written between the years 1000 B.C.E. and 135 C.E. Our knowledge of almost everything has increased exponentially since that time. It is the height of ignorance to continue using the Bible as an encyclopedia of knowledge to keep dying prejudices intact. The media seems to cooperate in perpetuating that long ago abandoned biblical attitude.
That is not surprising since the religious people keep quoting it to justify their continued state of unenlightenment. That attitude is hardly worthy of the time it takes to engage it. I do not debate with members of the flat earth society either. Prejudices all die. The first sign that death is imminent comes when the prejudice is debated publicly. ---Bishop John Shelby Spong
There is also a widely accepted mentality that if the Bible is opposed, the idea must be wrong. That is little more than nonsensical fundamentalism. The rise of democracy was contrary to the "clear teaching of the Bible," as the debate over the forced signing of the Magna Carta by King John of England in 1215 revealed. The Bible was quoted to prove that Galileo was wrong; that Darwin was wrong; that Freud was wrong; that allowing women to be educated, to vote, to enter the professions and to be ordained was wrong. So the fact that the Bible is quoted to prove that homosexuality is evil and to be condemned is hardly a strong argument, given the history of how many times the Bible has been wrong. I believe that most bishops know this but the Episcopal Church has some fundamentalist bishops and a few who are "fellow travelers" with fundamentalists.
The Bible was written between the years 1000 B.C.E. and 135 C.E. Our knowledge of almost everything has increased exponentially since that time. It is the height of ignorance to continue using the Bible as an encyclopedia of knowledge to keep dying prejudices intact. The media seems to cooperate in perpetuating that long ago abandoned biblical attitude.
That is not surprising since the religious people keep quoting it to justify their continued state of unenlightenment. That attitude is hardly worthy of the time it takes to engage it. I do not debate with members of the flat earth society either. Prejudices all die. The first sign that death is imminent comes when the prejudice is debated publicly. ---Bishop John Shelby Spong
Saturday, January 11, 2014
The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuel Use
 |
| Charleston, WV |
The president of the company, Gary Southern, doesn't know how the leak occurred, but he assures us that the chemical has "very low toxicity." MCHM is used in processing coal. It's a form of alcohol, and an article at CNN says that it causes rashes, headaches, dizziness, vomiting, nausea, etc., etc. There's basically no research about what it does to people. Animal tests indicate that it causes heart, liver and kidney damage. The bigger questions are what the long-term effects will be at low levels, and how long low-level concentrations will remain in the affected water systems.
The governor of West Virginia has advised everyone in the affected area to avoid drinking and bathing; the water should only be used for flushing. Thousands of businesses are shut down, including all restaurants and even carwashes. Bottled water is being shipped in, and there are accusations of local merchants gouging residents. In the end this man-made disaster will cost millions of dollars in lost productivity and cleanup, and an unknown number of health problems that may stay with the victims for years.
As far as coal-related spills go, this was relatively minor. But problems like this happen all the time, across the country, and even though they get wall-to-wall coverage in the media when they occur, we forget about them before the next big one, leaving us with no incentive to deal with the underlying problems. For example:
 |
| Harriman, TN |
 |
| San Bruno, CA |
Oklahoma was rocked by more than 3,000 earthquakes in 2013, due to injection of fracking waste deep underground. Before fracking they had 50 a year.
 |
| Casselton, ND |
 |
| Kalamazoo River |
The railway responsible for Quebec disaster declared bankruptcy in two countries to shield their assets and avoid paying for the deaths and damage they caused. The companies in these industries simply don't have the resources to pay for the huge potential damage that their activities can cause. They're often subsidiaries of bigger companies, intentionally walled off from the parent so that they can quickly declare bankruptcy and avoid paying for the damage they cause.
Local residents, cities, counties and states wind up with gigantic cleanup bills, often asking the federal government to declare them disaster areas.
Fossil fuels are messy and dangerous to extract, messy and dangerous to transport, messy and dangerous to use (consider how many homes blow up every year in natural gas explosions). Their waste products are messy and dangerous to dispose of, and cause air pollution, mercury pollution, acid rain, etc. Not to mention the CO2 that's causing climate change.
At every juncture the expenses involved with cleaning up these messes are frequently not borne by the people profiting from fossil fuel extraction. It's probably the best example of an industry that has privatized profit while socializing the risk.
It is clear that exploitation of fossil fuels has a huge range of deleterious effects on the lives of Americans. Shouldn't they be paying for all the problems they're causing?
All these ancillary costs should be rolled into the taxes that the fossil fuel energy industry pays. That would make the electricity and transportation that rely on those sources cost more, but it would make the people who benefit from its use bear the actual costs. Eliminating the hidden subsidies of these industries would create more incentives for developing alternate energy sources that don't create such hazardous messes.
Humans Are Dangerous!
Great short film on what our planet might look like from an alien species point of view. Perhaps this is why they have not made contact:)
Awesome!
Check out this piece on Tokyo-born, London-based photographer Chino Otsuka. She photoshopped herself into photographs from the past when she was a young girl. Here is an example.
Transparency?
The Right seems to take a great amount of glee by sarcastically pointing out that President Obama has the "most transparent administration ever." I realize that it takes a great deal of effort to put down their copy of Atlas Shrugged, unbuckled their bathrobe and spend a few minutes away from right wing blogs to conjure up an attack like this.
As is invariably the case, however, I have to wonder if these denizens of classical liberalism are as familiar and knowledgeable with US History as they bloviate to be. Would it surprise them to learn this?
In early 1787, Congress called for a special convention of all the states to revise the Articles of Confederation. On September 17, 1787, after four months of secret meetings, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention emerged from their Philadelphia meetingroom with an entirely new plan of government–the U.S. Constitution–that they hoped would ensure the survival of the experiment they had launched in 1776.
WTF??!!?? It can't possibly be that our founding fathers, whom they claim to have a direct connection to in the afterlife, were not at all transparent about the formation of the document they claim to make love to on a nightly basis (missionary position, of course). Why on earth would they be so secretive? Could it be that they wanted to speak their minds without public pressure?
The delegates also agreed that the deliberations would be kept secret. The case in favor of secrecy was that the issues at hand were so important that honest discourse needed to be encouraged and delegates ought to feel free to speak their mind, and change their mind, as they saw fit. Thus, despite the hot summer weather in Philadelphia, and delegates who, on the whole, were rather overweight and hardly “dressed down” for the occasion, the windows were closed and heavy drapes drawn. The merits and demerits of the secrecy rule have been a subject of considerable debate throughout American history.
Feel free to speak their mind and CHANGE their mind as they saw fit? Oh. My. GOSH!!!
Cue the boiling pit of sewage...:)
As is invariably the case, however, I have to wonder if these denizens of classical liberalism are as familiar and knowledgeable with US History as they bloviate to be. Would it surprise them to learn this?
In early 1787, Congress called for a special convention of all the states to revise the Articles of Confederation. On September 17, 1787, after four months of secret meetings, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention emerged from their Philadelphia meetingroom with an entirely new plan of government–the U.S. Constitution–that they hoped would ensure the survival of the experiment they had launched in 1776.
WTF??!!?? It can't possibly be that our founding fathers, whom they claim to have a direct connection to in the afterlife, were not at all transparent about the formation of the document they claim to make love to on a nightly basis (missionary position, of course). Why on earth would they be so secretive? Could it be that they wanted to speak their minds without public pressure?
The delegates also agreed that the deliberations would be kept secret. The case in favor of secrecy was that the issues at hand were so important that honest discourse needed to be encouraged and delegates ought to feel free to speak their mind, and change their mind, as they saw fit. Thus, despite the hot summer weather in Philadelphia, and delegates who, on the whole, were rather overweight and hardly “dressed down” for the occasion, the windows were closed and heavy drapes drawn. The merits and demerits of the secrecy rule have been a subject of considerable debate throughout American history.
Feel free to speak their mind and CHANGE their mind as they saw fit? Oh. My. GOSH!!!
Cue the boiling pit of sewage...:)
Friday, January 10, 2014
Aligning Interests
Could our next ally in the Middle East be Iran? This latest piece in the Times posits that it may end up being true.
While the two governments quietly continue to pursue their often conflicting interests, they are being drawn together by their mutual opposition to an international movement of young Sunni fighters, who with their pickup trucks and Kalashnikovs are raising the black flag of Al Qaeda along sectarian fault lines in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen.
Given the new moderate government in Iran, I think it's more than possible. When I read this article, I was instantly reminded of CSM's cover story from a few weeks ago that offers incredible insight into the real Iran as opposed to what we see in our media. Editor in Chief of CSM, John Yemma, had this to say as an introduction to Scott Peterson's piece.
Iran is not just any nation. It is a pillar of civilization. In its 2,700-year history, Persian culture has contributed richly to human knowledge in math, medicine, chemistry, religion, philosophy, poetry, agriculture, and architecture. Modern Iranians prize education, intellect, science, and the arts. However divided Iranians may be about the course their nation should take, however drawn to Western ideas and values many are, there is no doubt within Iran about Iran’s worth and dignity.
We do indeed have a great deal in common with the Iranian people. This is not a backwards culture but a pillar of human civilization dating back to our dawn as a people. As CSM points out as well, they may indeed be our new best friend.
While the two governments quietly continue to pursue their often conflicting interests, they are being drawn together by their mutual opposition to an international movement of young Sunni fighters, who with their pickup trucks and Kalashnikovs are raising the black flag of Al Qaeda along sectarian fault lines in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen.
Given the new moderate government in Iran, I think it's more than possible. When I read this article, I was instantly reminded of CSM's cover story from a few weeks ago that offers incredible insight into the real Iran as opposed to what we see in our media. Editor in Chief of CSM, John Yemma, had this to say as an introduction to Scott Peterson's piece.
Iran is not just any nation. It is a pillar of civilization. In its 2,700-year history, Persian culture has contributed richly to human knowledge in math, medicine, chemistry, religion, philosophy, poetry, agriculture, and architecture. Modern Iranians prize education, intellect, science, and the arts. However divided Iranians may be about the course their nation should take, however drawn to Western ideas and values many are, there is no doubt within Iran about Iran’s worth and dignity.
We do indeed have a great deal in common with the Iranian people. This is not a backwards culture but a pillar of human civilization dating back to our dawn as a people. As CSM points out as well, they may indeed be our new best friend.
A Whole Lot of Phony Bullshit.
Check out this revelation about the Duck Dynasty clan.
Wow.
I realize reality shows are fake but this can't even be classified as "reality." Why didn't they just say it was a mockumentary a la Spinal Tap from the get go? At least they would have been more respected.
Wow.
I realize reality shows are fake but this can't even be classified as "reality." Why didn't they just say it was a mockumentary a la Spinal Tap from the get go? At least they would have been more respected.
The Bible and Homosexuality
I found this site on religious tolerance a while back and recently rediscovered it when I had to go to a backup of my bookmarks (beware of the "search conduit" malware---grrrr). Check out what they have to say about the Bible and homosexuality.
Seven or eight main biblical passages that may deal with same-gender sexual behavior are described below. They are often referred to as "clobber" passages, because they are often used to attack persons with a homosexual or bisexual orientation. They have been interpreted very differently by various religious denominations, para-church groups, and traditions. All groups recognize that these biblical passages condemn some types of sexual behavior but there is no consensus within a given religion whether they refer to consensual sexual behavior by persons with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, and whether it refers to all people or only to persons with a heterosexual orientation.
Clobber passages...love it...
Here's an interesting comparison...
Among the full spectrum of faith groups, from the most conservative to the most liberal:
Seven or eight main biblical passages that may deal with same-gender sexual behavior are described below. They are often referred to as "clobber" passages, because they are often used to attack persons with a homosexual or bisexual orientation. They have been interpreted very differently by various religious denominations, para-church groups, and traditions. All groups recognize that these biblical passages condemn some types of sexual behavior but there is no consensus within a given religion whether they refer to consensual sexual behavior by persons with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, and whether it refers to all people or only to persons with a heterosexual orientation.
Clobber passages...love it...
Here's an interesting comparison...
Among the full spectrum of faith groups, from the most conservative to the most liberal:
- Most conservative faith groups tend to interpret all of the clobber passages as condemning all forms of same-gender sexual behavior, whether by men or women. They do this, even though only one of the seven or eight passages actually refers to women, and that sole passage refers only to women with a heterosexual orientation.
- Most liberal and progressive faith groups tend to interpret the same passages -- in their original languages of Hebrew and Greek -- as referring to: temple prostitution, how it is unacceptable for two men to have sex if they do it on a woman's bed, kidnapping slaves, adults sexually abusing children, engaging in sexual behavior that is against one's sexual orientation and basic nature, and/or engaging in bestiality -- sexual activity with a non-human species.
- Most mainline denominations and faith groups are split on these passages' interpretation with part of the membership taking the conservative position, and another part taking the liberal/progressive interpretation.
- We have never found a faith group that accepts same-gender sexual behavior by lesbians while condemning such behavior by males, even though that could be a logical interpretation of Romans 1.
That pretty much sums it up. Check out all the sub links as well, especially this one:)
Brainiacs
Stunning piece in the Times about the human brain and an NIH study that will help to answer the following questions: How do differences between you and me, and how our brains are wired up, relate to differences in our behaviors, our thoughts, our emotions, our feelings, our experiences? Does that help us understand how disorders of connectivity, or disorders of wiring, contribute to or cause neurological problems and psychiatric problems?
With the exponential growth of technology, I say that within the next two decades we are going to know far more about the human brain than has been thought possible up to this point in human history. Honestly, I think what we discover is going to be very frightening some people as I think we will discover how we were made.
And why.
With the exponential growth of technology, I say that within the next two decades we are going to know far more about the human brain than has been thought possible up to this point in human history. Honestly, I think what we discover is going to be very frightening some people as I think we will discover how we were made.
And why.
Thursday, January 09, 2014
What Are They Talking About?
One would think it was Christmas in January for conservatives with their reaction to the forthcoming book by former defense secretary Robert Gates. My conservative friends on Facebook are falling all over themselves as is the rest of Bubble Land over Gates' criticism of the president and, in particular, Vice President Biden. As is usually the case, they are only telling part of the story if even that at all.
In a new memoir, Mr. Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration who served for two years under Mr. Obama, praises the president as a rigorous thinker who frequently made decisions “opposed by his political advisers or that would be unpopular with his fellow Democrats.”
That doesn't really sound like criticism. Neither does this.
Mr. Gates acknowledges that he initially opposed sending Special Operations forces to attack a housing compound in Pakistan where Osama bin Laden was believed to be hiding. Mr. Gates writes that Mr. Obama’s approval for the Navy SEAL mission, despite strong doubts that Bin Laden was even there, was “one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House.”
Yes, it was.
What does he say about the president in the last chapter?
In his final chapter, Mr. Gates makes clear his verdict on the president’s overall Afghan strategy: “I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions.”
Huh. So wtf are they talking about?
In a new memoir, Mr. Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration who served for two years under Mr. Obama, praises the president as a rigorous thinker who frequently made decisions “opposed by his political advisers or that would be unpopular with his fellow Democrats.”
That doesn't really sound like criticism. Neither does this.
Mr. Gates acknowledges that he initially opposed sending Special Operations forces to attack a housing compound in Pakistan where Osama bin Laden was believed to be hiding. Mr. Gates writes that Mr. Obama’s approval for the Navy SEAL mission, despite strong doubts that Bin Laden was even there, was “one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House.”
Yes, it was.
What does he say about the president in the last chapter?
In his final chapter, Mr. Gates makes clear his verdict on the president’s overall Afghan strategy: “I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions.”
Huh. So wtf are they talking about?
Wednesday, January 08, 2014
Dirty Tricks in New Jersey
As has long been alleged, recently released emails prove that New Jersey governor Chris Christie shut down lanes of the George Washington to retaliate against the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee.
Christie had demanded Mayor Mark Sokolich endorse him for governor. When Sokolich refused, Christie's deputy chief of staff, Bridgett Anne Kelly, sent an email to David Wildstein, an official appointed by Christie to the New Jersey Port authority, who happens to be a high-school pal of the governor.
The email read simply, "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." Wildstein replied, "Got it." The New Jersey Port Authority then shut down three lanes on the bridge, creating a terrible traffic mess for the town of Fort Lee.
As the traffic piled up Kelly and Wildstein had the following exchange:
“Is it wrong that I am smiling?” Mr. Wildstein texted Ms. Kelly.You can just imagine this same conversation replaying every time Republicans pull their dirty tricks: pulling funding from underperforming inner-city schools with No Child Left Behind, cutting food stamps from the farm bill, enacting voter ID laws that make it hard for old ladies and college students to vote.
“No,” she texted back.
“I feel badly about the kids,” he texted.
“They are the children of Buono voters,” she said, referring to Mr. Christie’s Democratic opponent, Barbara Buono, who was trailing consistently in the polls and lost by a wide margin.
The incident shows that Christie is petty little man (figuratively speaking, obviously). He's an egocentric conceited liar who will inflict misery on innocent people in order to strong-arm erstwhile "allies" to get what he wants. This demonstrates why the man should never be president: he cannot be trusted to wield any kind of power fairly.
Christie's integrity has long been questionable. When New Jersey senator Frank Lautenberg died, Christie called for a special election to be held on October 16, 2013, three weeks before the general election.
Why didn't Christie wait till November and roll the Senate election into the general election, saving New Jersey taxpayers a few million dollars? Christie wanted to increase his chances of reelection: Cory Booker, the popular mayor of Newark, was running for Lautenberg's seat. Christie was afraid that if Booker ran at the same time that he was, Booker's presence on the Democratic ticket would increase Democratic turnout and help Christie's opponent win.
I'm sure the Tea Party is crowing about Christie's comeupance. They hate the man more than Democrats do, because despite all his flaws, Christie does occasionally put the people of New Jersey ahead of conservative ideology (especially when it makes him look good).
But Christie's dirty tricks are straight out of the Republican playbook: sabotage your enemies, blackmail potential allies. It's the same Nixonian script Republicans have been following for the entirety of the Obama presidency.
Most Republicans have the good sense to plot in smoke-filled rooms behind closed doors, though sometimes the truth spills out. Like when they claimed voter ID laws weren't created to prevent minorities from voting in Texas, they were created to prevent Democrats from voting.
Christie's flunkies made the mistake of having extended email and texting exchanges about their dirty tricks, using non-work email accounts to hatch their plot. They apparently thought this would avoid the embarrassing "lost emails" scandal that sank the plot by Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzalez and the gang who were torpedoing US attorneys who wouldn't play ball with their voter suppression efforts.
As far as dirty tricks go, Christie's lane closures might not seem very dangerous. That would be incorrect. Traffic jams cause car accidents, which can cause deaths and injuries. Ambulances caught in traffic jams may be carrying patients who may die because they failed to reach the hospital in time. Everyone stuck in the traffic jam is wasting time and money, reducing productivity.
Whether any great harm came of Christie's dirty trick is really beside the point. Anyone who would use these sorts of tactics to blackmail public officials into supporting them lacks the judgment to be governor. Who could trust this man in the Oval Office not to abuse the presidency for personal gain? Christie would be another Nixon, bringing shame upon this nation, not to mention the Republican Party.
I think that flushing sound coming from New Jersey is Christie's presidential campaign going down the toilet.
Still Slow
A recent report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services shows that health care spending is down for the fourth year in a row. Patients have greatly benefited from this considering past increases in medical and premium costs. The Affordable Care Act has had minimal impact on this slowed growth even though the White House has taken credit for it in terms of lowering Medicare spending by penalizing hospitals with high readmission rates, for example.
Regardless of why it is happening, we are heading in the right direction. Reducing the growth of health care is vital to the overall integrity of our economy. People can't live their lives being one crisis away from losing everything they own.
Regardless of why it is happening, we are heading in the right direction. Reducing the growth of health care is vital to the overall integrity of our economy. People can't live their lives being one crisis away from losing everything they own.
We ♥ The Aristocracy!
The season premiere of the fourth season of Downton Abbey brought with it all the usual overblown publicity and hysterical Facebook posts about all of the latest doings in the Yorkshire county estate in the early part of the 20th century. I enjoy the show a great deal from an historical perspective but see it for what it is: Melrose Place with Brits.
As I was watching the premiere on Sunday night, I thought about this Fox News Clip in which all the conservatives hilariously championed... the benefits of an aristocracy! Don't they realize that they can't both support our founding fathers AND champion the generosity of rich folk who help out the poor folk? Especially British folk? They probably don't and that's when I had an epiphany.
Most conservatives today are from the south and pine for those lost days of antebellum. In particular, they miss the hierarchy of the aristocracy that was present in that region during that time. The top of that hierarchy is available only to those individuals born of a certain stature and ideology. In short, that means, NO FUCKING LIBERALS. And only those who are pure in all the ways the Right sees fit.
So, the real reason why conservatives hate Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as much as they do is because the office of the president is a close to "king" as we get in this country. The very idea that someone who is not pure gets to be "king" as a major affront to those inner dreams of aristocratic fantasy. People like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama simply don't belong up there. No Democrat does. Throw in the fact that President Obama is black and it's even more of an insult.
Go deeper and one can really see the problem. Conservatives both pine for the aristocracy (whining about tradition and the ways things used to be juxtaposed with screams of class warfare anytime anyone mentions inequality) and then turn around in the same breath and bitch about the political class and how individual rights are being trampled. Can't they see their hypocrisy? No wonder they act like children all the time. They are fucking bipolar and being driven crazy by their inner struggle.
Considering that they define themselves as the "haves and soon to haves", it makes even more sense that they are as nuts as they are. Someday (see: very likely never) they will be at the top of the heap and they don't want any of those peasants creeping on their dough (see: hard earned money pilfered by lazy non whites). Yet how can they get there without freedom or liberty?
What a puzzler!
As I was watching the premiere on Sunday night, I thought about this Fox News Clip in which all the conservatives hilariously championed... the benefits of an aristocracy! Don't they realize that they can't both support our founding fathers AND champion the generosity of rich folk who help out the poor folk? Especially British folk? They probably don't and that's when I had an epiphany.
Most conservatives today are from the south and pine for those lost days of antebellum. In particular, they miss the hierarchy of the aristocracy that was present in that region during that time. The top of that hierarchy is available only to those individuals born of a certain stature and ideology. In short, that means, NO FUCKING LIBERALS. And only those who are pure in all the ways the Right sees fit.
So, the real reason why conservatives hate Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as much as they do is because the office of the president is a close to "king" as we get in this country. The very idea that someone who is not pure gets to be "king" as a major affront to those inner dreams of aristocratic fantasy. People like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama simply don't belong up there. No Democrat does. Throw in the fact that President Obama is black and it's even more of an insult.
Go deeper and one can really see the problem. Conservatives both pine for the aristocracy (whining about tradition and the ways things used to be juxtaposed with screams of class warfare anytime anyone mentions inequality) and then turn around in the same breath and bitch about the political class and how individual rights are being trampled. Can't they see their hypocrisy? No wonder they act like children all the time. They are fucking bipolar and being driven crazy by their inner struggle.
Considering that they define themselves as the "haves and soon to haves", it makes even more sense that they are as nuts as they are. Someday (see: very likely never) they will be at the top of the heap and they don't want any of those peasants creeping on their dough (see: hard earned money pilfered by lazy non whites). Yet how can they get there without freedom or liberty?
What a puzzler!
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
.jpg)
Not Banned On These Premises
Looks like City Council Member Leslie LeCuyer just learned a lesson about how FUBAR gun laws are in this country.
Even though she’s a self-described gun enthusiast, LeCuyer later suggested the city put up a sign forbidding guns from the premises like those found near the doors of so many businesses around the state. She was shocked to learn that, legally, the city couldn’t. People sometimes come to City Hall angry, she pointed out.
“Our decisions can impact people: Whether or not they can build onto their home, whether they can put up a building on their property,” she said. “That’s what we put our name on the line to do. But we don’t put our name on the line to be killed … People have to do these jobs. We don’t want it to be so unsafe that no one will do it anymore.”
Well, it's not like someone is going to charge into a city hall and shoot up the place. Especially when there are good guys with guns who always save the day, right?
Ah well, Leslie can rest comfortable knowing that there are armed civilians there to protect her from bad guys.
Even though she’s a self-described gun enthusiast, LeCuyer later suggested the city put up a sign forbidding guns from the premises like those found near the doors of so many businesses around the state. She was shocked to learn that, legally, the city couldn’t. People sometimes come to City Hall angry, she pointed out.
“Our decisions can impact people: Whether or not they can build onto their home, whether they can put up a building on their property,” she said. “That’s what we put our name on the line to do. But we don’t put our name on the line to be killed … People have to do these jobs. We don’t want it to be so unsafe that no one will do it anymore.”
Well, it's not like someone is going to charge into a city hall and shoot up the place. Especially when there are good guys with guns who always save the day, right?
Ah well, Leslie can rest comfortable knowing that there are armed civilians there to protect her from bad guys.
Bringing In The Big Guns
These days, politicians in DC can't seem to get their message across. Americans seem to not want to listen if you are a politician and it certainly shows in the polls with Congress's rating at continued lows. So, what do you do? Enter Bernie Sanders.
When the majority leader, Harry Reid, exhorted colleagues to “deal with the issue of income inequality,” the talk took a spiritual turn. “You know,” declared Senator Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent, who caucuses with Democrats, “we have a strong ally on our side in this issue — and that is the pope.” That Mr. Sanders, who is Jewish, would invoke the pope to Mr. Reid, a Mormon, delighted Roman Catholics in the room. (“Bernie! You’re quoting my pope; this is good!” Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois recalled thinking.) Beyond interfaith banter, the comment underscored a larger truth: From 4,500 miles away at the Vatican, Pope Francis, who has captivated the world with a message of economic justice and tolerance, has become a presence in Washington’s policy debate.
Currently, there are around 2 billion Catholics in the world and they all look to the pope as their leader. Pope Francis is not only changing the face of Christianity today but he is clearly affecting politics. He has made inequality his core issue and I think that's going to change economic policy of the United States for the better.
How this all plays out remains to be seen but it's definitely the right direction!
When the majority leader, Harry Reid, exhorted colleagues to “deal with the issue of income inequality,” the talk took a spiritual turn. “You know,” declared Senator Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent, who caucuses with Democrats, “we have a strong ally on our side in this issue — and that is the pope.” That Mr. Sanders, who is Jewish, would invoke the pope to Mr. Reid, a Mormon, delighted Roman Catholics in the room. (“Bernie! You’re quoting my pope; this is good!” Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois recalled thinking.) Beyond interfaith banter, the comment underscored a larger truth: From 4,500 miles away at the Vatican, Pope Francis, who has captivated the world with a message of economic justice and tolerance, has become a presence in Washington’s policy debate.
Currently, there are around 2 billion Catholics in the world and they all look to the pope as their leader. Pope Francis is not only changing the face of Christianity today but he is clearly affecting politics. He has made inequality his core issue and I think that's going to change economic policy of the United States for the better.
How this all plays out remains to be seen but it's definitely the right direction!
Monday, January 06, 2014
It's the Day After Tomorrow Today!
Oh, no! The Polar Vortex is everywhere! Just like the movie The Day After Tomorrow. This proves climate change isn't happening!
Well, not exactly everywhere. The temperature in Moscow, for example, was 34 degrees when I checked earlier today. In Sochi, where the Winter Olympics are going to be held, it's going to be in the 50s this week (30s in the mountains where the skiing takes place). While we've been getting socked by cold and snow, it was 36 and raining in Lillehammer, Norway, where the 1994 Winter Olympics were held. Australia's recent spring was the hottest on record and the country has been hit this year by searing heat (more than 100 degrees in the agricultural areas) and more bushfires. In December Alaska was setting record high temperatures while the rest of the United States was cold. This last November was the hottest on record world-wide.
But, the deniers say, global warming isn't happening because it's the coldest it's been in 20 years!
Exactly. Average temperatures have been rising so steadily that what used to be a typical cold snap for places like Minnesota is now the exception rather than the rule. When I was a kid most every year we'd get a week or two of -20 degree temperatures. Now we freak out when it gets that cold and cancel school.
Why is the weather so weird? Well, when the North Pole is so warm, it pushes the jet stream south, which pushes cold arctic air south into the United States. A warmer North Pole was one of the reasons Hurricane Sandy was so much bigger and veered west instead of east.
If temperatures rise a few degrees worldwide, they will increase 10 or 20 degrees at the poles, causing more melting and more weird changes to the jet stream.
A lot of people have been citing stories like this (More Record Lows than Highs in USA in 2013) as "proof" that climate change isn't happening. But they neglect to read the actual story:
Through Dec. 28, there have been 11,852 daily record lows in 2013, compared with 10,073 daily record highs, according to Walton.In 2013 there were slightly more record highs than record lows, while in 2012 there were five times as many record highs than record lows. And then there's this:
A "daily" record occurs when a specific location sets a record high or low temperature for a particular day; other types of records include monthly and all-time.
Walton said that an unusually cold spring was the main factor in the "cool" 2013.
The year 2013 was a stunning turnaround from the USA's amazingly warm year of 2012, when more than 34,000 record highs were measured across the country, as compared with only about 6,600 record lows.
Through November, the most recent month for which national and global climate statistics are available, the world was having its 4th-warmest year on record, while the USA was seeing its 35th-warmest on record, the NCDC reports.The upshot: global warming is global. We can expect fluctuations from one region to another, from one year to another, but the overall trend is increased temperatures, which causes more forest fires, heat waves, and paradoxically, cold snaps as the warming North Pole pushes the jet stream south.
A Frightening Commitment to Purity Fueled by Adolescent Belligerence
You really have to hand it to those 2nd Amendment folks in terms of fascist like purity. There is no one in our country right now that can top them. All Dick Metcalf did was state the obvious: “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.” That's exactly what Antonin Scalia said in DC v Heller and that wasn't a problem for the Gun Cult.
So why did Metcalf get banished? Let's look to one of those "voices in my head."
“We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment,” said Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo. “The time for ceding some rational points is gone.”
After I posted this link, an FB friend of mine wondered "I guess they really think they are at war. I've yet to figure out who they think is coming for all of their guns" I think that perhaps Mr Venola should up his tranquilizer dosage and invest in a tin foil hat. Or maybe not have arguments with his neighbor and shoot them. Ah well, he's obviously setting an example in terms of what happened with Mr. Metcalf.
The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by email. His television program was pulled from the air.
He vas disobeying their vill! Seig Heil!! As I have always asserted, every so called "rugged individualist is a closet fascist. Some other points in the piece worthy of note...
His experience sheds light on the close-knit world of gun journalism, where editors and reporters say there is little room for nuance in the debate over gun laws. Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced. When writers stray from the party line promoting an absolutist view of an unfettered right to bear arms, their publications — often under pressure from advertisers — excommunicate them.
I suddenly feel kinda bad for Kevin Baker. Ironic that for all his talk about freedom, there is absolutely none in his little community of gun bloggers.
“Compromise is a bad word these days,” he said. “People think it means giving up your principles.”
The part he forgot add in was "only if you are a FUCKING PSYCHO!"
I have to say I feel pretty bad for Mr. Metcalf. He seems like a genuinely great guy, just like Jim Zumbo and Jerry Tsai before him. He rightly believes that gun owners are completely out of touch with constitutional reality. Every right is regulated and requiring someone to submit to a background check or training if they want to have a conceal and carry license is no infringement.
Of course this is exactly where the adolescent belligerence comes into the mix. Just because you want to do something or own something, doesn't mean you automatically get to do so. The fact that we have to explain this to these immature assholes again makes me wonder if they ever matured past the age of 16.
So why did Metcalf get banished? Let's look to one of those "voices in my head."
“We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment,” said Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo. “The time for ceding some rational points is gone.”
After I posted this link, an FB friend of mine wondered "I guess they really think they are at war. I've yet to figure out who they think is coming for all of their guns" I think that perhaps Mr Venola should up his tranquilizer dosage and invest in a tin foil hat. Or maybe not have arguments with his neighbor and shoot them. Ah well, he's obviously setting an example in terms of what happened with Mr. Metcalf.
The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by email. His television program was pulled from the air.
He vas disobeying their vill! Seig Heil!! As I have always asserted, every so called "rugged individualist is a closet fascist. Some other points in the piece worthy of note...
His experience sheds light on the close-knit world of gun journalism, where editors and reporters say there is little room for nuance in the debate over gun laws. Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced. When writers stray from the party line promoting an absolutist view of an unfettered right to bear arms, their publications — often under pressure from advertisers — excommunicate them.
I suddenly feel kinda bad for Kevin Baker. Ironic that for all his talk about freedom, there is absolutely none in his little community of gun bloggers.
“Compromise is a bad word these days,” he said. “People think it means giving up your principles.”
The part he forgot add in was "only if you are a FUCKING PSYCHO!"
I have to say I feel pretty bad for Mr. Metcalf. He seems like a genuinely great guy, just like Jim Zumbo and Jerry Tsai before him. He rightly believes that gun owners are completely out of touch with constitutional reality. Every right is regulated and requiring someone to submit to a background check or training if they want to have a conceal and carry license is no infringement.
Of course this is exactly where the adolescent belligerence comes into the mix. Just because you want to do something or own something, doesn't mean you automatically get to do so. The fact that we have to explain this to these immature assholes again makes me wonder if they ever matured past the age of 16.
Anti Gay Uprising!
Remind me again how other people's sex lives affect these people. Or how the people that are bitching about gay marriage want government out of people's lives. What a bunch of hypocrites. Perhaps they should just mind their own fucking business.
Sunday, January 05, 2014
Whither the Old Testament
Are we, as Christians, bound by Old Testament law? Conservative Christians sure like to think we are. This is largely because they enjoy the whole "sinners in the hands of an angry god" meme as it frightens them into abstaining from doing "naughty" things. But most Christians say that we aren't completely bound by them anymore and I am one of them. Of course, the Bible says two different things so it's up to each one of us to take the time to study the material and context of what is being said. This article breaks it down quite nicely.
Many traditional Christians have the view that only parts are applicable, many Protestants have the view that none is applicable, dual-covenant theologians have the view that only Noahide Laws apply to Gentiles, and a minority have the view that all are still applicable to believers in Jesus and the New Covenant.
The entire link identifies and describes the various views and has sublinks with well sourced material on the study of the meaning of the passages listed above. Take some time to read through all of it. It becomes clear rather quickly that the people who believe that all of the OT is still applicable are very much in the minority.
I fall into the category of only parts of the Old Covenant are applicable although it's interesting to note that there are many who believe none are. So, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Land Covenant, and the Davidic Covenant are out. An eye for an eye is now gone, as Christ directs in Matthew 5. All of the ceremonial laws are no longer applicable either.
But what about sin? The Old Testament clearly states that God punishes sinners. But with the New Covenant of Jesus, that is longer true. Take note of the verses used in this link. Look familiar?:)
Indeed, the father of Protestantism understood this very well. Martin Luther explained this as Justification by Faith. He wrote “Faith alone is the saving and efficacious use of the word of God.” He then looked to Romans Chapter 10, verse 9 as being absolutely fundamental for believers in Christianity. The passage states, “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” This was his justification of faith. One did not need to pay a penance for sins, whether through confession or indulgences, to get into heaven (recall that indulgences, or the paying of money or service to the church, was one of his major gripes with Catholicism). One simply needed to believe that Christ was God and that he was resurrected and then they would be saved. Luther explained justification this way in his Smalcald Articles:
The first and chief article is this: Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Romans 3:24-25). He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23-25). This is necessary to believe. This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law, or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us...Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31).
I bolded the parts that Christian conservatives seem to have trouble understanding in terms of sin, faith and confession. In framing the argument regarding indulgences in this way, Luther was able to remove the people that had inserted themselves between the common man and the Lord: the papacy. Interestingly, Christian conservatives have assumed the role of Pope these days, saying that they and only they are interpreting the Bible correctly. Luther had something to say about them as well.
…Every baptized Christian is a priest already, not by appointment or ordination from the Pope or any other man, but because Christ Himself has begotten him as a priest…in baptism.
What this means is that every man who is baptized and accepts Christ is no less a valid interpreter of the Bible than anyone else. All that is needed are the Five Solas. This launched a larger critique on the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. In On Papal Power, Luther wrote “when the attempt is made to reprove them with the Scriptures, they raise the objection that only the pope may interpret the scriptures” In the early 16th century, the pope had the final say on exactly what was meant by the scriptures, not Luther and certainly not the common man. Luther saw this, along with the authority to issue decrees and convening councils as theft, writing, “they have cunningly stolen our three rods from us, that they may go unpunished”
Further, Luther abhorred the decadence of the church, stating that they were hiding behind self created authority “so that they can practice all the knavery and wickedness which we see today” Luther’s teachings were a direct threat to Rome. If people simply looked to the Bible and got their faith “free” from God, with no intermediaries, how long would it take for the power of the papacy to erode? The flow of financial rewards to the church would ebb as well. Luther also challenged church authorities by asserting that there was no hierarchy leading up to God. All men were priests and equal in the eyes of God.
Thus, members of the clergy should not have special accommodations or privileges. Luther again...
Every baptized Christian is a priest already, not by appointment or ordination from the Pope or any other man, but because Christ Himself has begotten him as a priest…in baptism. (But) the preaching office is no more than a public service which happens to be conferred on someone by the entire congregation all the members of which are priests.
The office of the priest is one that is democratically elected by all of the people, not by papal order. He is no more closer to God than anyone else. This is how Luther’s argument became a much broader threat to church leaders and led to deep erosion with them as well as the clergy. He laid the foundation for Protestantism which, at its core, rejects intermediaries or interpreters of what the Bible "really means."
If, at this point, Luther sounds very New Testament heavy, it's because he is. Recall the New Covenant.
The Christian view of the New Covenant is a new relationship between God and humans mediated by Jesus which necessarily includes all people,both Jews and Gentiles, upon sincere declaration that one believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. The New Covenant also breaks the generational curse of the original sin on all children of Adam if they believe in Jesus Christ, after people are judged for their own sins, which is expected to happen with the second arrival of Jesus Christ. Thus as the Apostle Paul advises that the Mosaic Covenant of Sinai does not in itself prevent Jews from sinning and dying and is not given to Gentiles at all (only the Noahic covenant is unique in applying to all humanity), Christians believe the New Covenant ends the original sin and death for everyone who becomes a Christian and cannot simply be a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant since it seemingly accomplishes new things.
New things indeed. This would be where the grace part comes into play. There was no grace in the OT but now there is with the sacrifice of Jesus.
So, we aren't really bound by parts of the Old Testament any longer. There are no sinners in the hands of an angry god. Since this is the case, it puts into question many OT ideas (see: homosexuality, noun, not mentioned in the Ten Commandments or by Jesus at all) and, thus, it follows logically that some of it is just wrong. As a people, we evolved culturally over the time period between the OT and the NT and grew spiritually.
Recall that Jesus said, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." This last one is His New Commandment, detailed in John 13: 33-35.
Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Many traditional Christians have the view that only parts are applicable, many Protestants have the view that none is applicable, dual-covenant theologians have the view that only Noahide Laws apply to Gentiles, and a minority have the view that all are still applicable to believers in Jesus and the New Covenant.
The entire link identifies and describes the various views and has sublinks with well sourced material on the study of the meaning of the passages listed above. Take some time to read through all of it. It becomes clear rather quickly that the people who believe that all of the OT is still applicable are very much in the minority.
I fall into the category of only parts of the Old Covenant are applicable although it's interesting to note that there are many who believe none are. So, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Land Covenant, and the Davidic Covenant are out. An eye for an eye is now gone, as Christ directs in Matthew 5. All of the ceremonial laws are no longer applicable either.
But what about sin? The Old Testament clearly states that God punishes sinners. But with the New Covenant of Jesus, that is longer true. Take note of the verses used in this link. Look familiar?:)
Indeed, the father of Protestantism understood this very well. Martin Luther explained this as Justification by Faith. He wrote “Faith alone is the saving and efficacious use of the word of God.” He then looked to Romans Chapter 10, verse 9 as being absolutely fundamental for believers in Christianity. The passage states, “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” This was his justification of faith. One did not need to pay a penance for sins, whether through confession or indulgences, to get into heaven (recall that indulgences, or the paying of money or service to the church, was one of his major gripes with Catholicism). One simply needed to believe that Christ was God and that he was resurrected and then they would be saved. Luther explained justification this way in his Smalcald Articles:
The first and chief article is this: Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Romans 3:24-25). He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23-25). This is necessary to believe. This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law, or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us...Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31).
I bolded the parts that Christian conservatives seem to have trouble understanding in terms of sin, faith and confession. In framing the argument regarding indulgences in this way, Luther was able to remove the people that had inserted themselves between the common man and the Lord: the papacy. Interestingly, Christian conservatives have assumed the role of Pope these days, saying that they and only they are interpreting the Bible correctly. Luther had something to say about them as well.
…Every baptized Christian is a priest already, not by appointment or ordination from the Pope or any other man, but because Christ Himself has begotten him as a priest…in baptism.
What this means is that every man who is baptized and accepts Christ is no less a valid interpreter of the Bible than anyone else. All that is needed are the Five Solas. This launched a larger critique on the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. In On Papal Power, Luther wrote “when the attempt is made to reprove them with the Scriptures, they raise the objection that only the pope may interpret the scriptures” In the early 16th century, the pope had the final say on exactly what was meant by the scriptures, not Luther and certainly not the common man. Luther saw this, along with the authority to issue decrees and convening councils as theft, writing, “they have cunningly stolen our three rods from us, that they may go unpunished”
Further, Luther abhorred the decadence of the church, stating that they were hiding behind self created authority “so that they can practice all the knavery and wickedness which we see today” Luther’s teachings were a direct threat to Rome. If people simply looked to the Bible and got their faith “free” from God, with no intermediaries, how long would it take for the power of the papacy to erode? The flow of financial rewards to the church would ebb as well. Luther also challenged church authorities by asserting that there was no hierarchy leading up to God. All men were priests and equal in the eyes of God.
Thus, members of the clergy should not have special accommodations or privileges. Luther again...
Every baptized Christian is a priest already, not by appointment or ordination from the Pope or any other man, but because Christ Himself has begotten him as a priest…in baptism. (But) the preaching office is no more than a public service which happens to be conferred on someone by the entire congregation all the members of which are priests.
The office of the priest is one that is democratically elected by all of the people, not by papal order. He is no more closer to God than anyone else. This is how Luther’s argument became a much broader threat to church leaders and led to deep erosion with them as well as the clergy. He laid the foundation for Protestantism which, at its core, rejects intermediaries or interpreters of what the Bible "really means."
If, at this point, Luther sounds very New Testament heavy, it's because he is. Recall the New Covenant.
The Christian view of the New Covenant is a new relationship between God and humans mediated by Jesus which necessarily includes all people,both Jews and Gentiles, upon sincere declaration that one believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. The New Covenant also breaks the generational curse of the original sin on all children of Adam if they believe in Jesus Christ, after people are judged for their own sins, which is expected to happen with the second arrival of Jesus Christ. Thus as the Apostle Paul advises that the Mosaic Covenant of Sinai does not in itself prevent Jews from sinning and dying and is not given to Gentiles at all (only the Noahic covenant is unique in applying to all humanity), Christians believe the New Covenant ends the original sin and death for everyone who becomes a Christian and cannot simply be a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant since it seemingly accomplishes new things.
New things indeed. This would be where the grace part comes into play. There was no grace in the OT but now there is with the sacrifice of Jesus.
So, we aren't really bound by parts of the Old Testament any longer. There are no sinners in the hands of an angry god. Since this is the case, it puts into question many OT ideas (see: homosexuality, noun, not mentioned in the Ten Commandments or by Jesus at all) and, thus, it follows logically that some of it is just wrong. As a people, we evolved culturally over the time period between the OT and the NT and grew spiritually.
Recall that Jesus said, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." This last one is His New Commandment, detailed in John 13: 33-35.
Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Local Power Generation: the Truly Conservative Energy Solution
Roscoe Bartlett is the prototype of the quirky conservative. An article in Politico profiles the Maryland Republican, who served in Congress for 20 years before his seat was gerrymandered out of existence.
He has typical views for many in his party: limited government, pro-shutdown, hates Obamacare, etc. The article paints him as a survivalist living out in the boondocks, waiting for the day when the Russians detonate a nuclear weapon high above the United States, destroying our power and communications networks with EMP. He's got a composting toilet and a wood-fired stove.
The thing that caught my eye in the article was the picture of his cabin and the numerous solar panels surrounding it.
When you think about rugged individuals like Bartlett, you you conjure up images of farmers breaking the soil of the great prairie with horse-drawn plows, wind-swept plains, lone farmhouses with a windmill.
One of big arguments among conservatives is that our national debt is terrible. They infer this because they personal debt is terrible, and they equate the two. Another big argument is that big centralized control is bad, local control and personal responsibility are good.
Yet when it comes to energy, self-sufficiency and efficiency, conservatives suddenly flip-flop: they believe that we need a massive, centralized, top-down, multinational energy distribution network. One where we depend on oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, oligarchs in Russia, and rich American heirs to massive oil fortunes.
But because oil and gas are fungible commodities, their prices will always suffer from potentially catastrophic fluctuations. Even though we are producing more oil and gas in this country, if the world suddenly needs more oil, the price will go up everywhere, and our supply could be drained away to countries like China and India. That's due to the magic of the free market, which dictates that whoever has the money calls the shots. Just because your country produces gas and oil doesn't mean your citizens will get to keep it (just ask the Nigerians). The Keystone XL pipeline won't deliver oil to the United States, it'll deliver oil to shipping terminals in Louisiana, so that foreign countries can buy it up at prevailing world prices.
Conservatives have been sold a bill of goods on energy. The Kochs and other CEOs have conned them into believing that we need massive coal mines, thousands of oil and gas wells, coal-fired power plants that poison our forests and lakes with mercury and sulfuric acid, gigantic nuclear power plants that will store tons of toxic nuclear waste on site for the rest of eternity, all run by monstrous multinational corporations that have proved time and again that they need an equally large federal government watching closely over them (think BP oil spill in the Gulf, Massey Energy coal mine explosion, Exxon Valdez, etc., etc., etc.).
Solar and wind power can create a more localized, independent, efficient, stable and reliable power grid, both from an economic and energy standpoint. Transmitting power thousands of miles across power lines leads to massive losses due to resistance. Having solar panels and windmills dotted around the landscape, provides greater efficiency and reliability, more local power generation and control.
When the only sources of electricity were coal-fired power plants that belched filthy smoke it made sense to stick out in the middle of nowhere. But now that we have clean alternatives that can be installed pretty much anywhere, it makes sense to generate power locally.
As Roscoe Bartlett points out, our power grid is fragile. It needs to be redesigned to better handle local grass-roots power generation. It needs to be robust enough to withstand hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, heat waves and cold snaps. As new forms of localized energy generation are developed (perhaps fuel cell stacks fueled hydrogen or natural gas) they can be plugged into the new grid to provide greater stability and local control. The grid still needs to be national, because we'll always need to balance power generation and consumption, as well as sending power to areas that have been hit by catastrophe.
The weird thing is that conservatives and liberals have a lot of core principles in common. But they've just have been talked into thinking that everything they believe in is diametrically opposed by people who stand to profit. We need to cut through the BS and work together to accomplish things that all of us agree are in our national interest, and not stand in the way of the common good simply because the other guy proposed it first.
He has typical views for many in his party: limited government, pro-shutdown, hates Obamacare, etc. The article paints him as a survivalist living out in the boondocks, waiting for the day when the Russians detonate a nuclear weapon high above the United States, destroying our power and communications networks with EMP. He's got a composting toilet and a wood-fired stove.
When you think about rugged individuals like Bartlett, you you conjure up images of farmers breaking the soil of the great prairie with horse-drawn plows, wind-swept plains, lone farmhouses with a windmill.
One of big arguments among conservatives is that our national debt is terrible. They infer this because they personal debt is terrible, and they equate the two. Another big argument is that big centralized control is bad, local control and personal responsibility are good.
Yet when it comes to energy, self-sufficiency and efficiency, conservatives suddenly flip-flop: they believe that we need a massive, centralized, top-down, multinational energy distribution network. One where we depend on oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, oligarchs in Russia, and rich American heirs to massive oil fortunes.
But because oil and gas are fungible commodities, their prices will always suffer from potentially catastrophic fluctuations. Even though we are producing more oil and gas in this country, if the world suddenly needs more oil, the price will go up everywhere, and our supply could be drained away to countries like China and India. That's due to the magic of the free market, which dictates that whoever has the money calls the shots. Just because your country produces gas and oil doesn't mean your citizens will get to keep it (just ask the Nigerians). The Keystone XL pipeline won't deliver oil to the United States, it'll deliver oil to shipping terminals in Louisiana, so that foreign countries can buy it up at prevailing world prices.
Conservatives have been sold a bill of goods on energy. The Kochs and other CEOs have conned them into believing that we need massive coal mines, thousands of oil and gas wells, coal-fired power plants that poison our forests and lakes with mercury and sulfuric acid, gigantic nuclear power plants that will store tons of toxic nuclear waste on site for the rest of eternity, all run by monstrous multinational corporations that have proved time and again that they need an equally large federal government watching closely over them (think BP oil spill in the Gulf, Massey Energy coal mine explosion, Exxon Valdez, etc., etc., etc.).
Solar and wind power can create a more localized, independent, efficient, stable and reliable power grid, both from an economic and energy standpoint. Transmitting power thousands of miles across power lines leads to massive losses due to resistance. Having solar panels and windmills dotted around the landscape, provides greater efficiency and reliability, more local power generation and control.
When the only sources of electricity were coal-fired power plants that belched filthy smoke it made sense to stick out in the middle of nowhere. But now that we have clean alternatives that can be installed pretty much anywhere, it makes sense to generate power locally.
As Roscoe Bartlett points out, our power grid is fragile. It needs to be redesigned to better handle local grass-roots power generation. It needs to be robust enough to withstand hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, heat waves and cold snaps. As new forms of localized energy generation are developed (perhaps fuel cell stacks fueled hydrogen or natural gas) they can be plugged into the new grid to provide greater stability and local control. The grid still needs to be national, because we'll always need to balance power generation and consumption, as well as sending power to areas that have been hit by catastrophe.
The weird thing is that conservatives and liberals have a lot of core principles in common. But they've just have been talked into thinking that everything they believe in is diametrically opposed by people who stand to profit. We need to cut through the BS and work together to accomplish things that all of us agree are in our national interest, and not stand in the way of the common good simply because the other guy proposed it first.
Louis CK on Racism
Just after the one minute mark, Louis CK pretty much torpedoes the whole "racism is over" meme.
The Atheist and The Conservative Christian
In the space of about a week, I had an atheist and a conservative Christian tell me that in order to be a "true" Christian, I had to either believe all of the Bible or none of it. At first, this struck me as hilarious considering what polar opposites both of these individuals are. But then it made perfect sense because both of them are conservative which means the world is BLACK or WHITE and NEVER ANYTHING IN BETWEEN! Essentially, this means that they buy in to the myth that you have to believe in Republican Jesus to be a Christian.
The atheist is a buddy of mine with whom I have had many fantastic and sometimes contentious discussions about politics and religion. He is a dyed in the wool libertarian who wants the federal government out of every aspect of people's lives, save for the small, necessary things. He is very anti tax but pro choice, pro legalization of all drugs, doesn't give a shit about gay marriage or people's sex lives and wants the US military (of which he was a member for a few years) out of foreign countries.
The conservative Christian is Reverend Jim's wife, the first great love of my life. I've known her for nearly 30 years and, as she has gotten older, she has become more angry, afraid, and hateful of far too many things that go on in the world. In the course of commenting on my FB wall about the Phil Robertson flap, she said that believes every single thing in the Bible and told me that I have to believe all of it or none of it. When I posited that she does not believe every single thing in the Bible by asking her if she was subservient to her husband, she told me that the Bible told her to be submissive, not subservient, and then she went on to explain (to the horror of many of female friends) how she was just that. I politely informed her that being submissive and being subservient was the same thing and then went on to ask her she thought it was OK to sell her children into slavery. Or stone sinners. She stomped off the thread of the thread after that saying I was being silly so I guess she doesn't believe everything in the Bible.
A few days later, my atheist buddy said the same thing to me as did Reverend Jim's wife. "You aren't a Christian unless you believe all of the Bible," he declared.
"But there are parts that completely contradict each other so that's impossible," I replied.
"Exactly!" he declared. "So why bother believing in any of it?"
My buddy is clearly a baby and bathwater sort of fellow! So, I spend a few days lamenting both of their attitudes. All or nothing...what a crappy way to live your life.
But then I thought about the thirty verses of the Bible which state that women should be submissive to their husbands. These are great examples of how our society has moved past this male dominated view of sexual roles. It simply does not apply to today. Reverend Jim's wife represents a very small part of the Christian community in terms of this belief. Even the most hard core conservative Christians don't treat women the way the Bible allows. Are these millions of women "fake" Christians? Obviously not. Even by her own standards, she is as well.
Homosexuality, mentioned far less than wives being submissive to their husbands, is another example of how our culture has changed. The people of that time viewed it as taboo and learned behavior. Today, we can see that people are born that way and the question we need to ask ourselves is this: if God is so against homosexuals, why does S/He keep making them?
Getting back to my atheist buddy, it's ironic that he is an atheist because he generally lives by Christian principles. He does unto others, is generally peaceful, follows many of Christ's teachings, and actually looks like the westernized image of Jesus, complete with long flowing locks of hair! On a whim, he got ordained as a minister after answering an ad in the back of Rolling Stone. So, there is some spiritual hope for him. Whether he wants to admit it or not, Christianity has had a profound effect on his life. The basis for it is still the bedrock of our society with the New Commandment being something we all try still try to achieve. Why would you want to throw out the notion of loving one another just because of the logical contradictions that occur when cultures evolve?
Now I see the true irony of each of their statements. Neither one of them live up to their self imposed rigidity. She is less of a Christian then she believes and he is more of one. Perhaps they are pissed at themselves for compromising their ideals. After all, the Bible says we shouldn't believe everything.
Proverbs 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.
Proverbs 26:25 When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
The atheist is a buddy of mine with whom I have had many fantastic and sometimes contentious discussions about politics and religion. He is a dyed in the wool libertarian who wants the federal government out of every aspect of people's lives, save for the small, necessary things. He is very anti tax but pro choice, pro legalization of all drugs, doesn't give a shit about gay marriage or people's sex lives and wants the US military (of which he was a member for a few years) out of foreign countries.
The conservative Christian is Reverend Jim's wife, the first great love of my life. I've known her for nearly 30 years and, as she has gotten older, she has become more angry, afraid, and hateful of far too many things that go on in the world. In the course of commenting on my FB wall about the Phil Robertson flap, she said that believes every single thing in the Bible and told me that I have to believe all of it or none of it. When I posited that she does not believe every single thing in the Bible by asking her if she was subservient to her husband, she told me that the Bible told her to be submissive, not subservient, and then she went on to explain (to the horror of many of female friends) how she was just that. I politely informed her that being submissive and being subservient was the same thing and then went on to ask her she thought it was OK to sell her children into slavery. Or stone sinners. She stomped off the thread of the thread after that saying I was being silly so I guess she doesn't believe everything in the Bible.
A few days later, my atheist buddy said the same thing to me as did Reverend Jim's wife. "You aren't a Christian unless you believe all of the Bible," he declared.
"But there are parts that completely contradict each other so that's impossible," I replied.
"Exactly!" he declared. "So why bother believing in any of it?"
My buddy is clearly a baby and bathwater sort of fellow! So, I spend a few days lamenting both of their attitudes. All or nothing...what a crappy way to live your life.
But then I thought about the thirty verses of the Bible which state that women should be submissive to their husbands. These are great examples of how our society has moved past this male dominated view of sexual roles. It simply does not apply to today. Reverend Jim's wife represents a very small part of the Christian community in terms of this belief. Even the most hard core conservative Christians don't treat women the way the Bible allows. Are these millions of women "fake" Christians? Obviously not. Even by her own standards, she is as well.
Homosexuality, mentioned far less than wives being submissive to their husbands, is another example of how our culture has changed. The people of that time viewed it as taboo and learned behavior. Today, we can see that people are born that way and the question we need to ask ourselves is this: if God is so against homosexuals, why does S/He keep making them?
Getting back to my atheist buddy, it's ironic that he is an atheist because he generally lives by Christian principles. He does unto others, is generally peaceful, follows many of Christ's teachings, and actually looks like the westernized image of Jesus, complete with long flowing locks of hair! On a whim, he got ordained as a minister after answering an ad in the back of Rolling Stone. So, there is some spiritual hope for him. Whether he wants to admit it or not, Christianity has had a profound effect on his life. The basis for it is still the bedrock of our society with the New Commandment being something we all try still try to achieve. Why would you want to throw out the notion of loving one another just because of the logical contradictions that occur when cultures evolve?
Now I see the true irony of each of their statements. Neither one of them live up to their self imposed rigidity. She is less of a Christian then she believes and he is more of one. Perhaps they are pissed at themselves for compromising their ideals. After all, the Bible says we shouldn't believe everything.
Proverbs 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.
Proverbs 26:25 When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Saturday, January 04, 2014
Amen
For my conservative Christian friends...
“It is not a good strategy to be at the center of a sphere,” the Pope stated. “To understand we ought to move around, to see reality from various viewpoints. We ought to get used to thinking.”
“This is really very important to me: the need to become acquainted with reality by experience, to spend time walking on the periphery in order really to become acquainted with the reality and life – experiences of people,” Pope Francis continued. “If this does not happen we then run the risk of being abstract ideologists or fundamentalists, which is not healthy.”
“It is not a good strategy to be at the center of a sphere,” the Pope stated. “To understand we ought to move around, to see reality from various viewpoints. We ought to get used to thinking.”
“This is really very important to me: the need to become acquainted with reality by experience, to spend time walking on the periphery in order really to become acquainted with the reality and life – experiences of people,” Pope Francis continued. “If this does not happen we then run the risk of being abstract ideologists or fundamentalists, which is not healthy.”
Why Did Humans Invent Music?
I've been meaning to note this piece from NatGeo for a while. What a great question!
Other theorists believe music was an attempt at social glue, a way to bring early humans together into a close-knit community."This hypothesis centers on music's unique ability to influence the mood and behavior of many people at once," they write, "helping to mold individual beings into a coordinated group." They cite the power of military music, music played at sports games, and "ritualized drumming" as examples.
I think if I had a choice between giving up music or sex, I'd give up sex. That's saying a lot for those of you who know me. Music has a power over me like nothing else. I listen to it constantly and in a wide variety of moods. Listening to sad music when I am sad somehow makes me happy. That says a lot about its power. Of course, in reality it's not an either or choice with music and sex so the two together are quite wonderful and why life is so amazing!
Other theorists believe music was an attempt at social glue, a way to bring early humans together into a close-knit community."This hypothesis centers on music's unique ability to influence the mood and behavior of many people at once," they write, "helping to mold individual beings into a coordinated group." They cite the power of military music, music played at sports games, and "ritualized drumming" as examples.
I think if I had a choice between giving up music or sex, I'd give up sex. That's saying a lot for those of you who know me. Music has a power over me like nothing else. I listen to it constantly and in a wide variety of moods. Listening to sad music when I am sad somehow makes me happy. That says a lot about its power. Of course, in reality it's not an either or choice with music and sex so the two together are quite wonderful and why life is so amazing!
Beheadings?
"Obamacare Medical Codes Confirm: Execution by Beheading To Be Implemented in America."
I think it's safe to say at this point that the Right is going to get far worse than I imagined as they get older...
I think it's safe to say at this point that the Right is going to get far worse than I imagined as they get older...
Friday, January 03, 2014
It's Hard Being Red
Ted Cruz says he’s hired lawyers to renounce Canadian citizenship
No xenophobia here. Nope. Please move along...
No xenophobia here. Nope. Please move along...
Thursday, January 02, 2014
Why is the Affordable Care Act Unpopular?
Michael Moore explains why.
What we now call Obamacare was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and birthed in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, then the governor. The president took Romneycare, a program designed to keep the private insurance industry intact, and just improved some of its provisions. In effect, the president was simply trying to put lipstick on the dog in the carrier on top of Mitt Romney’s car. And we knew it.
Even still...
And yet — I would be remiss if I didn’t say this — Obamacare is a godsend. My friend Donna Smith, who was forced to move into her daughter’s spare room at age 52 because health problems bankrupted her and her husband, Larry, now has cancer again. As she undergoes treatment, at least she won’t be in terror of losing coverage and becoming uninsurable. Under Obamacare, her premium has been cut in half, to $456 per month.
And people wonder why it's tough to be a liberal...
What we now call Obamacare was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and birthed in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, then the governor. The president took Romneycare, a program designed to keep the private insurance industry intact, and just improved some of its provisions. In effect, the president was simply trying to put lipstick on the dog in the carrier on top of Mitt Romney’s car. And we knew it.
Even still...
And yet — I would be remiss if I didn’t say this — Obamacare is a godsend. My friend Donna Smith, who was forced to move into her daughter’s spare room at age 52 because health problems bankrupted her and her husband, Larry, now has cancer again. As she undergoes treatment, at least she won’t be in terror of losing coverage and becoming uninsurable. Under Obamacare, her premium has been cut in half, to $456 per month.
And people wonder why it's tough to be a liberal...
Stunning...
I Was An NFL Player Until I Was Fired By Two Cowards And A Bigot
Near the end of November, several teammates and I were walking into a specialist meeting with Coach Priefer. We were laughing over one of the recent articles I had written supporting same-sex marriage rights, and one of my teammates made a joking remark about me leading the Pride parade. As we sat down in our chairs, Mike Priefer, in one of the meanest voices I can ever recall hearing, said: "We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows." The room grew intensely quiet, and none of the players said a word for the rest of the meeting.
What to do with people like Mike Priefer? I try to be tolerant but there is so much anger, fear and hatred with people like him. "We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows." ? This would be why I chuckle (and not because it's funny) when people like this bloviate about liberals being like Nazis. People like Priefer are the ones that really want to round up people and inter or execute them.
Honestly, there is no reasoning with the Priefers of the world. Interestingly, he's a great example of why I don't want to have guns banned in this country. If he decides to act on his beliefs, he'll need to be put down.
Near the end of November, several teammates and I were walking into a specialist meeting with Coach Priefer. We were laughing over one of the recent articles I had written supporting same-sex marriage rights, and one of my teammates made a joking remark about me leading the Pride parade. As we sat down in our chairs, Mike Priefer, in one of the meanest voices I can ever recall hearing, said: "We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows." The room grew intensely quiet, and none of the players said a word for the rest of the meeting.
What to do with people like Mike Priefer? I try to be tolerant but there is so much anger, fear and hatred with people like him. "We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows." ? This would be why I chuckle (and not because it's funny) when people like this bloviate about liberals being like Nazis. People like Priefer are the ones that really want to round up people and inter or execute them.
Honestly, there is no reasoning with the Priefers of the world. Interestingly, he's a great example of why I don't want to have guns banned in this country. If he decides to act on his beliefs, he'll need to be put down.
What Will 2014 Bring?
It's always fun at the beginning of a new year to predict what may happen. I've enjoyed reading all the partisan predictions for 2014 over the last few days that have ranged from the likely to the absurd so I figured I should throw out a few of my own.
Barring some outlying incident, the economy will continue to improve and unemployment will drop to below 6 percent. GDP will be steady at 3-4 percent for each of the four quarters. This will be the number one factor in the 2014 elections. For those of you inside the right wing bubble, our country is facing imminent economic collapse because of the liberals so nothing really new here.
The Affordable Care Act will be a 2014 campaign issue but not in the way the GOP would like it to be. The hundreds of thousands of Americans who will be benefiting from this law will dwarf those who are complaining about it and turn out to vote. The nervous and hyperventilating Democrats will suddenly become calm and happily stamp the ACA to their foreheads:)
After primary season is over in the Spring, GOP House members will pass comprehensive immigration reform. The new law will largely be the same one that was authored by Marco Rubio, Republican Senator from Florida. Political reality will become quite stark for Republicans this year in terms of the Latino vote and they will have no choice.
Failing to extend unemployment insurance for the long term unemployed will erase the political capital gained from the poor rollout of the Affordable Care Act. The Right's failure to address the issue of inequality with anything other than failed economic ideas and bloviating platitudes will take larger chunks out of the electorate for them.
There will be another school shooting and the Gun Cult will scream about Hitler coming to take their guns away, stomp down the hallway to their rooms, and act like belligerent adolescents.
The settled science of climate change will continue to be on display throughout the year. The Right will scream about Stalin coming to take their freedoms away, stomp down the hallway to their rooms, and act like belligerent adolescents.
President Obama's approval ratings will come back up again (they are already) and his 89th political death will quickly be forgotten.
For the 2014 election, the House will largely remain unchanged with either party picking up or losing a few seats. In the Senate, we can say goodbye to Mitch McConnell, Mary Landrieu, the Democratic seats in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia. That's a net loss of three seats which would put the Dems at 50 + Bernie Sanders and Angus King who caucus with them. Of course, that's how it looks now without the possible surprise retirement of Susan Collins or the GOP deciding to run far right candidates in the states they should easily pick up. Throw in some more Todd Akins and Richard Murdocks into the mix and nothing in the Senate really changes with the Democrats still holding the majority.
The most interesting races of the 2014 will be the governor's races. Governors Brewer, Heineman and Perry are all retiring. Rick Scott, Tom Corbett, Rick Snyder, and Scott Walker are going to have tough reelection fights. I see the Democrats taking most of these seats and holding on to the very blue states where they are running for reelection. The only one I really see holding on is Scott Walker in Wisconsin. I could be wrong because the state where I grew up really hasn't improved since he took office but I just don't see Kathy Burke beating him. He has moderated his language and criticized the crazies in his own party just enough to win the middle and set himself up for a presidential run.
Well, those are my predictions. What are yours?
Barring some outlying incident, the economy will continue to improve and unemployment will drop to below 6 percent. GDP will be steady at 3-4 percent for each of the four quarters. This will be the number one factor in the 2014 elections. For those of you inside the right wing bubble, our country is facing imminent economic collapse because of the liberals so nothing really new here.
The Affordable Care Act will be a 2014 campaign issue but not in the way the GOP would like it to be. The hundreds of thousands of Americans who will be benefiting from this law will dwarf those who are complaining about it and turn out to vote. The nervous and hyperventilating Democrats will suddenly become calm and happily stamp the ACA to their foreheads:)
After primary season is over in the Spring, GOP House members will pass comprehensive immigration reform. The new law will largely be the same one that was authored by Marco Rubio, Republican Senator from Florida. Political reality will become quite stark for Republicans this year in terms of the Latino vote and they will have no choice.
Failing to extend unemployment insurance for the long term unemployed will erase the political capital gained from the poor rollout of the Affordable Care Act. The Right's failure to address the issue of inequality with anything other than failed economic ideas and bloviating platitudes will take larger chunks out of the electorate for them.
There will be another school shooting and the Gun Cult will scream about Hitler coming to take their guns away, stomp down the hallway to their rooms, and act like belligerent adolescents.
The settled science of climate change will continue to be on display throughout the year. The Right will scream about Stalin coming to take their freedoms away, stomp down the hallway to their rooms, and act like belligerent adolescents.
President Obama's approval ratings will come back up again (they are already) and his 89th political death will quickly be forgotten.
For the 2014 election, the House will largely remain unchanged with either party picking up or losing a few seats. In the Senate, we can say goodbye to Mitch McConnell, Mary Landrieu, the Democratic seats in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia. That's a net loss of three seats which would put the Dems at 50 + Bernie Sanders and Angus King who caucus with them. Of course, that's how it looks now without the possible surprise retirement of Susan Collins or the GOP deciding to run far right candidates in the states they should easily pick up. Throw in some more Todd Akins and Richard Murdocks into the mix and nothing in the Senate really changes with the Democrats still holding the majority.
The most interesting races of the 2014 will be the governor's races. Governors Brewer, Heineman and Perry are all retiring. Rick Scott, Tom Corbett, Rick Snyder, and Scott Walker are going to have tough reelection fights. I see the Democrats taking most of these seats and holding on to the very blue states where they are running for reelection. The only one I really see holding on is Scott Walker in Wisconsin. I could be wrong because the state where I grew up really hasn't improved since he took office but I just don't see Kathy Burke beating him. He has moderated his language and criticized the crazies in his own party just enough to win the middle and set himself up for a presidential run.
Well, those are my predictions. What are yours?
Wednesday, January 01, 2014
Real And Not Real
So basically, any bowl game 1989 and before.
The following are not real bowl games (in order of possibly real someday to not likely real ever): Russell Athletic Bowl (formerly new Tangerine/Champs/etc), Las Vegas Bowl, Alamo Bowl, Little Caesars Pizza Bowl (formerly Motor City Bowl), Famous Idaho Potato Bowl (former Humanitarian Bowl), Music City Bowl, GoDaddy Bowl, New Orleans Bowl, Fight Hunger Bowl, Hawaii Bowl, Belk Bowl, Armed Forces Bowl, Poinsettia Bowl, Texas Bowl, BBVA Compass Bowl, New Mexico Bowl, Military Bowl, Beef 'O' Brady's Bowl, Pinstripe Bowl, and the Heart of Dallas Bowl.
The BCS National Championship Game is an anomaly in and of itself. It's not a real bowl game but it is the national championship so it has to be in its own category.
Of all the defunct bowl games, the only one I truly miss is the College All-Star Game, played from 1934-1976, in which the Super Bowl champion from the previous year played an all star team of college seniors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)