I’ve been busy however I have noticed a few things. We have a new president and a new secretary of state. If nothing else I feel infinitely safer in the knowledge that they are not going to do something incredibly stupid or try and manipulate events in order to speed up the second coming.
In other news, I got a phone call the other day which allowed me, if I chose to, join a live “town hall” meeting being run by my congressman Scott Garrett. Basically it was a conference call which allowed people to queue up to ask questions which Garrett addressed in real time. Creative huh?
I don’t particularly care for Garrett but I give him credit for a pretty creative gimmick here. He isn’t going to listen to anyone that doesn’t share his right wing outlook but it is a creative gimmick.
In other news, my wife and I sometimes watch Wheel of Fortune while scoffing down dinner. The other night there was a young fellow who when asked the obligatory introduction questions said something to the effect of “I’m engaged to a wonderful person.”
Person? My radar went up immediately as that struck be as a strange way of describing one’s fiancée unless…
As luck would have it the guy came out on top and advanced to the bonus round which is where the contestant gets to introduce the significant others that accompanied him to the show. His fiancée did in fact turn out to be another young fellow.
And the zeitgeist moves forward again, kudos to ABC and Wheel of Fortune for not being squeamish about presenting gay fiancées to the world. What makes it impressive is that the homosexual aspect was all in passing rather than the central focus.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
It Could Have Been Worse
Hey, I was half right. I got the Cardinals but blew it on Pittsburgh. Aw well, at least Franky didn’t do any better.
So now it’s on the Super Bowl 43. Cardinals and Steelers, offense against mean steel defense, noobies against traditional NFL powerhouse, decisions, decisions.
All logic says Pittsburgh. Defense usually trumps offense and the Steelers have the experience and the winning tradition.
But I’m going with Arizona. Why? Because I keep hearing in my head “Warner throws DEEP, Fitzgerald makes a circus catch, TOUCHDOWN!!!!”
So now it’s on the Super Bowl 43. Cardinals and Steelers, offense against mean steel defense, noobies against traditional NFL powerhouse, decisions, decisions.
All logic says Pittsburgh. Defense usually trumps offense and the Steelers have the experience and the winning tradition.
But I’m going with Arizona. Why? Because I keep hearing in my head “Warner throws DEEP, Fitzgerald makes a circus catch, TOUCHDOWN!!!!”
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Franky is Gloating
I got one, count 'em, one out of four of the divisional playoffs right and the one I got right I would have preferred to have been wrong about.
The insufferable sound you hear is my pet goat Franky gloating because he got two right selecting team logos randomly with his hooves!
Bah, I might as well continue to embarress myself.
In the AFC, Baltimore takes Pittsburgh.
In the NFC, Kurt Warner leads the Cardinals into the Superbowl for the first time. Go Redbirds!
The insufferable sound you hear is my pet goat Franky gloating because he got two right selecting team logos randomly with his hooves!
Bah, I might as well continue to embarress myself.
In the AFC, Baltimore takes Pittsburgh.
In the NFC, Kurt Warner leads the Cardinals into the Superbowl for the first time. Go Redbirds!
Friday, January 09, 2009
More Skirmishes on Proposition 8
There have been two recent developments. The first was that Jerry Brown, the Attorney General of California, after first declaring that he would defend Proposition 8 against a court challenge by opponents has reversed his position.
Brown has now joined the chorus of voices calling for the California Supreme court to overturn the ballot initiative. The San Francisco Chronicle explains Brown’s argument as follows.
“Because the court's May ruling equated a person's right to marry with the rights to liberty and privacy, it should be recognized as an inalienable right that voters can't generally overturn, Brown said in his brief.
It would be ‘tyranny of the majority’ to allow such rights to be taken away by a simple majority vote, he said, arguing that such an action is ‘inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty in the state Constitution.’”
Predictably proponents of Proposition 8, including Kenneth Starr, ex-special prosecutor and Dean of Pepperdine University, have claimed that Brown is "profoundly wrong" and has "invented an entirely new theory."
Duh, you will excuse me, but whether you agree with it or not, the “tyranny of the majority” issue has been around since the eighteenth century and is most certainly one of the responsibilities of the court through its function of judicial review. Allow me to suggest that Starr should go back to law school.
Madison, de Tocqueville and J.S. Mills all addressed the problem of the “tyranny of the majority” in their writings. The separation of powers in the Constitution of the United States was one strategy established by the framers to hold in check a potential “tyranny of the majority”. Judicial Review, as expounded in Marbury vs. Madison, established the process under which that strategy is enforced.
The other development is that the Proposition 8 campaign has filed suit in U.S. District Court claiming that the California statues requiring the disclosure of campaign donors is unconstitutional.
The driving forces behind this suit are allegations that donors have been harassed by threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. Apparently the suit also alleges acts of vandalism, property destruction and threats to ruin the businesses where donors are employed.
This is a tad hypocritical. I mean, the Christian organizations that support Proposition 8 have been threatening boycotts against business’ that recognize gay rights for years so to that extent turn around is fair play.
As for the threats and harassment, I know the politically correct thing to say is that everyone has a right to their opinion and that right should be respected. But, seriously, why should a bigot expect to be treated politely? Sometimes you just have to punch the other guy in the nose because the dumb twit deserves it.
Let’s face it, there is a line that once you cross it you have abdicated any right to expect your body to be safe from a thorough pounding. One might argue that the supporters of Proposition 8 haven’t crossed that line. I’m not so sure about that.
Brown has now joined the chorus of voices calling for the California Supreme court to overturn the ballot initiative. The San Francisco Chronicle explains Brown’s argument as follows.
“Because the court's May ruling equated a person's right to marry with the rights to liberty and privacy, it should be recognized as an inalienable right that voters can't generally overturn, Brown said in his brief.
It would be ‘tyranny of the majority’ to allow such rights to be taken away by a simple majority vote, he said, arguing that such an action is ‘inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty in the state Constitution.’”
Predictably proponents of Proposition 8, including Kenneth Starr, ex-special prosecutor and Dean of Pepperdine University, have claimed that Brown is "profoundly wrong" and has "invented an entirely new theory."
Duh, you will excuse me, but whether you agree with it or not, the “tyranny of the majority” issue has been around since the eighteenth century and is most certainly one of the responsibilities of the court through its function of judicial review. Allow me to suggest that Starr should go back to law school.
Madison, de Tocqueville and J.S. Mills all addressed the problem of the “tyranny of the majority” in their writings. The separation of powers in the Constitution of the United States was one strategy established by the framers to hold in check a potential “tyranny of the majority”. Judicial Review, as expounded in Marbury vs. Madison, established the process under which that strategy is enforced.
The other development is that the Proposition 8 campaign has filed suit in U.S. District Court claiming that the California statues requiring the disclosure of campaign donors is unconstitutional.
The driving forces behind this suit are allegations that donors have been harassed by threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. Apparently the suit also alleges acts of vandalism, property destruction and threats to ruin the businesses where donors are employed.
This is a tad hypocritical. I mean, the Christian organizations that support Proposition 8 have been threatening boycotts against business’ that recognize gay rights for years so to that extent turn around is fair play.
As for the threats and harassment, I know the politically correct thing to say is that everyone has a right to their opinion and that right should be respected. But, seriously, why should a bigot expect to be treated politely? Sometimes you just have to punch the other guy in the nose because the dumb twit deserves it.
Let’s face it, there is a line that once you cross it you have abdicated any right to expect your body to be safe from a thorough pounding. One might argue that the supporters of Proposition 8 haven’t crossed that line. I’m not so sure about that.
Just Missed!
Hey, I got three out of four of the Wild Card weekend games right. That puts me one ahead of my pet goat Franky.
You realize that if I had gotten all four I would have been impossible to live with. That brings us to this weekend.
In the AFC:
I like Tennessee over Baltimore. Kerry is going to teach young Flecco a couple of quarterback lessons. But next year...
I like San Diego over Pittsburgh. I'm building a considerable amount of faith in Phillip Rivers ability to lead this team. I like the bolts to make it all the way to the big game.
In the NFC:
I hate to say it, but I think the Eagles upset the Giants. Big Blue hasn't looked sharp over the last month and has too many players with iffy physical status. In the meantime the Eagles still appear to be in the middle of their late season surge.
I think Carolina is going to wipe the floor with the Cardinals. Kurt isn't going to be able to will himself to victory over the Panthers. I like the Panthers to go all the way to the big game. Which kind of sucks because no one cares about the Panthers.
In the meantime I hear Franky clacking his hooves (why isn't it hoofs?) on the floor in the next room so he must be making his picks.
You realize that if I had gotten all four I would have been impossible to live with. That brings us to this weekend.
In the AFC:
I like Tennessee over Baltimore. Kerry is going to teach young Flecco a couple of quarterback lessons. But next year...
I like San Diego over Pittsburgh. I'm building a considerable amount of faith in Phillip Rivers ability to lead this team. I like the bolts to make it all the way to the big game.
In the NFC:
I hate to say it, but I think the Eagles upset the Giants. Big Blue hasn't looked sharp over the last month and has too many players with iffy physical status. In the meantime the Eagles still appear to be in the middle of their late season surge.
I think Carolina is going to wipe the floor with the Cardinals. Kurt isn't going to be able to will himself to victory over the Panthers. I like the Panthers to go all the way to the big game. Which kind of sucks because no one cares about the Panthers.
In the meantime I hear Franky clacking his hooves (why isn't it hoofs?) on the floor in the next room so he must be making his picks.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Wild Card Weekend
Ok, I mulled it over and now I can embarress myself.
In the AFC:
The Chargers will beat the Colts. Both teams are hot but I like the Chargers more balanced attack with a healthy LT.
The Ravens will end the Dolphins miracle season. Defense wins championships and the Ravens are going to make Chad's life miserable.
In the NFC:
The Cardinals will beat the Falcons. This game could go either way but I think Kurt Warner is going to pull this one out with sheer willpower.
The Vikings will beat the Eagles. The Eagles are too inconsistent and after last weeks huge win I'm betting they have an off game.
I guess we shall see what we shall see. My mythical goat would be expected to get two of these right.
In the AFC:
The Chargers will beat the Colts. Both teams are hot but I like the Chargers more balanced attack with a healthy LT.
The Ravens will end the Dolphins miracle season. Defense wins championships and the Ravens are going to make Chad's life miserable.
In the NFC:
The Cardinals will beat the Falcons. This game could go either way but I think Kurt Warner is going to pull this one out with sheer willpower.
The Vikings will beat the Eagles. The Eagles are too inconsistent and after last weeks huge win I'm betting they have an off game.
I guess we shall see what we shall see. My mythical goat would be expected to get two of these right.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
How well did I do?
On September 5th I courageously (foolishly?) put down my predictions for the 2008 NFL season fully expecting to be totally humiliated in December. I wasn’t disappointed.
NFC East: I said Cowboys, the winner was Giants. That’s 0 right and 1 wrong
NFC North: I said Vikings, the winner was Vikings. That’s 1 right and 1 wrong
NFC South: I said Saints, the winner was Panthers. That’s 1 right and 2 wrong.
NFC West: I said Seahawks, the winner was Cardinals. That’s 1 right and 3 wrong.
AFC East: I said Patriots, the winner was Dolphins (!?). That’s 1 right and 4 wrong.
AFC North: I said Steelers, the winner was Steelers. That’s 2 right and 4 wrong.
AFC South: I said Colts, the winner was Titans. That’s 2 right and 5 wrong.
AFC West: I said Chargers, the winner was Chargers. That’s 3 right and 5 wrong.
So I did an eyelash better than a goat randomly selecting the winners by stepping on cards with the team logos. The goat would be expected to get 2 out of 8 right.
Of my four Wild Card picks, Jaguars, Jets, Packers and Eagles, only the Eagles made it. I’m still alive for AFC Champ because I picked the Chargers, but I’m dead for both NFC Champs and the Superbowl Champs because I chose the Cowboys and they didn’t even make the playoffs.
I did say I would get a second chance to make myself look foolish once the playoff picture was set. I’ll mull it over and let you know.
NFC East: I said Cowboys, the winner was Giants. That’s 0 right and 1 wrong
NFC North: I said Vikings, the winner was Vikings. That’s 1 right and 1 wrong
NFC South: I said Saints, the winner was Panthers. That’s 1 right and 2 wrong.
NFC West: I said Seahawks, the winner was Cardinals. That’s 1 right and 3 wrong.
AFC East: I said Patriots, the winner was Dolphins (!?). That’s 1 right and 4 wrong.
AFC North: I said Steelers, the winner was Steelers. That’s 2 right and 4 wrong.
AFC South: I said Colts, the winner was Titans. That’s 2 right and 5 wrong.
AFC West: I said Chargers, the winner was Chargers. That’s 3 right and 5 wrong.
So I did an eyelash better than a goat randomly selecting the winners by stepping on cards with the team logos. The goat would be expected to get 2 out of 8 right.
Of my four Wild Card picks, Jaguars, Jets, Packers and Eagles, only the Eagles made it. I’m still alive for AFC Champ because I picked the Chargers, but I’m dead for both NFC Champs and the Superbowl Champs because I chose the Cowboys and they didn’t even make the playoffs.
I did say I would get a second chance to make myself look foolish once the playoff picture was set. I’ll mull it over and let you know.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Don’t you ever get tired…
I sent one of those “are you kidding me” e-mails to a fundy Christian site.
“Don't you get tired of peddling the same old nonsense? I had to stop going through your site because I was laughing too hard. Keep up the good work. Its sites like yours that will guarantee the death of Christianity because the misrepresentations are so obvious.
A law is stronger than a theory? LOL, laws are a part of theories. A scientific law is simply a mathematical description of some natural event such as a falling rock or the rate of zygote mutation.
Evolution is a fact. Live with it. There are no fulfilled prophecies in the bible. Live with it. Jesus didn't die for your sins. Live with it. You're NOT going to heaven when you die. Live with it.
Alencon”
They weren’t thrilled and sent the following reply.
“history has proven that Christianity is growing and will continue to grow.
the philosophy of evolution is already crumbling.
life from non life?
right...
have you ever studied information formation theory in dna?
i'm sure you have not.”
I couldn’t resist replying to their reply.
“You'd be surprised at what I've studied.
Life from non-life? That's not even part of evolution, that's the province of Abiogenesis. At least get your branches of science straight. I make no claims about Abiogenesis, but if you're interested in the origins of life, allow me to refer you to Fox's experiments with protocells http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/.
I might point out that evolution isn't a "philosophy." That would be a promotion. It's simply the best explanation we have for the evidence that exists. If new evidence popped up tomorrow, such as finding the remains of a bunny rabbit in the Jurassic, science would gleefully scrap it for something better. Of course that's not very likely. For 150 years every piece of new evidence has simply refined and strengthened the basic theory.
As for its "crumbling," that lie has been around for a hundred years. It wasn't true a hundred years ago and it's not true now. It's just wishful thinking on your part. Visit the science departments of any of the great universities of the world and see if you can find any evidence of the Theory of Evolution "crumbling." There are lots and lots of questions in evolution about when, where, why and how. There is no question about "if."
You guys just keep recycling the same old tired Points Refuted A Thousand Times (PRATTS). Can't you come up with anything original? Let me clue you in on the 2nd law while I'm at it with an excerpt from an article I did that happened to address it.
'Let’s talk about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics also sometimes called the law of entropy. The 2nd law simply states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
In other words, left to themselves things get more chaotic and not more ordered. A broken down building doesn’t repair itself it gets increasingly broken down until it collapses.
Creationists point to the second law and say it proves that evolution, which Creationists view as calling for increasing order, cannot be valid.
Well, they’re wrong. The reason they’re wrong are the two words 'isolated system' in the definition. An 'isolated system' cannot import energy. But the earth’s ecology imports energy constantly from the sun. Therefore it is not an 'isolated system' and the second law doesn’t apply (it might apply to the universe as a whole but that’s a whole different issue).'
I'm sure this has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions yet you continue to push the same tired old claims about the 2nd law. Do you honestly believe that the 99.99% of reputable scientists that accept evolution don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Christianity preys upon the young, the ignorant and the freightened. The cure for Christianity is education. Whenever the light of education shines upon ignorance and superstition, the ignorance and superstition melt away. Like slavery and segregation before it Christianity is already dead. It just doesn't know it yet. Knowledge will win over ignorance. The only questions are how long will it take and what will be the cost.”
You'll notice I ignored the question of DNA information formation. I'm not about to get into a discussion about information theory and Kolmogorov complexity through e-mail with folks that don't understand the relationship of a law to a theory.
“Don't you get tired of peddling the same old nonsense? I had to stop going through your site because I was laughing too hard. Keep up the good work. Its sites like yours that will guarantee the death of Christianity because the misrepresentations are so obvious.
A law is stronger than a theory? LOL, laws are a part of theories. A scientific law is simply a mathematical description of some natural event such as a falling rock or the rate of zygote mutation.
Evolution is a fact. Live with it. There are no fulfilled prophecies in the bible. Live with it. Jesus didn't die for your sins. Live with it. You're NOT going to heaven when you die. Live with it.
Alencon”
They weren’t thrilled and sent the following reply.
“history has proven that Christianity is growing and will continue to grow.
the philosophy of evolution is already crumbling.
life from non life?
right...
have you ever studied information formation theory in dna?
i'm sure you have not.”
I couldn’t resist replying to their reply.
“You'd be surprised at what I've studied.
Life from non-life? That's not even part of evolution, that's the province of Abiogenesis. At least get your branches of science straight. I make no claims about Abiogenesis, but if you're interested in the origins of life, allow me to refer you to Fox's experiments with protocells http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/.
I might point out that evolution isn't a "philosophy." That would be a promotion. It's simply the best explanation we have for the evidence that exists. If new evidence popped up tomorrow, such as finding the remains of a bunny rabbit in the Jurassic, science would gleefully scrap it for something better. Of course that's not very likely. For 150 years every piece of new evidence has simply refined and strengthened the basic theory.
As for its "crumbling," that lie has been around for a hundred years. It wasn't true a hundred years ago and it's not true now. It's just wishful thinking on your part. Visit the science departments of any of the great universities of the world and see if you can find any evidence of the Theory of Evolution "crumbling." There are lots and lots of questions in evolution about when, where, why and how. There is no question about "if."
You guys just keep recycling the same old tired Points Refuted A Thousand Times (PRATTS). Can't you come up with anything original? Let me clue you in on the 2nd law while I'm at it with an excerpt from an article I did that happened to address it.
'Let’s talk about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics also sometimes called the law of entropy. The 2nd law simply states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
In other words, left to themselves things get more chaotic and not more ordered. A broken down building doesn’t repair itself it gets increasingly broken down until it collapses.
Creationists point to the second law and say it proves that evolution, which Creationists view as calling for increasing order, cannot be valid.
Well, they’re wrong. The reason they’re wrong are the two words 'isolated system' in the definition. An 'isolated system' cannot import energy. But the earth’s ecology imports energy constantly from the sun. Therefore it is not an 'isolated system' and the second law doesn’t apply (it might apply to the universe as a whole but that’s a whole different issue).'
I'm sure this has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions yet you continue to push the same tired old claims about the 2nd law. Do you honestly believe that the 99.99% of reputable scientists that accept evolution don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Christianity preys upon the young, the ignorant and the freightened. The cure for Christianity is education. Whenever the light of education shines upon ignorance and superstition, the ignorance and superstition melt away. Like slavery and segregation before it Christianity is already dead. It just doesn't know it yet. Knowledge will win over ignorance. The only questions are how long will it take and what will be the cost.”
You'll notice I ignored the question of DNA information formation. I'm not about to get into a discussion about information theory and Kolmogorov complexity through e-mail with folks that don't understand the relationship of a law to a theory.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Rick Warren?
I’m not happy about Barack Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural. Then again, I’m not all that happy about an invocation in the first place.
I hear the defense that’s this is the “reaching out” Obama talked about during the election. But there is a limit. One wouldn’t “reach out” to an anti-semite or KKK supporter so what we're talking about here is where is the line and is Warren over it?
Warren's over the line. He is a bigot pure and simply. For some bizarre reason the fact that he’s bigoted against gays rather than Jews or Blacks somehow makes it ok. A part of our society is willing to accept gay bashing and especially when it’s done by a Christian minister.
That’s a mistake. The time has come to make it clear that it’s NOT ok just like it was made clear in the past that it’s not ok when it’s Jews, Blacks or some other ethnic minority being bad mouthed.
Until we make it plain, where is the bigot’s incentive to either change or, if they’re unwilling to change, at least to STFU.
I’m organizing the “Snowball Battalion.” The idea is to blast Warren with snowballs when he tries to open his mouth. E-mail me if you want to sign up.
I hear the defense that’s this is the “reaching out” Obama talked about during the election. But there is a limit. One wouldn’t “reach out” to an anti-semite or KKK supporter so what we're talking about here is where is the line and is Warren over it?
Warren's over the line. He is a bigot pure and simply. For some bizarre reason the fact that he’s bigoted against gays rather than Jews or Blacks somehow makes it ok. A part of our society is willing to accept gay bashing and especially when it’s done by a Christian minister.
That’s a mistake. The time has come to make it clear that it’s NOT ok just like it was made clear in the past that it’s not ok when it’s Jews, Blacks or some other ethnic minority being bad mouthed.
Until we make it plain, where is the bigot’s incentive to either change or, if they’re unwilling to change, at least to STFU.
I’m organizing the “Snowball Battalion.” The idea is to blast Warren with snowballs when he tries to open his mouth. E-mail me if you want to sign up.
Friday, December 12, 2008
The South Carolina “I Believe” License Plates
Remember those license plates with the cross over the stained glass window and the words “I Believe” on it that South Carolina decided to make available as a no cost option? Well, a federal court has issued an injunction against issuing them citing them as a violation of the 1st Amendment prohibition against the establishment of a religion.
Gee, ya think?
State legislators are encouraging the motor vehicle agency to appeal the decision to the 4th Circuit. The odds of the 4th Circuit overturning this ruling are about zero.
Gee, ya think?
State legislators are encouraging the motor vehicle agency to appeal the decision to the 4th Circuit. The odds of the 4th Circuit overturning this ruling are about zero.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Atheist Plaque Disappears
CNN reports that a plaque bearing an atheist message, erected next to the Nativity Scene in the Legislative building in Olympia Washington, has gone missing. The plaque, provided by the folks at the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FfRF), read:
At this season of
THE WINTER SOLSTICE
may reason prevail.
There are no gods,
no devils, no angels,
no heaven or hell.
There is only
our natural world.
Religion is but
myth and superstition
that hardens hearts
and enslaves minds.
A substitute plaque, with a sign attached saying “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” is to be provided until the original is discovered. The sign is called a exercise of Freedom of Speech. Well I guess someone decided to exercise their Freedom of Speech by stealing the silly thing.
I sympathize with the rational content of the plaque; I consider its placement next to a Nativity Scene of questionable taste, funny perhaps, but of questionable taste.
At this season of
THE WINTER SOLSTICE
may reason prevail.
There are no gods,
no devils, no angels,
no heaven or hell.
There is only
our natural world.
Religion is but
myth and superstition
that hardens hearts
and enslaves minds.
A substitute plaque, with a sign attached saying “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” is to be provided until the original is discovered. The sign is called a exercise of Freedom of Speech. Well I guess someone decided to exercise their Freedom of Speech by stealing the silly thing.
I sympathize with the rational content of the plaque; I consider its placement next to a Nativity Scene of questionable taste, funny perhaps, but of questionable taste.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Confusion with the Written Word
It never ceases to amaze me how easily the written word can be misinterpreted. Usually when you look at it again in the light of a misinterpretation it’s easy to see how it happened. Once in a while though you just shake your head and wonder where the hell they got what they got out of what was written.
Have four or five people read the same fairly complex page and it wouldn’t be unusual to get multiple opinions on the precise meaning associated with different parts of the page.
Make it something controversial, and bring in various partisans, and you could get widely varying opinions. No wonder we have so many lawyers.
And this is the case when the damn thing is written in the reader’s native language and by someone who is a contemporary of the reader. Now hop forward a little bit and consider something like the bible.
The overwhelming majority of people are reading a translation, and a translation very likely influenced by previous translations and interpretations. For instance, the New International Version (NIV) makes no secret about the fact that some of the Hebrew Bible translation choices that were made were intended to maintain consistency with interpretations in the New Testament. The most famous of these is the translation of Isaiah 7:14.
The NIV renders this verse as:
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”
This is consistent with Matthew 1:22-23.
“All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”
The problem is that Matthew is quoting from the Greek Septuagint which does in fact use the Greek parthenos which specifically means virgin. In the original Hebrew however, the word is almah, which some would argue simply means “young woman” and not necessarily a virgin. If Isaiah meant “virgin,” these folks point out, he would have used the Hebrew betulah which he uses elsewhere and which can only mean virgin. There are also some disagreements about tense.
In the Jewish Bible Yisheyah (Isaiah) 7:14 reads:
“Therefore the L-rd Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), claimed by some to be the most accurate English translation, and which doesn’t concern itself with maintaining consistency with the New Testament, translates the passage as:
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”
In the NRSV the woman is already pregnant which sort of eliminates any question about her virginity.
I’m not getting into which of the various translations is right but I think it’s pretty obvious that it makes a big difference.
Another problem is that the bible was written in a cultural context that most people, including myself, have absolutely no conception of. Even supposed experts can only have a vague understanding of a culture several millenniums in the past. Consider 2 Kings 23:10 from the NIV.
“He (King Josiah) desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech.”
Seems fairly straight forward right? The most common interpretation is King Josiah destroys a pagan altar to prevent it being used for the burning of children as a sacrifice to the pagan god Molech.
Perhaps that’s correct, but there are a few problems with that interpretation. The first is that the Hebrew text doesn’t actually say “sacrifice.” It says “pass through the fire.” The NIV is interpreting that to mean “sacrifice.” Others have suggested that it might actually mean having children pass through two lines of fire as a sort of consecration ceremony. Dangerous perhaps, but not intended to be fatal.
The other problem is the word “Molech” itself. While traditionally interpreted as the name of a god, what you actually get in the Hebrew are just the consonants mlk which in other places are interpreted to mean “Melek” or king. This is a term which can apply to Yahweh himself.
So what did King Josiah put an end to? A, perhaps dangerous, consecration ceremony to a foreign god called Molech, a, perhaps dangerous, consecration ceremony to the Hebrew god Yahweh, the sacrificing of children to a foreign god called Molech, the sacrificing of children to the Hebrew god Yahweh or something totally different that no one has identified yet?
I’m not going down this road either because my opinion is utterly meaningless. Whatever the practice was it is clearly identified as an “abomination unto HaShem” (Jewish Bible Devarim 18:10) or a “detestable practice” (NIV Deuteronomy 18:10).
But without the cultural context it’s not all that easy to say exactly what’s being described nor exactly why Josiah felt extreme measures were justified.
Yet we have so many people that claim to know precisely what every word and phrase in the bible means and they’re willing to shove that interpretation down everyone else’s throat. I find that laughable.
Have four or five people read the same fairly complex page and it wouldn’t be unusual to get multiple opinions on the precise meaning associated with different parts of the page.
Make it something controversial, and bring in various partisans, and you could get widely varying opinions. No wonder we have so many lawyers.
And this is the case when the damn thing is written in the reader’s native language and by someone who is a contemporary of the reader. Now hop forward a little bit and consider something like the bible.
The overwhelming majority of people are reading a translation, and a translation very likely influenced by previous translations and interpretations. For instance, the New International Version (NIV) makes no secret about the fact that some of the Hebrew Bible translation choices that were made were intended to maintain consistency with interpretations in the New Testament. The most famous of these is the translation of Isaiah 7:14.
The NIV renders this verse as:
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”
This is consistent with Matthew 1:22-23.
“All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”
The problem is that Matthew is quoting from the Greek Septuagint which does in fact use the Greek parthenos which specifically means virgin. In the original Hebrew however, the word is almah, which some would argue simply means “young woman” and not necessarily a virgin. If Isaiah meant “virgin,” these folks point out, he would have used the Hebrew betulah which he uses elsewhere and which can only mean virgin. There are also some disagreements about tense.
In the Jewish Bible Yisheyah (Isaiah) 7:14 reads:
“Therefore the L-rd Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), claimed by some to be the most accurate English translation, and which doesn’t concern itself with maintaining consistency with the New Testament, translates the passage as:
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”
In the NRSV the woman is already pregnant which sort of eliminates any question about her virginity.
I’m not getting into which of the various translations is right but I think it’s pretty obvious that it makes a big difference.
Another problem is that the bible was written in a cultural context that most people, including myself, have absolutely no conception of. Even supposed experts can only have a vague understanding of a culture several millenniums in the past. Consider 2 Kings 23:10 from the NIV.
“He (King Josiah) desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech.”
Seems fairly straight forward right? The most common interpretation is King Josiah destroys a pagan altar to prevent it being used for the burning of children as a sacrifice to the pagan god Molech.
Perhaps that’s correct, but there are a few problems with that interpretation. The first is that the Hebrew text doesn’t actually say “sacrifice.” It says “pass through the fire.” The NIV is interpreting that to mean “sacrifice.” Others have suggested that it might actually mean having children pass through two lines of fire as a sort of consecration ceremony. Dangerous perhaps, but not intended to be fatal.
The other problem is the word “Molech” itself. While traditionally interpreted as the name of a god, what you actually get in the Hebrew are just the consonants mlk which in other places are interpreted to mean “Melek” or king. This is a term which can apply to Yahweh himself.
So what did King Josiah put an end to? A, perhaps dangerous, consecration ceremony to a foreign god called Molech, a, perhaps dangerous, consecration ceremony to the Hebrew god Yahweh, the sacrificing of children to a foreign god called Molech, the sacrificing of children to the Hebrew god Yahweh or something totally different that no one has identified yet?
I’m not going down this road either because my opinion is utterly meaningless. Whatever the practice was it is clearly identified as an “abomination unto HaShem” (Jewish Bible Devarim 18:10) or a “detestable practice” (NIV Deuteronomy 18:10).
But without the cultural context it’s not all that easy to say exactly what’s being described nor exactly why Josiah felt extreme measures were justified.
Yet we have so many people that claim to know precisely what every word and phrase in the bible means and they’re willing to shove that interpretation down everyone else’s throat. I find that laughable.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
55 Days and Counting
Just in case you’re not counting, there are 55 days left to the Bush Presidency. While I’m not quite prepared to place the total blame for the ungodly mess the country is in at Bush’s feet, he certainly deserves a large portion of it.
We will recover from the current economic quagmire and we will restore the basic democratic principles so tarnished under the Bush administration. The Bush years will become another dark time in American history roughly equivalent to the McCarthy era and the internment of Japanese Americans during WW II.
Maybe, just maybe, Bush’s real legacy will be a swing to the left in this country. Perhaps we’ve learned that freedom for some doesn’t work; you need freedom for all. Perhaps we’ve learned that depending upon faith rather than facts is a piss poor way to run a country. Perhaps we’ve learned that the founding fathers really did know what they were doing when they established a secular government.
I wouldn’t take it for granted that we have though. The fight isn’t over, it’s just beginning. But at least more people seem to understand that there is a fight to be waged. There are those on the extreme right wing that are already plotting to undermine the success of the next administration and there is still a fair number of the electorate, beginning with the Evangelical Christian cadre, susceptible to the crap they will continue to spew.
Let’s not forget that people like Ann Coulter still have the audacity to claim that Bush was a great president that history will vindicate. Coulter also thinks that McCarthy was a great American somehow framed by a vast liberal conspiracy that included President Eisenhower, Congress, the news media and the U.S. Army. She has also concluded that Evolution is a discredited theory. What planet do you suppose she lives on anyway?
So, has anything really changed? I sincerely hope so. I hope that maybe, just maybe, more of us will be laughing at the lies now. I’ll take that as a start.
We will recover from the current economic quagmire and we will restore the basic democratic principles so tarnished under the Bush administration. The Bush years will become another dark time in American history roughly equivalent to the McCarthy era and the internment of Japanese Americans during WW II.
Maybe, just maybe, Bush’s real legacy will be a swing to the left in this country. Perhaps we’ve learned that freedom for some doesn’t work; you need freedom for all. Perhaps we’ve learned that depending upon faith rather than facts is a piss poor way to run a country. Perhaps we’ve learned that the founding fathers really did know what they were doing when they established a secular government.
I wouldn’t take it for granted that we have though. The fight isn’t over, it’s just beginning. But at least more people seem to understand that there is a fight to be waged. There are those on the extreme right wing that are already plotting to undermine the success of the next administration and there is still a fair number of the electorate, beginning with the Evangelical Christian cadre, susceptible to the crap they will continue to spew.
Let’s not forget that people like Ann Coulter still have the audacity to claim that Bush was a great president that history will vindicate. Coulter also thinks that McCarthy was a great American somehow framed by a vast liberal conspiracy that included President Eisenhower, Congress, the news media and the U.S. Army. She has also concluded that Evolution is a discredited theory. What planet do you suppose she lives on anyway?
So, has anything really changed? I sincerely hope so. I hope that maybe, just maybe, more of us will be laughing at the lies now. I’ll take that as a start.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Republicans and Democrats
Believe it or not I was raised by my mommy to be a good Republican as well as a good Christian. Clearly, somewhere along the line that went all to hell didn’t it?
My earliest recollection of politics was in 1956 when Eisenhower was running for re-election against Adlai Stevenson. My grandfather was a member of the Republican club and in those days that meant access to lots of buttons, stickers, hats and all sorts of election paraphernalia. I don’t remember too much about the campaign, but I do remember the buttons. My favorite was about an inch and a half in diameter surrounded by a gold colored lattice showing President Eisenhower on an ivory background and displaying the motto “I like Ike.”
I also remember being surprised when my mother told me that my father wasn’t a Republican, “bah, what does he know” my mother would say, “He’s a Democrat.”
My mother would work on the election board and vote during the day. My dad would go vote at night after coming home from work and eating dinner. I put all the pieces together and concluded in my logical little mind that Republicans voted openly and proudly in the morning sun. Democrats on the other hand, had to sneak down to the polls at night so no one would see them. Clearly there was something unsavory and ungodly about voting Democrat.
My next recollection came in 1960. By then I was curious enough to check out the conventions on television and I remember watching the Democratic convention with all the delegates singing some song about going back to the White House that year. Needless to say, in my pre-adolescent wisdom, I thought they were completely out of their minds. There was no way the Republicans could lose. God would never let it happen.
Then I heard John Kennedy speak and the entire world turned upside down.
It’s been pretty much the left side of the aisle since despite considerable exasperation that some Democrats can’t seem to get it though their thick skulls that you cannot spend money that you don’t have. I believe that Barack Obama understands this point. I also believed that Robert Kennedy understood it.
To my mind one of the greatest tragedies of the 1960’s was the murder of Robert Kennedy. I was a big supporter of Bobby and I believe that he would have won the nomination and the Presidency in 1968. Eight years of Robert Kennedy as President of the United States would have changed the country and the world for the better.
After Kennedy’s death my support for Hubert Humphrey was subdued because of his pro-Vietnam War position. Still, he struck me as a better bet than Nixon. I remember sitting among a number of depressed college classmates in the cafeteria when word came that Nixon had won. The 1968 election marked the last Presidential campaign that I paid much attention to for a long time. Why? Because I graduated college in 1969 and entered the real world!
Through the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s I was working my butt off and trying to raise a family. An exercise that I was only marginally successful at. Overall I found the candidates offered up by both parties less than overwhelming. Mondale and Dukakis in particular left me feeling the very definition of underwhelmed. Nor was I terribly impressed with slick Willy although he did manage to balance the budget.
I mean the whole Monica Lewinsky thing left me shaking my head. Sure, JFK cheated while in the White House, but he had the class to do it with Marilyn Monroe!
Anyway, after being partially asleep for 32 years we arrived at the year 2000. To be honest I had been raised in the tweedle-dum, tweedle-dee era where the differences between Republicans and Democrats were fairly marginal and mostly fiscal.
In those days Southern Democrats were to the right of Moderate Republicans. Men like Nelson Rockefeller, John Lindsay and even Dwight Eisenhower himself were Republicans with a conservative fiscal outlook but fairly liberal social views. To describe me as a Rockefeller Republican would not be too far from the mark. I probably would have voted for Richard Nixon in 1972 if the Watergate information hadn’t started to leak out.
There are very few, if any, of that breed left today. Consider the shock I felt when I realized that the Republican Party had become a far Right Wing enclave under the influence of people that not only have reactionary views but literally advocate the gutting of American principles like the Separation of Church and State and Equal Protection under the Law.
Yes I’m talking about the Religious Right.
Look, I don’t care what you believe. You’re entitled to your own beliefs and I’ll defend your right to hold them. However, you are not entitled to bring those beliefs out of the privacy of your church or home and attempt to codify them into laws which restrict the rights and actions of someone else, period, end of discussion.
You believe abortion is murder? Don’t have an abortion and feel free to do your best to convince others not to have one as well but don’t advocate legislation restricting abortion access or, even worse, a constitutional amendment restricting it. The decisions people make regarding their bodies and their health are none of your business.
You think the gay lifestyle is an abomination? Fine, don’t go to gay bars and don’t socialize with gay couples, but, considering that sexual orientation appears to not be a choice, what gives you the right to restrict the rights of gays? Why are gay couples not entitled to the same protections under the law as heterosexual couples?
You believe that evolution is ungodly and Genesis is the obvious truth? Be my guest to teach your children that in your home and church but don’t you dare try to get your religious myths into a science classroom and call it science.
You think the Ten Commandments are simply the most elegant set of moral directives ever devised? Then feel free to post them in every room of your house. Get them tattooed on your forehead if you want. Just don’t force them on those of us who aren’t terribly impressed with them by posting them in public buildings.
It’s real easy. You stay out of my yard and I’ll stay out of yours.
It’s safe to say that becoming familiar with the Religious Right has shifted me from a slightly left of center moderate into a left wing pinko card carrying member of the ACLU, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Center for Inquiry, the Brights (real stupid name that) and the Atheist Alliance.
At the risk of being accused of vilifying those who simply don’t agree with me, I’m going to articulate my impressions of the current Republican Party.
To my mind the current right wing base of the Republican Party is culturally and psychologically the descendents of those who have fought tooth and nail against every advance in civilization since man started to experiment with fire.
These are the same sort of folks that championed slavery, the same sort of folks that opposed women’s suffrage and the same sort of folks that defended segregation. They’ve just learned to avoid marching around in sheets. But a lot of the people and organizations that are the so called Republican base are making the ghosts of those who did parade around in sheets proud.
When Sarah Palin talks about states and people who are “pro-America” what do you think she means? You don’t suppose that’s code for white Christian America do you? Because if you’re not white or not Christian, and the right sort of Christian by the way, then you obviously can’t be a true American. Or at least that’s what Palin appears to be hinting with her fairly obvious euphemisms.
Hell, they might as well put on the sheets and pointy hats and burn crosses at the Republican rallies. At least then they would be honest about where they’re coming from.
Sinclair Lewis warned that when Fascism came to the United States it would be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. You will excuse me but that description sounds a lot like the so-called base of the current Republican Party.
Is this an extreme view that is unfair to many Republicans? Perhaps, but I think those that feel it’s unfair need to look around at who they’re crawling into bed with in order to win elections. If you’re willing to bed down with the devil in order to achieve some advantage, don’t be outraged when you get accused of being devilish yourself.
John McCain was all bent out of shape by John Lewis’ comments that he and Palin were “sowing the seeds of hatred and division.”
While I believe Lewis went too far when he brought up a comparison to George Wallace, basically he was right on. If you simply remove the middle paragraph from his statement, then I say he was 100% right on. McCain, and especially Palin, were appealing to the basest instincts of the Republican base.
But note this; those base instincts are there to appeal to aren’t they? Do we really want to elect people that not only accept such support but actually go out of their way to secure it?
Somewhere along the line I learned something very interesting. It seems that in fact my father rarely voted Democrat. He voted for the New York Liberal Party. Usually the Liberal Party endorsed the Democratic candidates so, at least in New York, it amounted to the same thing. But there were exceptions. Two major exceptions were the 1965 and 1969 mayoral contests. In 1965 John Lindsay was both the Republican and Liberal Party nominee while the Democrats nominated Abe Beame. In 1969 Lindsay won with only the Liberal Party nomination.
When I asked my dad why he bothered to vote Liberal rather than Democrat when it didn’t make any difference he said it was to remind the two major parties that, as much as they’d like to ignore the fact, there were other choices.
He was a smart man my dad.
My earliest recollection of politics was in 1956 when Eisenhower was running for re-election against Adlai Stevenson. My grandfather was a member of the Republican club and in those days that meant access to lots of buttons, stickers, hats and all sorts of election paraphernalia. I don’t remember too much about the campaign, but I do remember the buttons. My favorite was about an inch and a half in diameter surrounded by a gold colored lattice showing President Eisenhower on an ivory background and displaying the motto “I like Ike.”
I also remember being surprised when my mother told me that my father wasn’t a Republican, “bah, what does he know” my mother would say, “He’s a Democrat.”
My mother would work on the election board and vote during the day. My dad would go vote at night after coming home from work and eating dinner. I put all the pieces together and concluded in my logical little mind that Republicans voted openly and proudly in the morning sun. Democrats on the other hand, had to sneak down to the polls at night so no one would see them. Clearly there was something unsavory and ungodly about voting Democrat.
My next recollection came in 1960. By then I was curious enough to check out the conventions on television and I remember watching the Democratic convention with all the delegates singing some song about going back to the White House that year. Needless to say, in my pre-adolescent wisdom, I thought they were completely out of their minds. There was no way the Republicans could lose. God would never let it happen.
Then I heard John Kennedy speak and the entire world turned upside down.
It’s been pretty much the left side of the aisle since despite considerable exasperation that some Democrats can’t seem to get it though their thick skulls that you cannot spend money that you don’t have. I believe that Barack Obama understands this point. I also believed that Robert Kennedy understood it.
To my mind one of the greatest tragedies of the 1960’s was the murder of Robert Kennedy. I was a big supporter of Bobby and I believe that he would have won the nomination and the Presidency in 1968. Eight years of Robert Kennedy as President of the United States would have changed the country and the world for the better.
After Kennedy’s death my support for Hubert Humphrey was subdued because of his pro-Vietnam War position. Still, he struck me as a better bet than Nixon. I remember sitting among a number of depressed college classmates in the cafeteria when word came that Nixon had won. The 1968 election marked the last Presidential campaign that I paid much attention to for a long time. Why? Because I graduated college in 1969 and entered the real world!
Through the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s I was working my butt off and trying to raise a family. An exercise that I was only marginally successful at. Overall I found the candidates offered up by both parties less than overwhelming. Mondale and Dukakis in particular left me feeling the very definition of underwhelmed. Nor was I terribly impressed with slick Willy although he did manage to balance the budget.
I mean the whole Monica Lewinsky thing left me shaking my head. Sure, JFK cheated while in the White House, but he had the class to do it with Marilyn Monroe!
Anyway, after being partially asleep for 32 years we arrived at the year 2000. To be honest I had been raised in the tweedle-dum, tweedle-dee era where the differences between Republicans and Democrats were fairly marginal and mostly fiscal.
In those days Southern Democrats were to the right of Moderate Republicans. Men like Nelson Rockefeller, John Lindsay and even Dwight Eisenhower himself were Republicans with a conservative fiscal outlook but fairly liberal social views. To describe me as a Rockefeller Republican would not be too far from the mark. I probably would have voted for Richard Nixon in 1972 if the Watergate information hadn’t started to leak out.
There are very few, if any, of that breed left today. Consider the shock I felt when I realized that the Republican Party had become a far Right Wing enclave under the influence of people that not only have reactionary views but literally advocate the gutting of American principles like the Separation of Church and State and Equal Protection under the Law.
Yes I’m talking about the Religious Right.
Look, I don’t care what you believe. You’re entitled to your own beliefs and I’ll defend your right to hold them. However, you are not entitled to bring those beliefs out of the privacy of your church or home and attempt to codify them into laws which restrict the rights and actions of someone else, period, end of discussion.
You believe abortion is murder? Don’t have an abortion and feel free to do your best to convince others not to have one as well but don’t advocate legislation restricting abortion access or, even worse, a constitutional amendment restricting it. The decisions people make regarding their bodies and their health are none of your business.
You think the gay lifestyle is an abomination? Fine, don’t go to gay bars and don’t socialize with gay couples, but, considering that sexual orientation appears to not be a choice, what gives you the right to restrict the rights of gays? Why are gay couples not entitled to the same protections under the law as heterosexual couples?
You believe that evolution is ungodly and Genesis is the obvious truth? Be my guest to teach your children that in your home and church but don’t you dare try to get your religious myths into a science classroom and call it science.
You think the Ten Commandments are simply the most elegant set of moral directives ever devised? Then feel free to post them in every room of your house. Get them tattooed on your forehead if you want. Just don’t force them on those of us who aren’t terribly impressed with them by posting them in public buildings.
It’s real easy. You stay out of my yard and I’ll stay out of yours.
It’s safe to say that becoming familiar with the Religious Right has shifted me from a slightly left of center moderate into a left wing pinko card carrying member of the ACLU, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Center for Inquiry, the Brights (real stupid name that) and the Atheist Alliance.
At the risk of being accused of vilifying those who simply don’t agree with me, I’m going to articulate my impressions of the current Republican Party.
To my mind the current right wing base of the Republican Party is culturally and psychologically the descendents of those who have fought tooth and nail against every advance in civilization since man started to experiment with fire.
These are the same sort of folks that championed slavery, the same sort of folks that opposed women’s suffrage and the same sort of folks that defended segregation. They’ve just learned to avoid marching around in sheets. But a lot of the people and organizations that are the so called Republican base are making the ghosts of those who did parade around in sheets proud.
When Sarah Palin talks about states and people who are “pro-America” what do you think she means? You don’t suppose that’s code for white Christian America do you? Because if you’re not white or not Christian, and the right sort of Christian by the way, then you obviously can’t be a true American. Or at least that’s what Palin appears to be hinting with her fairly obvious euphemisms.
Hell, they might as well put on the sheets and pointy hats and burn crosses at the Republican rallies. At least then they would be honest about where they’re coming from.
Sinclair Lewis warned that when Fascism came to the United States it would be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. You will excuse me but that description sounds a lot like the so-called base of the current Republican Party.
Is this an extreme view that is unfair to many Republicans? Perhaps, but I think those that feel it’s unfair need to look around at who they’re crawling into bed with in order to win elections. If you’re willing to bed down with the devil in order to achieve some advantage, don’t be outraged when you get accused of being devilish yourself.
John McCain was all bent out of shape by John Lewis’ comments that he and Palin were “sowing the seeds of hatred and division.”
While I believe Lewis went too far when he brought up a comparison to George Wallace, basically he was right on. If you simply remove the middle paragraph from his statement, then I say he was 100% right on. McCain, and especially Palin, were appealing to the basest instincts of the Republican base.
But note this; those base instincts are there to appeal to aren’t they? Do we really want to elect people that not only accept such support but actually go out of their way to secure it?
Somewhere along the line I learned something very interesting. It seems that in fact my father rarely voted Democrat. He voted for the New York Liberal Party. Usually the Liberal Party endorsed the Democratic candidates so, at least in New York, it amounted to the same thing. But there were exceptions. Two major exceptions were the 1965 and 1969 mayoral contests. In 1965 John Lindsay was both the Republican and Liberal Party nominee while the Democrats nominated Abe Beame. In 1969 Lindsay won with only the Liberal Party nomination.
When I asked my dad why he bothered to vote Liberal rather than Democrat when it didn’t make any difference he said it was to remind the two major parties that, as much as they’d like to ignore the fact, there were other choices.
He was a smart man my dad.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Why I Reject Christianity
I’ve been asked this question a number of times so here’s my attempt at an explanation.
I reject Christianity for two reasons. The lesser of the two reasons is that intellectually I find much of its doctrine utterly absurd. An obvious problem with a statement like this is the lack of common doctrine between different branches of Christianity. I’m not going to try and sort that out. If a particular doctrine listed below doesn’t apply to your particular brand of Christianity, feel free to ignore it.
Christian beliefs that I find absurd include, but are not necessarily limited to:
Rejection of the Theory of Evolution
If there is a first cause related to my leaving the church, this is it. As far as I can see Evolution is a fact, pure and simple. Are there lots of questions related to how, when, why and where? You bet there are but there is no question to my mind about “if.” Christianity’s continued rejection of the Theory of Evolution led me to first begin to question the validity of Christianity itself.
The inerrancy of the Bible
Unlike most Christians I’ve actually read the bible. I don’t see how anyone with an ounce of common sense or any objectivity whatsoever can conclude that the bible is “inerrant.” Yes I know that Christian Apologists have devised “explanations” that demonstrate that the errors and inconsistencies aren’t really errors and inconsistencies. I applaud their creativity but find their arguments totally unconvincing.
The bible is the word of God
There are only three things that I am absolutely certain of and one of them is that the bible is not the word of God. This sort of reinforces the conclusion that its not inerrant doesn’t it? Why would God (1) care whether a woman is a virgin or not on her wedding night, (2) feel obligated to include a census of the Hebrew Tribes in Numbers and (3) go into such excruciating detail about the right way to sacrifice animals? And that's not to mention Balaam's Donkey in Numbers 22 or the Test for an Unfaithful Wife in Numbers 5.
The concept of Adam and Eve
A “perfect” creation that didn’t understand the difference between good and evil? A talking snake? Punishing someone for disobedience when they didn’t know the difference between good and evil and therefore didn’t know the difference between right and wrong?
The virgin birth
Sure. Happens all the time (*cough, cough*). This strikes me as a sort of Christianity trying to keep up with the Horuses. It's basically a ripoff of the numerous pagan virgin births. I might point out that if it was a virgin birth, then Joseph wasn't the father therefore Jesus was not of the House of David and therefore couldn't be the Messiah.
The gospel miracles
Why should I believe in these miracles any more than the reputed miracles performed by Apollonius of Tyana or the Emperor Vespasian?
The doctrine of the Atonement
This is possibly the central doctrine of Christianity and one which makes absolutely no sense. Why would God, whose making up all the rules to begin with, have to incarnate himself as a human being and die a rather messy death in order to “save” humanity from its sinful ways? Sinful ways I might add that were inherent in the creation that God created! Why not simply tell everyone to say ten Hail Marys and five “Our Fathers” to atone for their sins? Hell, it works for the Catholic Church. By the way, if Jesus was God, who the hell was he praying to in the Garden of Gethsemene? Himself?
The Trinity
You can say that one is three and three is one as often and as loudly as you like and it's still total gibberish. The Trinity grew out of how to reconcile the divinity of Jesus with the concept of monotheism. The fact of the matter is that the two concepts are totally irreconcilable but that didn’t stop Christianity from coming up with an apologetic that did “reconcile” them.
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
Sure. Happens all the time (*cough, cough*). The sun god raising again on the 3rd day is a straightforward astrological event associated with the Winter Solstice which occurs on December 22nd. That what makes December 25th such a big day in pagan astrological circles. Think there's a relationship here perhaps?
Hell
The concept of an infinite punishment for finite crimes, and even for relatively trivial finite crimes, is not the attribute of a supposedly just God. And if God isn’t just, we’re pretty much screwed no matter what.
Heaven
To my knowledge no Christian has ever been able to come up with an attractive explanation as to what Heaven is actually like. Most of the descriptions sound downright boring or even scary. Besides, if Evangelical Christians are going to Heaven, then it’s not a place where any self-respecting rational human being would want to hang out.
Turn the Other Cheek
This has got to be the absolute worst advice I’ve ever heard of. A wise man once said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil if for good men to stand by and do nothing. You will excuse me but evil must be fought and injustice must be fought and they must be fought with violence if necessary.
The Meek will Inherit the Earth
The second thing that I am absolutely certain of is that the meek are not going to inherit the earth unless it’s a microsecond or two before the extinction of the species (by the way, the third thing I’m absolutely certain of is that the scientific method works).
There are probably more but these will do for now. However, remember I said that this is the lesser of the two reasons. The greater of the two reasons is the dishonesty of Christians.
Whether it is arguing against evolution, pushing for bible study in the public school or advocating the display of the Ten Commandments, I am absolutely disgusted at the total lack of respect for truth and simple honesty.
I’m not talking about differences of opinion. Honest men can disagree. I’m talking about blatant lying and distortion.
Let me give one example. Let’s talk about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics also sometimes called the law of entropy. The 2nd law simply states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
In other words, left to themselves things get more chaotic and not more ordered. A broken down building doesn’t repair itself it gets increasingly broken down until it collapses and reaches "equilibrium."
Creationists point to the second law and say it proves that evolution, which Creationists view as calling for increasing order, cannot be valid.
Well, they’re wrong. The reason they’re wrong are the two words “isolated system” in the definition. An “isolated system,” cannot import energy. But the earth’s ecology imports energy constantly from the sun. Therefore it is not an “isolated system” and the second law doesn’t apply (it might apply to the universe as a whole but that’s a whole different issue).
This is one of the more famous Points Refuted A Thousand Times or PRATTs. Yet you will continue to find this claim on numerous Christian Creationist web sites along with a smattering of quotes from physicists, biologists or other famous folks that imply they agree with the Creationist argument. In reality however, the quotes are knowingly either taken totally out of context, and often a context which specifically refutes Creationist arguments, or are knowingly related to the second law under circumstances not even remotely related to the Theory of Evolution.
This is dishonesty. You can’t twist it, you can’t turn it; it is a bald faced disregard for the truth. It is this kind of dishonesty that convinced me that Christianity is a bankrupt philosophy devoid of truth and unworthy of adherence or respect.
This was an emotional reaction. The intellectual reaction I outlined as the first reason came later. You can argue with me on the reasonableness of the doctrines and you might even get me to concede a bit (although its not very likely unless you have some arguments I haven’t heard) but there is no way in pluperfect hell you are going to convince me that any philosophy that relies upon dishonesty can be anything other than false.
Please, don’t hit me with the “no true Scotsman” argument that only some Christians, the “bad Christians,” are dishonest and not the majority of “good Christians.” You will excuse me but the deafening silence of the “good Christians” criticizing and refuting the dishonesty of the “bad Christians” speaks for itself.
So that’s the deal. It was realizing that Christians lied with regularity when pushing their religious views that led me to originally question my faith. Since then I’ve followed a fairly long and twisted road to arrive at where I am at the moment. I’m sure my journey isn’t at an end, and won't be while I continue to breathe, but I’m also pretty sure, not positive but pretty sure, that the way is forward and not back.
I reject Christianity for two reasons. The lesser of the two reasons is that intellectually I find much of its doctrine utterly absurd. An obvious problem with a statement like this is the lack of common doctrine between different branches of Christianity. I’m not going to try and sort that out. If a particular doctrine listed below doesn’t apply to your particular brand of Christianity, feel free to ignore it.
Christian beliefs that I find absurd include, but are not necessarily limited to:
Rejection of the Theory of Evolution
If there is a first cause related to my leaving the church, this is it. As far as I can see Evolution is a fact, pure and simple. Are there lots of questions related to how, when, why and where? You bet there are but there is no question to my mind about “if.” Christianity’s continued rejection of the Theory of Evolution led me to first begin to question the validity of Christianity itself.
The inerrancy of the Bible
Unlike most Christians I’ve actually read the bible. I don’t see how anyone with an ounce of common sense or any objectivity whatsoever can conclude that the bible is “inerrant.” Yes I know that Christian Apologists have devised “explanations” that demonstrate that the errors and inconsistencies aren’t really errors and inconsistencies. I applaud their creativity but find their arguments totally unconvincing.
The bible is the word of God
There are only three things that I am absolutely certain of and one of them is that the bible is not the word of God. This sort of reinforces the conclusion that its not inerrant doesn’t it? Why would God (1) care whether a woman is a virgin or not on her wedding night, (2) feel obligated to include a census of the Hebrew Tribes in Numbers and (3) go into such excruciating detail about the right way to sacrifice animals? And that's not to mention Balaam's Donkey in Numbers 22 or the Test for an Unfaithful Wife in Numbers 5.
The concept of Adam and Eve
A “perfect” creation that didn’t understand the difference between good and evil? A talking snake? Punishing someone for disobedience when they didn’t know the difference between good and evil and therefore didn’t know the difference between right and wrong?
The virgin birth
Sure. Happens all the time (*cough, cough*). This strikes me as a sort of Christianity trying to keep up with the Horuses. It's basically a ripoff of the numerous pagan virgin births. I might point out that if it was a virgin birth, then Joseph wasn't the father therefore Jesus was not of the House of David and therefore couldn't be the Messiah.
The gospel miracles
Why should I believe in these miracles any more than the reputed miracles performed by Apollonius of Tyana or the Emperor Vespasian?
The doctrine of the Atonement
This is possibly the central doctrine of Christianity and one which makes absolutely no sense. Why would God, whose making up all the rules to begin with, have to incarnate himself as a human being and die a rather messy death in order to “save” humanity from its sinful ways? Sinful ways I might add that were inherent in the creation that God created! Why not simply tell everyone to say ten Hail Marys and five “Our Fathers” to atone for their sins? Hell, it works for the Catholic Church. By the way, if Jesus was God, who the hell was he praying to in the Garden of Gethsemene? Himself?
The Trinity
You can say that one is three and three is one as often and as loudly as you like and it's still total gibberish. The Trinity grew out of how to reconcile the divinity of Jesus with the concept of monotheism. The fact of the matter is that the two concepts are totally irreconcilable but that didn’t stop Christianity from coming up with an apologetic that did “reconcile” them.
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
Sure. Happens all the time (*cough, cough*). The sun god raising again on the 3rd day is a straightforward astrological event associated with the Winter Solstice which occurs on December 22nd. That what makes December 25th such a big day in pagan astrological circles. Think there's a relationship here perhaps?
Hell
The concept of an infinite punishment for finite crimes, and even for relatively trivial finite crimes, is not the attribute of a supposedly just God. And if God isn’t just, we’re pretty much screwed no matter what.
Heaven
To my knowledge no Christian has ever been able to come up with an attractive explanation as to what Heaven is actually like. Most of the descriptions sound downright boring or even scary. Besides, if Evangelical Christians are going to Heaven, then it’s not a place where any self-respecting rational human being would want to hang out.
Turn the Other Cheek
This has got to be the absolute worst advice I’ve ever heard of. A wise man once said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil if for good men to stand by and do nothing. You will excuse me but evil must be fought and injustice must be fought and they must be fought with violence if necessary.
The Meek will Inherit the Earth
The second thing that I am absolutely certain of is that the meek are not going to inherit the earth unless it’s a microsecond or two before the extinction of the species (by the way, the third thing I’m absolutely certain of is that the scientific method works).
There are probably more but these will do for now. However, remember I said that this is the lesser of the two reasons. The greater of the two reasons is the dishonesty of Christians.
Whether it is arguing against evolution, pushing for bible study in the public school or advocating the display of the Ten Commandments, I am absolutely disgusted at the total lack of respect for truth and simple honesty.
I’m not talking about differences of opinion. Honest men can disagree. I’m talking about blatant lying and distortion.
Let me give one example. Let’s talk about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics also sometimes called the law of entropy. The 2nd law simply states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
In other words, left to themselves things get more chaotic and not more ordered. A broken down building doesn’t repair itself it gets increasingly broken down until it collapses and reaches "equilibrium."
Creationists point to the second law and say it proves that evolution, which Creationists view as calling for increasing order, cannot be valid.
Well, they’re wrong. The reason they’re wrong are the two words “isolated system” in the definition. An “isolated system,” cannot import energy. But the earth’s ecology imports energy constantly from the sun. Therefore it is not an “isolated system” and the second law doesn’t apply (it might apply to the universe as a whole but that’s a whole different issue).
This is one of the more famous Points Refuted A Thousand Times or PRATTs. Yet you will continue to find this claim on numerous Christian Creationist web sites along with a smattering of quotes from physicists, biologists or other famous folks that imply they agree with the Creationist argument. In reality however, the quotes are knowingly either taken totally out of context, and often a context which specifically refutes Creationist arguments, or are knowingly related to the second law under circumstances not even remotely related to the Theory of Evolution.
This is dishonesty. You can’t twist it, you can’t turn it; it is a bald faced disregard for the truth. It is this kind of dishonesty that convinced me that Christianity is a bankrupt philosophy devoid of truth and unworthy of adherence or respect.
This was an emotional reaction. The intellectual reaction I outlined as the first reason came later. You can argue with me on the reasonableness of the doctrines and you might even get me to concede a bit (although its not very likely unless you have some arguments I haven’t heard) but there is no way in pluperfect hell you are going to convince me that any philosophy that relies upon dishonesty can be anything other than false.
Please, don’t hit me with the “no true Scotsman” argument that only some Christians, the “bad Christians,” are dishonest and not the majority of “good Christians.” You will excuse me but the deafening silence of the “good Christians” criticizing and refuting the dishonesty of the “bad Christians” speaks for itself.
So that’s the deal. It was realizing that Christians lied with regularity when pushing their religious views that led me to originally question my faith. Since then I’ve followed a fairly long and twisted road to arrive at where I am at the moment. I’m sure my journey isn’t at an end, and won't be while I continue to breathe, but I’m also pretty sure, not positive but pretty sure, that the way is forward and not back.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Gay Violence over Proposition 8
Apparently there have been some nasty incidents in California including one in San Francisco where gays physically helped a religious group preaching conversion to heterosexuality to leave the neighborhood.
I’m getting a kick out of all the Conservative sites and blogs essentially screaming “see, they’re intolerant too.”
You know a philosophy is bankrupt when “tu quoque” is the only defense it can come up with.
Personally I think Proposition 8 was something of a wake-up call. A lot more people now realize that the enemy is religion. The Mormons and the Knights of Columbus, both of whom donated a lot of money to get Proposition 8 passed, have a lot to answer for in their support of Proposition 8.
Personally I think the Mormon Church should lose its tax exempt status and if the K of C is tax exempt, then it should lose that status as well.
I’m not a supporter of violence but there are times when you are left with no choice. You know the old saying, “Ballot Box, Jury Box and then Cartridge Box.”
As for the specific incident, if I were gay I would take a group of Christians praying for me to return to being straight as an insult of the first order of magnitude. You insult people that badly, you better be ready to fight.
I don’t buy this we returned love for hate crap either. Pitching your religious garbage is hate pure and simple. You are effectively telling people that they are evil and damned if they don’t kowtow to your brand of superstition. Calling it love doesn’t change the situation one iota.
I used to ignore folks pitching religion on the street. Now I make it a point to challenge them. Hey, it’s a free country and the first amendment is still in force and that means I have freedom of speech just like the gays in San Francisco have freedom of speech.
I’m getting a kick out of all the Conservative sites and blogs essentially screaming “see, they’re intolerant too.”
You know a philosophy is bankrupt when “tu quoque” is the only defense it can come up with.
Personally I think Proposition 8 was something of a wake-up call. A lot more people now realize that the enemy is religion. The Mormons and the Knights of Columbus, both of whom donated a lot of money to get Proposition 8 passed, have a lot to answer for in their support of Proposition 8.
Personally I think the Mormon Church should lose its tax exempt status and if the K of C is tax exempt, then it should lose that status as well.
I’m not a supporter of violence but there are times when you are left with no choice. You know the old saying, “Ballot Box, Jury Box and then Cartridge Box.”
As for the specific incident, if I were gay I would take a group of Christians praying for me to return to being straight as an insult of the first order of magnitude. You insult people that badly, you better be ready to fight.
I don’t buy this we returned love for hate crap either. Pitching your religious garbage is hate pure and simple. You are effectively telling people that they are evil and damned if they don’t kowtow to your brand of superstition. Calling it love doesn’t change the situation one iota.
I used to ignore folks pitching religion on the street. Now I make it a point to challenge them. Hey, it’s a free country and the first amendment is still in force and that means I have freedom of speech just like the gays in San Francisco have freedom of speech.
Post on Proposition 8
Geoffrey Stone in a post on Proposition 8, the California measure which overturned a court ruling and outlawed same sex marriage, presents statistics that the defeat of the measure looked to be something of a religious affair.
For instance, Evangelical Christians supported the ban 81% to 19% and those who said they attended church services weekly supported it 84% to 16%. On the flip side, non-Christians opposed it 85% to 15% and those who don’t attend church regularly opposed it 83% to 17%.
Stone finds these numbers disturbing and makes the statement “Christian Evangelicals have every right to try to persuade others to accept and abide by their beliefs. But they have no right - indeed, they violate the very spirit of the American Constitution - when they attempt to conscript the authority of the state to compel those who do not share their religious beliefs to act as if they do.”
While I tend to agree with Stone, I’m not certain what one can do about it. How does one separate a “religious belief” from any other kind of “belief?”
While it might be obvious to you and me that an Evangelical Christian is voting based upon a religious belief, I’m not that sure he would agree. As far as gay marriage is concerned he believes he’s defending traditional non-religious values and as far as abortion access is concerned he believes he’s opposing murder.
This brings us back to an ongoing argument that I have with a number of people. To my mind Evangelical Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with American Democracy. In order to support both you have to bifurcate your thinking processes, compartmentalize your beliefs and be able to understand that your religious beliefs should not dictate the laws of a multicultural democracy.
It takes a very sophisticated, fairly well educated and intelligent person to do that. The 19% of Evangelical Christians that voted against Proposition 8 probably fall into that category. The other 81% probably don’t and most likely do not understand that what the preacher preaches on Sunday ain’t necessarily what the sheriff should be enforcing on Monday.
If you consider this a problem, and I agree with Stone that it is, you have one of two options. Option #1 is to try and move more people from the latter category into the former. Personally I think this would be an effort in futility. We are never going to get a lion’s share of Evangelical Christians to understand that their religious beliefs shouldn’t effectively be the law of the land. After all, isn’t this a Christian country that should be governed based upon biblical principles?
Option #2 is to attack Evangelical Christianity itself with the ultimate objective of destroying it. If there aren’t any Evangelical Christians, then they can’t try and use the law to enforce their religious beliefs on the rest of us now can they?
I’ve been a supporter of Option #2 while most folks I know are still are trying to figure out how to get Option #1 to work. It ain’t never going to happen. You might as well try and convince Ann Coulter that she should tell the truth occasionally.
When I say attack I don’t mean physically (although I wouldn’t take that option off the table), I mean intellectually. Christianity in general, and the fundamentalist variety in particular, is wide open to assault on both the intellectual and back alley levels. It has so much absurd dogma that it would be like shooting fish in a barrel if, and this is the big if, we can rid ourselves of the “religion deserves respect” axiom.
There has always been a small cadre of intellectuals attacking religion. What is needed is for us regular folks to pitch in whenever possible. It’s not easy because you will offend people and people don’t like being offended. The Internet helps because you can attack anonymously. When the day comes that folks do it face to face we will have begun to grow up as a species.
For instance, Evangelical Christians supported the ban 81% to 19% and those who said they attended church services weekly supported it 84% to 16%. On the flip side, non-Christians opposed it 85% to 15% and those who don’t attend church regularly opposed it 83% to 17%.
Stone finds these numbers disturbing and makes the statement “Christian Evangelicals have every right to try to persuade others to accept and abide by their beliefs. But they have no right - indeed, they violate the very spirit of the American Constitution - when they attempt to conscript the authority of the state to compel those who do not share their religious beliefs to act as if they do.”
While I tend to agree with Stone, I’m not certain what one can do about it. How does one separate a “religious belief” from any other kind of “belief?”
While it might be obvious to you and me that an Evangelical Christian is voting based upon a religious belief, I’m not that sure he would agree. As far as gay marriage is concerned he believes he’s defending traditional non-religious values and as far as abortion access is concerned he believes he’s opposing murder.
This brings us back to an ongoing argument that I have with a number of people. To my mind Evangelical Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with American Democracy. In order to support both you have to bifurcate your thinking processes, compartmentalize your beliefs and be able to understand that your religious beliefs should not dictate the laws of a multicultural democracy.
It takes a very sophisticated, fairly well educated and intelligent person to do that. The 19% of Evangelical Christians that voted against Proposition 8 probably fall into that category. The other 81% probably don’t and most likely do not understand that what the preacher preaches on Sunday ain’t necessarily what the sheriff should be enforcing on Monday.
If you consider this a problem, and I agree with Stone that it is, you have one of two options. Option #1 is to try and move more people from the latter category into the former. Personally I think this would be an effort in futility. We are never going to get a lion’s share of Evangelical Christians to understand that their religious beliefs shouldn’t effectively be the law of the land. After all, isn’t this a Christian country that should be governed based upon biblical principles?
Option #2 is to attack Evangelical Christianity itself with the ultimate objective of destroying it. If there aren’t any Evangelical Christians, then they can’t try and use the law to enforce their religious beliefs on the rest of us now can they?
I’ve been a supporter of Option #2 while most folks I know are still are trying to figure out how to get Option #1 to work. It ain’t never going to happen. You might as well try and convince Ann Coulter that she should tell the truth occasionally.
When I say attack I don’t mean physically (although I wouldn’t take that option off the table), I mean intellectually. Christianity in general, and the fundamentalist variety in particular, is wide open to assault on both the intellectual and back alley levels. It has so much absurd dogma that it would be like shooting fish in a barrel if, and this is the big if, we can rid ourselves of the “religion deserves respect” axiom.
There has always been a small cadre of intellectuals attacking religion. What is needed is for us regular folks to pitch in whenever possible. It’s not easy because you will offend people and people don’t like being offended. The Internet helps because you can attack anonymously. When the day comes that folks do it face to face we will have begun to grow up as a species.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Things I do
Now that the election is over and, at least temporarily, I have nothing to obsess over and drive myself crazy with, what the hell am I going to do with myself?
Well, let’s see. Work takes up most of my time. I hit the gym five to six times a week. I do intend to continue updating my silly little blog occasionally. Then there are always the Giant’s games at the stadium and on TV to get all upset about. My kids still drive me nuts from time to time and last, but not least, there’s World of Warcraft.
Ah yes, good old WoW. Talk about a money printing machine. The latest expansion, Wrath of the Lich King or WoTLK, is scheduled for release tomorrow November 13th, 2008 or, more accurately, at midnight tonight. Local Electronics Boutiques, including the one I ordered WoTLK from, are going all out with masquerade parties leading up to the big 12 Midnight availability when you can actually get your copy for $39.99.
They will probably sell a million copies the first day. Blizzard released a huge new content update a week ago in preparation for WoTLK so everything is supposedly ready to go. Assuming I don’t encounter any installation adventures, which is no where near a sure thing, I should be up and running sometime Thursday night (no I’m not going to pick up my copy at midnight).
While WoW is getting a tad long in the tooth and too familiar, they keep updating and “improving” the thing so it sort of manages to keep your interest. I put “improving” in quotes because while generally the new stuff is good, some of it I can do without.
A whole new continent to explore, 10 more levels to gain and lots of new bad guys to take out, might be just what the doctor ordered.
Well, let’s see. Work takes up most of my time. I hit the gym five to six times a week. I do intend to continue updating my silly little blog occasionally. Then there are always the Giant’s games at the stadium and on TV to get all upset about. My kids still drive me nuts from time to time and last, but not least, there’s World of Warcraft.
Ah yes, good old WoW. Talk about a money printing machine. The latest expansion, Wrath of the Lich King or WoTLK, is scheduled for release tomorrow November 13th, 2008 or, more accurately, at midnight tonight. Local Electronics Boutiques, including the one I ordered WoTLK from, are going all out with masquerade parties leading up to the big 12 Midnight availability when you can actually get your copy for $39.99.
They will probably sell a million copies the first day. Blizzard released a huge new content update a week ago in preparation for WoTLK so everything is supposedly ready to go. Assuming I don’t encounter any installation adventures, which is no where near a sure thing, I should be up and running sometime Thursday night (no I’m not going to pick up my copy at midnight).
While WoW is getting a tad long in the tooth and too familiar, they keep updating and “improving” the thing so it sort of manages to keep your interest. I put “improving” in quotes because while generally the new stuff is good, some of it I can do without.
A whole new continent to explore, 10 more levels to gain and lots of new bad guys to take out, might be just what the doctor ordered.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Now That the Fur Has Settled a Bit
Two days have passed since the election and the glow of satisfaction is just beginning to fade.
The world appears to approve of the U.S. election result with the most common sentiment I’ve heard being something along the lines of “it’s about time you guys came to your senses.”
The economic woes haven’t miraculously repaired themselves however and that appears to be what will be dominating Obama’s time for the foreseeable future.
In very late breaking election news, North Carolina has gone into the Obama column while Missouri and the second district of Nebraska are back in the “beats the heck out of us” category although McCain leads in both. That makes the current totals Obama – 364, McCain – 162, Too close to Call – 12.
Clearly Barack is not expecting everyone to get in a circle and sing Kumbaya given his appointment of Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff. Emmanuel is a “make it happen” kind of guy. If at first you don’t agree with him, he’ll drag you kicking and screaming over to where you need to be.
Over on the Republican side the persecution of the innocent has begun and the morons are emerging from the woodwork. The persecuted innocent is Sarah Palin who, while she may not have been much of a help, certainly shouldn’t shoulder the lion’s share of the blame for the McCain debacle.
The moron is Tony Perkins of Focus on the Family who’s screeching that clearly the Republican Party needs to shift further right and expunge any and all moderates. Tony cites the wins over gay marriage in California, Florida and Arizona as evidence for that idea but doesn’t mention the anti-abortion defeats in California, Colorado and South Dakota.
Here’s the deal, a majority of Americans don’t like the idea of calling legal unions between gays marriage. They no longer appear to have a problem with extending full legal protection to gay couples they just don’t want to call it marriage. How about that as a reasonable compromise? Provide the same legal protections and just call is something else. That would pretty much eliminate the sole issue the GOP has.
I can’t think of a worse idea for the Republicans than to shift to the right. Obama won this election by spreading his appeal into the center. In the final analysis it’s the moderate center that determines elections.
If I were the Republicans the thing that would scare the hell out of me from election night would be the fact that voters in the 18-29 age range voted for Obama by a margin of 2-1. Add that to the fact that younger voters are more likely to be less religious and more secular implies that letting religious fruitcakes like Perkins steer the Republican ship is an absolutely insane idea.
But enough of that nonsense, let’s talk about something important. What kind of dog is Barack going to get his daughters?
The world appears to approve of the U.S. election result with the most common sentiment I’ve heard being something along the lines of “it’s about time you guys came to your senses.”
The economic woes haven’t miraculously repaired themselves however and that appears to be what will be dominating Obama’s time for the foreseeable future.
In very late breaking election news, North Carolina has gone into the Obama column while Missouri and the second district of Nebraska are back in the “beats the heck out of us” category although McCain leads in both. That makes the current totals Obama – 364, McCain – 162, Too close to Call – 12.
Clearly Barack is not expecting everyone to get in a circle and sing Kumbaya given his appointment of Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff. Emmanuel is a “make it happen” kind of guy. If at first you don’t agree with him, he’ll drag you kicking and screaming over to where you need to be.
Over on the Republican side the persecution of the innocent has begun and the morons are emerging from the woodwork. The persecuted innocent is Sarah Palin who, while she may not have been much of a help, certainly shouldn’t shoulder the lion’s share of the blame for the McCain debacle.
The moron is Tony Perkins of Focus on the Family who’s screeching that clearly the Republican Party needs to shift further right and expunge any and all moderates. Tony cites the wins over gay marriage in California, Florida and Arizona as evidence for that idea but doesn’t mention the anti-abortion defeats in California, Colorado and South Dakota.
Here’s the deal, a majority of Americans don’t like the idea of calling legal unions between gays marriage. They no longer appear to have a problem with extending full legal protection to gay couples they just don’t want to call it marriage. How about that as a reasonable compromise? Provide the same legal protections and just call is something else. That would pretty much eliminate the sole issue the GOP has.
I can’t think of a worse idea for the Republicans than to shift to the right. Obama won this election by spreading his appeal into the center. In the final analysis it’s the moderate center that determines elections.
If I were the Republicans the thing that would scare the hell out of me from election night would be the fact that voters in the 18-29 age range voted for Obama by a margin of 2-1. Add that to the fact that younger voters are more likely to be less religious and more secular implies that letting religious fruitcakes like Perkins steer the Republican ship is an absolutely insane idea.
But enough of that nonsense, let’s talk about something important. What kind of dog is Barack going to get his daughters?
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Election 2008
Dang it feels so good to be wrong. It feels so good to learn that all my paranoia was just that, paranoia. What Bradley effect?
I sat with my Windows Vista laptop (yes, I’m a PC) with CNN, pollster.com and fivethirtyeight.com tabs. The CNN map provided the raw update information and the pollster.com map provided a list of which news networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and the AP) had called which states plus a running total of electoral votes called by all networks, dark blue or dark red on the map, and those called by at least one network, light blue or light red on the map. On both maps all you had to do was run the mouse pointer over a state to get the display information. I had the TV tuned to NBC with the sound off, because lord were they annoying, to get the occasional piece of insight. At fivethirtyeight.com Nate Silver was providing snippits of information related to the relative performance of Obama vs. Kerry. Silver was right on target about Indiana remaining close and Virginia eventually going to Obama.
There were some scary moments in the early going. McCain appeared to be pulling away in Indiana and clearly Virginia was not going to be an early call. Then Obama pulled ahead in Florida. At fivethirtyeight.com they were declaring that Obama had more reason to be excited about Florida than Virginia.
Vermont was the first state to be called for Obama.
At 8:00 PM EST the polls in New England and the North Atlantic coast closed and immediately almost all the Blue States (is that term even meaningful anymore?), Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland and New Jersey plus the District of Columbia, fell into the Obama camp. The sole exception was Pennsylvania. The early returns from Ohio and North Carolina looked promising but the main focus was Pennsylvania.
Illinois went blue as soon as its polls closed.
Somewhere around 8:30 NBC and ABC called Pennsylvania for Obama. It was an enormous relief as one by one the other networks followed and Pennsylvania turned dark blue on my pollster.com map.
Since New Hampshire had gone dark blue earlier that meant Obama would carry all of the Kerry states for a total of 252 electoral votes and now the wait began for Red States to flip. The polls had closed in Colorado and New Mexico at 9:00. We’d have to wait for Iowa until 10:00.
In the meantime Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York and Rhode Island remained true and turned dark blue on my pollster.com map.
I had this fleeting paranoia attack of my nightmare scenario coming true only it was Colorado that refused to go blue rather than Pennsylvania.
While I was focusing on Colorado, Ohio on my CNN map flipped to blue. I just stared at it. Remembering the fiasco in 2000 with Florida I refrained from getting overly excited but I knew that if it held up, the election was essentially over and all that was left was for the clock to get to 11:00 when the West Coast polls closed.
Ohio held and the question was no longer would Obama win but how big was the victory going to be.
In the meantime New Mexico went blue.
At 10:00 Iowa joined her sister states in the Obama column. One has to wonder what the Republicans were smoking when they claimed Iowa was a dead heat. At 11:55 NBC switched to local news. I didn’t hear much of what they said. I was watching the clock on my cable box tick off the minutes.
At 11:00 NBC switched back to network news and we were greeted with a picture of a smiling Barack Obama and the declaration that he had been elected the 44th President of the United States as California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii added their votes to Obama’s total.
It was over, but it was far from over. Nevada, Colorado, Florida and even a tardy Virginia eventually joined the parade of states declaring for Barack Obama.
The current numbers stand at 349 – 173 as some networks have now given Indiana to Obama. North Carolina, as of 10:00 AM EST November 5th 2008, is still undecided.
I had lost much of my respect for John McCain because of the campaign he waged and the choices he made (Sarah Palin? Who said Sarah Palin?) but his concession speech last night restored all of it and more. Clearly McCain got some lousy advice.
As for Sarah Palin, it’s too much to hope she’ll go away. There is going to be a come to Jesus debate in the Republican Party about what to do now and Palin is clearly a favorite of the right wing conservative social values segment of the party. Luckily I think there are calmer, more talented and far more appropriate leaders in the Republican Party such as Charlie Crist.
I thought Obama’s acceptance speech in Grant Park was damn good. Of course having 500,000 people hanging on your every word and cheering everything you said helped. The one shot that I will always remember was Jessie Jackson in tears as he listened to Obama speak.
It wasn’t all good news however. The Pro-choice cause did well but Gay Rights took it on the chin.
Anti-abortion measures in Colorado, California and South Dakota all went down to defeat. I believe the American people are making it clear that they do not want the government to regulate what is clearly a medical issue.
The biggest disappointment of the night was that Proposition 8 passed in California. This is a bitter disappointment especially given the underhanded tactics used by the Proposition 8 supporters. Similar prohibitions against gay marriage passed in Arizona and Florida. Arkansas outlawed adoptions by gay couples.
Clearly we have some work to do in this area. But notice how the battlefield has shifted slightly. In Arizona the measure that passed was much less restrictive than the measure that was defeated the last time around and left open the possibility of equal legal rights under something like a Civil Union.
What’s happening is that slowly, but surely, equal legal protection is being accepted. Folks just don’t want to call it marriage. Actually, I could probably live with that compromise but I’m not gay so it’s not really my choice.
Now comes the hard part. Obama has to figure out a way to maintain the enthusiasm and work not only with the new Democratic Congress but with the Republicans as well. Then he has to figure out how to address the enormous problems facing the country and the world.
Can we all manage to work together and change the world?
Yes we can.
I sat with my Windows Vista laptop (yes, I’m a PC) with CNN, pollster.com and fivethirtyeight.com tabs. The CNN map provided the raw update information and the pollster.com map provided a list of which news networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and the AP) had called which states plus a running total of electoral votes called by all networks, dark blue or dark red on the map, and those called by at least one network, light blue or light red on the map. On both maps all you had to do was run the mouse pointer over a state to get the display information. I had the TV tuned to NBC with the sound off, because lord were they annoying, to get the occasional piece of insight. At fivethirtyeight.com Nate Silver was providing snippits of information related to the relative performance of Obama vs. Kerry. Silver was right on target about Indiana remaining close and Virginia eventually going to Obama.
There were some scary moments in the early going. McCain appeared to be pulling away in Indiana and clearly Virginia was not going to be an early call. Then Obama pulled ahead in Florida. At fivethirtyeight.com they were declaring that Obama had more reason to be excited about Florida than Virginia.
Vermont was the first state to be called for Obama.
At 8:00 PM EST the polls in New England and the North Atlantic coast closed and immediately almost all the Blue States (is that term even meaningful anymore?), Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland and New Jersey plus the District of Columbia, fell into the Obama camp. The sole exception was Pennsylvania. The early returns from Ohio and North Carolina looked promising but the main focus was Pennsylvania.
Illinois went blue as soon as its polls closed.
Somewhere around 8:30 NBC and ABC called Pennsylvania for Obama. It was an enormous relief as one by one the other networks followed and Pennsylvania turned dark blue on my pollster.com map.
Since New Hampshire had gone dark blue earlier that meant Obama would carry all of the Kerry states for a total of 252 electoral votes and now the wait began for Red States to flip. The polls had closed in Colorado and New Mexico at 9:00. We’d have to wait for Iowa until 10:00.
In the meantime Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York and Rhode Island remained true and turned dark blue on my pollster.com map.
I had this fleeting paranoia attack of my nightmare scenario coming true only it was Colorado that refused to go blue rather than Pennsylvania.
While I was focusing on Colorado, Ohio on my CNN map flipped to blue. I just stared at it. Remembering the fiasco in 2000 with Florida I refrained from getting overly excited but I knew that if it held up, the election was essentially over and all that was left was for the clock to get to 11:00 when the West Coast polls closed.
Ohio held and the question was no longer would Obama win but how big was the victory going to be.
In the meantime New Mexico went blue.
At 10:00 Iowa joined her sister states in the Obama column. One has to wonder what the Republicans were smoking when they claimed Iowa was a dead heat. At 11:55 NBC switched to local news. I didn’t hear much of what they said. I was watching the clock on my cable box tick off the minutes.
At 11:00 NBC switched back to network news and we were greeted with a picture of a smiling Barack Obama and the declaration that he had been elected the 44th President of the United States as California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii added their votes to Obama’s total.
It was over, but it was far from over. Nevada, Colorado, Florida and even a tardy Virginia eventually joined the parade of states declaring for Barack Obama.
The current numbers stand at 349 – 173 as some networks have now given Indiana to Obama. North Carolina, as of 10:00 AM EST November 5th 2008, is still undecided.
I had lost much of my respect for John McCain because of the campaign he waged and the choices he made (Sarah Palin? Who said Sarah Palin?) but his concession speech last night restored all of it and more. Clearly McCain got some lousy advice.
As for Sarah Palin, it’s too much to hope she’ll go away. There is going to be a come to Jesus debate in the Republican Party about what to do now and Palin is clearly a favorite of the right wing conservative social values segment of the party. Luckily I think there are calmer, more talented and far more appropriate leaders in the Republican Party such as Charlie Crist.
I thought Obama’s acceptance speech in Grant Park was damn good. Of course having 500,000 people hanging on your every word and cheering everything you said helped. The one shot that I will always remember was Jessie Jackson in tears as he listened to Obama speak.
It wasn’t all good news however. The Pro-choice cause did well but Gay Rights took it on the chin.
Anti-abortion measures in Colorado, California and South Dakota all went down to defeat. I believe the American people are making it clear that they do not want the government to regulate what is clearly a medical issue.
The biggest disappointment of the night was that Proposition 8 passed in California. This is a bitter disappointment especially given the underhanded tactics used by the Proposition 8 supporters. Similar prohibitions against gay marriage passed in Arizona and Florida. Arkansas outlawed adoptions by gay couples.
Clearly we have some work to do in this area. But notice how the battlefield has shifted slightly. In Arizona the measure that passed was much less restrictive than the measure that was defeated the last time around and left open the possibility of equal legal rights under something like a Civil Union.
What’s happening is that slowly, but surely, equal legal protection is being accepted. Folks just don’t want to call it marriage. Actually, I could probably live with that compromise but I’m not gay so it’s not really my choice.
Now comes the hard part. Obama has to figure out a way to maintain the enthusiasm and work not only with the new Democratic Congress but with the Republicans as well. Then he has to figure out how to address the enormous problems facing the country and the world.
Can we all manage to work together and change the world?
Yes we can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
