On the last Bill Maher show the panel got into a discussion on the James Cameron film claiming that the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth had been located. I’ve already addressed that notion as being totally unconvincing. What I want to talk about here are some of the comments made by Joe Scarborough.
Scarborough, as a devout Christian, naturally takes offense at anyone who questions his beliefs.
Scarborough - “But, you know, the thing is, whether you’re talking about ‘The DaVinci Code,’ or whether you’re talking about James Cameron, of whether you’re talking about the Judas Gospels, you have a lot of people that are making a lot of money right now, irritating Christians.”
Perhaps, but the question I have to ask is whether they are doing it for the purpose of “irritating Christians” or for some other motive that just happens to irritate Christians. The Judas Gospel, regardless of what you think about its validity, is clearly a document of great historical significance. In the case of Brown and “The DaVinci Code,” the man is simply trying to make a living. If these things happen to irritate Christians, so what? Are we to ignore historical or archeological discoveries and censor creative fiction because they happen to irritate Christians?
Speaking of The Judas Gospel, one of the most shocking things I ever read was a Christian clergyman’s reaction to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi documents, including The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel Of Philip. He expressed the opinion that you might as well toss them into the ocean because they’re non-canonical and therefore of no interest! Of course! Everything that was worth knowing was known at the completion of the Book of Revelations right?
Scarborough - “Talking about everything that you believed your entire life is false. That Jesus didn’t die and didn’t rise from the grave, and ascend into Heaven. So, you know again, it’s a big money maker, but it does offend a lot of Christians, because it goes against 2,000 years of Christian doctrine.”
So what? If it happens to be the facts, or even simply someone’s opinion, why is it forbidden to publish those facts or to express that opinion? This is the old pitch that one should be “respectful” of religion and not criticize religious beliefs. That’s a lot of nonsense. Christianity in general, and Evangelical Christianity in particular, has always claimed the prerogative to criticize and condemn anything that didn’t line up with its narrow view of the world or its slant on morality. Preachers from the evangelical pulpit have condemned abortion access, stem cell research, homosexuality, evolution, rock and roll, racial integration, hippies with long hair, Catcher in the Rye and even freaking Harry Potter.
Not content with mere verbal condemnation, Christian groups have demonstrated against gays carrying signs saying things like “AIDS cures homosexuality,” blocked access to abortion clinics and even murdered abortion doctors. You see, the problem is that people of religion confuse “knowledge” and “belief.” They think that their “belief” represents fact when it merely represents an opinion and, the last time I looked, in this country at least, one opinion was as good as another, and no opinion was immune from criticism.
Therefore, as I’ve said before, I utterly reject the notion that religious beliefs should be “respected” and be kept immune from criticism.
Scarborough - “…go to Amazon and look at the top 100 non-fiction books right now, you’ve got books out there that are called American Fascists: Why Evangelicals Are So Evil, The God Delusion.”
I’ve read Dawkins “The God Delusion” and I found it so-so. I thought the most interesting part was his theory that religion is a side effect of evolution. Dawkins speculates that the trait of accepting direction unquestioningly from parents and other authority figures during one's early years leads, indirectly, to a tendency to accept religion. This trait, while enhancing one’s survival chances by uncritically allowing the acceptance of advice like “don’t play near the crocodiles” and “don’t eat the berries with the green sap leaking out,” doesn’t allow us to differentiate between good advice and bad advice. So, paraphrasing Dawkins, while the advice about the crocodiles and berries is good, the advice to sacrifice a goat at the full moon so the gods continue to send the rains is merely a waste of goats.
Scarborough - “Let me believe what I want to believe. I’m not going to call you a fascist because you don’t believe that Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven after three days. Don’t call me a fascist because I do.”
I don’t think Evangelical Christians are being called fascists because they believe Jesus ascended into Heaven, but rather because of their imperative to force their beliefs and their notions of morality on everyone else. I’m not certain I’ve ever used the term “fascist,” but I’ve certainly expressed similar sentiments. I have called Evangelical Christians the greatest danger to Western Democracy that exists today. Even the use of the title “Christ” is a minor attempt to enforce their beliefs on non-believers. You will notice that, unlike Scarborough, I never use “Christ” because simply to call Jesus of Nazareth, or more properly Yeshua bar Joseph, “the anointed one” is an acknowledgement that he was something above all other men.
Tell you what Joe, I’ll make you a deal, get Evangelical Christians to stop trying to get their creation myth taught as science in public classrooms, to stop trying to enforce their concept of morality with respect to abortion access and stem cell research on the rest of us, to stop trying to get their ten commandments displayed in public buildings using my tax dollars, to stop fighting against giving gay couples equal rights with heterosexual couples, to stop insisting that its good to give public tax dollars to faith based charities which invariably mix religious proselytizing with charity and to stop trying to get Harry Potter banned from the public library and I’ll stop calling them a danger to Western Democracy. As a matter of fact, that would just about eliminate any need for me to criticize them at all.
In other words, get them to recognize that this country was designed as, and is much better off as, a secular democracy than a Christian theocracy and I’ll stop caring about what they believe and how they choose to spend their Sunday mornings.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
HBO’s Rome – Episode 19
This show is pretty good at surprising me. Either that or I’m just not all that good at predicting how plots will be developed.
On the historical front, Octavian and Antony divide the empire, with Antony taking the east and Octavian the west, but Octavian only accepts this arrangement after an agreement is put into place that all revenues are to be shared. This was a good move considering that most of the wealth of the empire came from the east. Lepidus, almost contemptuously, gets thrown Africa, minus Egypt of course which was the single richest province in the empire. As an interesting side note, in the first century CE there were two third class provinces in the empire. Judea, because it was such as dump as to be below the dignity of the Roman upper nobility to govern, and Egypt, because it was so rich that no one of the upper nobility could be trusted to govern it.
On the domestic front, the writers seem to be aiming for the elimination of any character than had any significant role in the show. Servilia and her loyal slave exited stage left by gutting themselves in front of Atia’s house. Talk about employee loyalty!
Memmio’s gigolo based plot has reached fruition and he now has Vorenus’s oldest daughter as a spy. The slave girl Gaia, and Pullo’s wife Eirene, are on the outs and Eirene insisted that Pullo beat Gaia for insubordination. Do I have to tell you what the “beating” evolves into? In the final scene Gaia is buying a concoction clearly intended to abort a pregnancy. The open question is whether the potion is for her or intended as poison for Eirene to terminate her pregnancy. My bet is it’s intended for Eirene because everybody on this show seems to be a total louse. The one admirable individual was Brutus and he died at Philippi in the last episode.
But the real surprises were the wedding bells, two sets of wedding bells as a matter of fact. In the first Atia, adding insult to injury, arranges a marriage between Octavia’s now destitute friend Jocasta and Caesar’s ex-slave Posca.
Then, the topper of them all, after a falling out over a bribe from King Herod to Antony that Antony, in violation of the agreement to share all revenues, tries to hide from Octavian, Atia suggests that a wedding between the two families would sound the right note of reconciliation. Of course what Atia means is her and Antony, but what Octavian and Antony negotiate is a marriage between Antony and Octavia.
Well, that’s certainly historically accurate. Antony and Octavia were married so apparently my thought that they were going to skip that whole bit as too complex, and substitute Atia for Octavia, was wrong. If you’re keeping score you’ll notice that I’m wrong an awful lot in my predictions on this show.
It’s the wedding that brings the most confusing of the side plots, that of Timon and his brother, to something of a crisis. Herod is one of the wedding guests and Timon’s brother insists that this would be a good opportunity to assassinate Herod. Timon tentatively agrees but then realizes that he has a wife and children to worry about, and the chances of surviving an assassination attempt are about zero, so he backs out. This leads to a scuffle over a knife and Timon’s brother is accidentally, and it appears fatally, stabbed. Was it that they had some time to kill or what? This subplot appears to have gone nowhere.
Things don’t look good on the domestic front. Vorenus, Pullo, Eirene and Vorenus’s offspring don’t appear to have much of a happy future ahead of them. On the historical front the rough outline is Antony leaves for Egypt and dumps both his wife Octavia and his mistress Atia for Cleopatra.
Poor Octavia hasn’t fared well in the show. From her portrayal you’d never know that this was a woman that was highly respected during her lifetime for her nobility, her humanity and for upholding the traditional Roman feminine virtues. This is no knock on Kerry Condon who plays Octavia, but rather a criticism of the character Kerry is asked to portray. Now we’ll have Octavia in a loveless marriage ensnared in the growing hostility between her brother and her husband. If the writers give her a chance, Octavia might be able to exhibit some of the those virtues noticeable absent up till now.
On the historical front, Octavian and Antony divide the empire, with Antony taking the east and Octavian the west, but Octavian only accepts this arrangement after an agreement is put into place that all revenues are to be shared. This was a good move considering that most of the wealth of the empire came from the east. Lepidus, almost contemptuously, gets thrown Africa, minus Egypt of course which was the single richest province in the empire. As an interesting side note, in the first century CE there were two third class provinces in the empire. Judea, because it was such as dump as to be below the dignity of the Roman upper nobility to govern, and Egypt, because it was so rich that no one of the upper nobility could be trusted to govern it.
On the domestic front, the writers seem to be aiming for the elimination of any character than had any significant role in the show. Servilia and her loyal slave exited stage left by gutting themselves in front of Atia’s house. Talk about employee loyalty!
Memmio’s gigolo based plot has reached fruition and he now has Vorenus’s oldest daughter as a spy. The slave girl Gaia, and Pullo’s wife Eirene, are on the outs and Eirene insisted that Pullo beat Gaia for insubordination. Do I have to tell you what the “beating” evolves into? In the final scene Gaia is buying a concoction clearly intended to abort a pregnancy. The open question is whether the potion is for her or intended as poison for Eirene to terminate her pregnancy. My bet is it’s intended for Eirene because everybody on this show seems to be a total louse. The one admirable individual was Brutus and he died at Philippi in the last episode.
But the real surprises were the wedding bells, two sets of wedding bells as a matter of fact. In the first Atia, adding insult to injury, arranges a marriage between Octavia’s now destitute friend Jocasta and Caesar’s ex-slave Posca.
Then, the topper of them all, after a falling out over a bribe from King Herod to Antony that Antony, in violation of the agreement to share all revenues, tries to hide from Octavian, Atia suggests that a wedding between the two families would sound the right note of reconciliation. Of course what Atia means is her and Antony, but what Octavian and Antony negotiate is a marriage between Antony and Octavia.
Well, that’s certainly historically accurate. Antony and Octavia were married so apparently my thought that they were going to skip that whole bit as too complex, and substitute Atia for Octavia, was wrong. If you’re keeping score you’ll notice that I’m wrong an awful lot in my predictions on this show.
It’s the wedding that brings the most confusing of the side plots, that of Timon and his brother, to something of a crisis. Herod is one of the wedding guests and Timon’s brother insists that this would be a good opportunity to assassinate Herod. Timon tentatively agrees but then realizes that he has a wife and children to worry about, and the chances of surviving an assassination attempt are about zero, so he backs out. This leads to a scuffle over a knife and Timon’s brother is accidentally, and it appears fatally, stabbed. Was it that they had some time to kill or what? This subplot appears to have gone nowhere.
Things don’t look good on the domestic front. Vorenus, Pullo, Eirene and Vorenus’s offspring don’t appear to have much of a happy future ahead of them. On the historical front the rough outline is Antony leaves for Egypt and dumps both his wife Octavia and his mistress Atia for Cleopatra.
Poor Octavia hasn’t fared well in the show. From her portrayal you’d never know that this was a woman that was highly respected during her lifetime for her nobility, her humanity and for upholding the traditional Roman feminine virtues. This is no knock on Kerry Condon who plays Octavia, but rather a criticism of the character Kerry is asked to portray. Now we’ll have Octavia in a loveless marriage ensnared in the growing hostility between her brother and her husband. If the writers give her a chance, Octavia might be able to exhibit some of the those virtues noticeable absent up till now.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
James Cameron and the Tomb of Jesus
James Cameron and the folks at the Discovery Channel have collaborated on a 90 minute documentary that claims that the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth was located on the outskirts of Jerusalem in 1980.
In the tomb, supposedly, were the ossuaries of Jesus, his mother Mary, his wife Mary Magdalene and his son Judah (His son Judah? What happened to Sarah?).
How is this possible you ask? Has there been a cover up? Have nefarious, sinister agents of the church been bribing, murdering and kidnapping poor archeologists for the past quarter century in order to keep this devastating secret, a secret which destroys the very fabric of Christianity, hidden?
Nah, the fact of the matter is Cameron is having a bad case of mental gymnastics.
The fact is that the tomb was thoroughly investigated when it was first discovered and the findings painstakingly documented by archeologists from Bar Ilan University. The fact that five of the ten ossuaries had names that could be linked to the New Testament was noticed but considered no more than a mild coincidence since these were VERY common names in Judea during the first century. Read Josephus if you want to get an idea how common the name Jesus was.
So, has new evidence come to light since then? Nope, none whatsoever, what Cameron and the Discovery Channel have done is hire a couple of statisticians who have calculated, on their trusty calculators I assume, that the probability that this is a family other than the family of Jesus of Nazareth ranges from between 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000.
I don’t even know where to begin on this one. Even if I were to see, and accept the calculations, which I haven’t by the way, I don’t think it would result in more than a shrug on my part.
I’m one of the most anti-religious people on the planet. If I’m not impressed by this claim, who would be impressed by it? I get the feeling that this is a lot of nonsense. You’re going to need a lot more than magic with numbers to convince me of this one James.
In the tomb, supposedly, were the ossuaries of Jesus, his mother Mary, his wife Mary Magdalene and his son Judah (His son Judah? What happened to Sarah?).
How is this possible you ask? Has there been a cover up? Have nefarious, sinister agents of the church been bribing, murdering and kidnapping poor archeologists for the past quarter century in order to keep this devastating secret, a secret which destroys the very fabric of Christianity, hidden?
Nah, the fact of the matter is Cameron is having a bad case of mental gymnastics.
The fact is that the tomb was thoroughly investigated when it was first discovered and the findings painstakingly documented by archeologists from Bar Ilan University. The fact that five of the ten ossuaries had names that could be linked to the New Testament was noticed but considered no more than a mild coincidence since these were VERY common names in Judea during the first century. Read Josephus if you want to get an idea how common the name Jesus was.
So, has new evidence come to light since then? Nope, none whatsoever, what Cameron and the Discovery Channel have done is hire a couple of statisticians who have calculated, on their trusty calculators I assume, that the probability that this is a family other than the family of Jesus of Nazareth ranges from between 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000.
I don’t even know where to begin on this one. Even if I were to see, and accept the calculations, which I haven’t by the way, I don’t think it would result in more than a shrug on my part.
I’m one of the most anti-religious people on the planet. If I’m not impressed by this claim, who would be impressed by it? I get the feeling that this is a lot of nonsense. You’re going to need a lot more than magic with numbers to convince me of this one James.
A Man for All Seasons
I was sick most of the weekend with what I can only describe as a queasy stomach. I’m not sure if it was something I ate on Friday or a virus making itself at home. It was annoying, and left me with little ambition to do much, so I boob tubed a fair amount of the weekend away. The only saving grace was that the Turner Classic Movie (TCM) channel was nearing the climax of its 31 days of Oscar marathon and was airing consecutive Best Picture winners. That gave me the opportunity to catch Paul Schofield in “A Man for All Seasons” Saturday night.
The movie is a fictionalized account of the conflict between Sir Thomas More, lawyer, philosophy and theologian, and Henry VIII in regard to Henry’s desire to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn.
The movie paints More as an altogether sympathetic character standing up for his principles while, as a loyal subject, trying to avoid an open confrontation with his king. In other words, to a large extent More is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Unfortunately for him, it doesn’t work, and eventually his enemies manage to get him convicted of treason through the use of perjured testimony.
Overall More is painted as an honest, courageous man of high principle and I remember taking that impression away from the movie as a conclusion the last time I’d seen it many years ago.
Well, either I’ve gotten smarter or more cynical because, after thinking about it a little bit, that’s not the conclusion I came away with this time. As I observed before, More is sort of trying to have his cake and eat it too. By not openly supporting Henry he’s making it clear that he disapproves, but by being silent he’s trying to avoid the consequences of that disapproval. I’m not sure I would call that courageous and highly principled. Is a man who tries to avoid the consequences of his convictions really acting in a courageous manner? Learn this young Padawan, if you decide to take a stand on principle, first be certain that you understand the potential consequences of that stand and, second, be certain that you are willing to accept those consequences.
I had to ask myself WHY does More refuse to accept the king’s marriage? Ostensibly it’s because the king’s actions deny the authority of the Pope which More, as a staunch Catholic, can’t condone. Typically one gets around this type of impasse by agreeing to disagree. I don’t agree with your actions but I recognize your right to decide what those actions should be. This would probably have been more than enough to satisfy Henry but More couldn’t bring himself to go even that far.
Why? Because he was a man of principle that wouldn’t give an inch on what he felt was wrong? Nope, I don’t think so. I think it was simply that More was more afraid of what would happen to him in what he was sure was the next life, than he was afraid of anything Henry could do to him in this life. More quotes Matthew 16:26, “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul,” to the man whose perjury sends him to the headsman’s axe and I think this sort of sums up his whole attitude.
More is afraid to support the king because he thinks that’s going to send him to hell. He’s also afraid to openly criticize the king because he’s afraid that’s going to get him a very short haircut. Therefore he tries to tread a middle ground through the quagmire disapproving of the king’s actions in his own mind, in order to save his place in heaven, while never saying anything to anyone expressing his opinion in order to avoid facing the consequences here on earth. I’d call that more the actions of a slippery weasel than a man that should be held up as an icon of courage and principle.
But he was right to be appalled at Henry’s discarding Catherine for the cute little snippet Anne Boleyn wasn’t he? I mean, Henry must have been a real cad to discard a loving wife for a younger woman right?
WRONG. Henry had a real problem, and the decision to divorce Catherine probably had little or nothing to do with Anne. You see Henry needed a son to continue his dynasty and avoid a resumption of the civil strife that had plagued England for 30 years during the War of the Roses. It had only been about 40 years since the battle of Bosworth field had ended the dynastic warfare. With good reason the peers, and the king, of England had nightmares about a resumption of the chaos. The only surviving child of Henry and Catherine was Mary, born in 1516, but England was still considered far too contentious a throne for a woman, so Henry desperately needed a son and the aging Catherine was unlikely to provide one.
Balanced against the threat of the resumption of war, blood and destruction was the observance of an obscure piece of church dogma. About the only reason the Pope didn’t issue a divorce decree instantaneously was that he was the virtual prisoner of Charles I of Spain, who just happened to be Catherine’s nephew! In the final analysis there wasn’t a whole lot of foundation for a stand on principle.
In the movie More is played as a simple, quiet, sympathetic, even liberal man. In reality he was something of a religious nutcase. In his work Utopia, while advocating universal religious tolerance, More advocated the outlawing of atheism. As Chancellor of England, More had a nasty penchant for burning what he believed were heretics at the stake.
Bottom line, I could be wrong, but I don’t think Thomas More was a very admirable guy at least not by modern standards. He was probably a man of his time and class, arrogant, ignorant and intolerant. This sort of makes it quite appropriate that the Thomas More Center, a conservative law front that has defended such things as Intelligent Design in the biology classroom, is named after him.
The movie is a fictionalized account of the conflict between Sir Thomas More, lawyer, philosophy and theologian, and Henry VIII in regard to Henry’s desire to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn.
The movie paints More as an altogether sympathetic character standing up for his principles while, as a loyal subject, trying to avoid an open confrontation with his king. In other words, to a large extent More is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Unfortunately for him, it doesn’t work, and eventually his enemies manage to get him convicted of treason through the use of perjured testimony.
Overall More is painted as an honest, courageous man of high principle and I remember taking that impression away from the movie as a conclusion the last time I’d seen it many years ago.
Well, either I’ve gotten smarter or more cynical because, after thinking about it a little bit, that’s not the conclusion I came away with this time. As I observed before, More is sort of trying to have his cake and eat it too. By not openly supporting Henry he’s making it clear that he disapproves, but by being silent he’s trying to avoid the consequences of that disapproval. I’m not sure I would call that courageous and highly principled. Is a man who tries to avoid the consequences of his convictions really acting in a courageous manner? Learn this young Padawan, if you decide to take a stand on principle, first be certain that you understand the potential consequences of that stand and, second, be certain that you are willing to accept those consequences.
I had to ask myself WHY does More refuse to accept the king’s marriage? Ostensibly it’s because the king’s actions deny the authority of the Pope which More, as a staunch Catholic, can’t condone. Typically one gets around this type of impasse by agreeing to disagree. I don’t agree with your actions but I recognize your right to decide what those actions should be. This would probably have been more than enough to satisfy Henry but More couldn’t bring himself to go even that far.
Why? Because he was a man of principle that wouldn’t give an inch on what he felt was wrong? Nope, I don’t think so. I think it was simply that More was more afraid of what would happen to him in what he was sure was the next life, than he was afraid of anything Henry could do to him in this life. More quotes Matthew 16:26, “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul,” to the man whose perjury sends him to the headsman’s axe and I think this sort of sums up his whole attitude.
More is afraid to support the king because he thinks that’s going to send him to hell. He’s also afraid to openly criticize the king because he’s afraid that’s going to get him a very short haircut. Therefore he tries to tread a middle ground through the quagmire disapproving of the king’s actions in his own mind, in order to save his place in heaven, while never saying anything to anyone expressing his opinion in order to avoid facing the consequences here on earth. I’d call that more the actions of a slippery weasel than a man that should be held up as an icon of courage and principle.
But he was right to be appalled at Henry’s discarding Catherine for the cute little snippet Anne Boleyn wasn’t he? I mean, Henry must have been a real cad to discard a loving wife for a younger woman right?
WRONG. Henry had a real problem, and the decision to divorce Catherine probably had little or nothing to do with Anne. You see Henry needed a son to continue his dynasty and avoid a resumption of the civil strife that had plagued England for 30 years during the War of the Roses. It had only been about 40 years since the battle of Bosworth field had ended the dynastic warfare. With good reason the peers, and the king, of England had nightmares about a resumption of the chaos. The only surviving child of Henry and Catherine was Mary, born in 1516, but England was still considered far too contentious a throne for a woman, so Henry desperately needed a son and the aging Catherine was unlikely to provide one.
Balanced against the threat of the resumption of war, blood and destruction was the observance of an obscure piece of church dogma. About the only reason the Pope didn’t issue a divorce decree instantaneously was that he was the virtual prisoner of Charles I of Spain, who just happened to be Catherine’s nephew! In the final analysis there wasn’t a whole lot of foundation for a stand on principle.
In the movie More is played as a simple, quiet, sympathetic, even liberal man. In reality he was something of a religious nutcase. In his work Utopia, while advocating universal religious tolerance, More advocated the outlawing of atheism. As Chancellor of England, More had a nasty penchant for burning what he believed were heretics at the stake.
Bottom line, I could be wrong, but I don’t think Thomas More was a very admirable guy at least not by modern standards. He was probably a man of his time and class, arrogant, ignorant and intolerant. This sort of makes it quite appropriate that the Thomas More Center, a conservative law front that has defended such things as Intelligent Design in the biology classroom, is named after him.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Easter Candy and Pontius Pilate
Already they’re selling Easter candy in my local Eckerd. At the rate we’re going, they’ll be keeping all the holiday decorations and special items around all year long!
The Easter candy reminded me of an article I wrote a few years back that, it turns out, I’ve never posted on this blog, so I’ve decided to correct that omission.
On a number of occasions I’ve encountered arguments to the effect that the actions in the gospels attributed to Pontius Pilate during the trial of Jesus are contrary to what is known about Pilate’s personality and couldn’t possibly be accurate. Interestingly enough, I consider the described actions quite reasonable and even likely for the historical reasons outlined below. Now I’m not referring to specific details but rather to the three main points upon which all the gospels agree.
1. That Pilate was the judge at the trial.
2. That Pilate was hesitant to execute Jesus
3. That ultimately Pilate agreed to the execution.
What do we know about the man reputed to have given the orders for the crucifixion of Jesus? Surprisingly enough, the answer is quite a bit based upon the histories written at the time and some inferences derived from what is known about Roman Government, Roman Society and Judea in the early part of the first century.
Judea was a third class province, below the dignity of someone of Senatorial rank to govern. As a result it was assigned to a Prefect of Equestrian rank. The Equestrians were the lower nobility of Rome and a Prefect was a military rather than a civilian title. In contrast, the neighboring Province of Syria would have been governed by a Roman of Consular rank, the highest crust of the Roman upper nobility.
Pilate probably had some military experience to his credit and in fact was very likely more of a soldier than a politician. His new command appears to have consisted of 5 auxiliary infantry cohorts plus a small wing of auxiliary cavalry. Since the main mission of this force would have been to keep the local brigands under control, it’s also likely that each infantry cohort had a cavalry detachment. So the total force would have been about 3,500 men, some 2,500 infantry and 1,000 cavalry. These were 2nd rate Romans troops and small in number. They could handle bandits and minor disturbances, but in any major insurrection Pilate would have been in serious trouble.
While technically independent, Pilate would normally have been under the guidance, and protection, of the Consular Legate of Syria who had 4 Roman Legions at his disposal plus auxiliaries for something like 30,000 troops. In the event of real trouble, Pilate would have had to appeal to the Syrian Legions for help. He just didn’t have the manpower, especially considering even the small force he had was split between Jerusalem, Caesarea and patrolling the countryside.
Normally he would have been under the Syrian Governor’s guidance and protection, but during the first 6 years of Pilate’s command there was no Syrian governor in Antioch. Tiberius seems to have been experimenting with a sort of remote rule and the governor of Syria was in Rome! Since it’s unlikely that anyone on the spot in Syria had the authority to move the Syrian Legions to Judea without directions from Rome, Pilate must have been feeling a tad exposed.
In addition to his inability to rely on any immediate help from Syria in the event of an emergency, Pilate’s rule is marked by another unique circumstance. While Gratus, his predecessor as Prefect, replaced the Temple High Priest four times in his eleven year rule, Pilate stuck with the man he found in the office when he arrived, Caiaphus. One can only speculate why, but one can be pretty sure it was related to some type of quid pro quo agreement. Pilate may not have been a true politician, but he wasn’t stupid either and as an officer would have recognized an ally when he saw one.
That Pilate was more of a soldier than a politician is demonstrated by his first mistake early in his term as Prefect. Given the small force at his disposal, his first concern would have been the strategic placement of the few troops he had. That led him to redeploy a cohort from Caesarea to Jerusalem. Unfortunately he chose one whose standards carried an image of the emperor. Despite Josephus’ claims that this was a deliberate attempt to subvert Jewish practices and law, it appears to most historians more like a beginner’s mistake. Either Pilate was unaware of Jewish practices or, as a hard nosed military type, found it hard to believe the standards were really going to cause a problem. He was wrong, they did, and the next thing he knew several thousand Jews had appeared in Caesarea demanding that the standards be removed. Pilate had the good sense to back down and exchange cohorts; his small force would have been quickly overwhelmed in a general uprising which is what this appeared to be on the verge of becoming.
This brings us to Good Friday and the trial of Jesus. Let’s recap for a second and keep a few things in mind.
1. Pilate was most likely more of a soldier than a politician.
2. Pilate had a relatively small force of about 3,500 men.
3. Pilate could expect no immediate help from the Syrian Legions in the case of real trouble.
4. Pilate probably had a mutually beneficial quid pro quo arrangement with Caiaphas.
Pilate was the Judge at Jesus's Trial
At first blush it appears a little strange that the Roman governor would preside at the trial of a Jewish peasant. It appears strange because the word “governor” implies to us a high ranking political authority. But Pilate was a Prefect, a military officer and at the time, technically, the commanding officer in Jerusalem.
At any other time except Passover, the decision of what to do about Jesus would probably have fallen to the commander of the Jerusalem garrison who was more than likely an ex-senior centurion that had managed to be promoted to command of the auxiliary cohort. But at this time Pilate, as the senior officer on the spot, was the commander of the garrison so it’s very likely that he would in fact have to be the man to pass judgment. Who else would there be? That’s how military command works
Pilate was hesitant to execute Jesus
Pilate probably traveled from Caesarea with a cohort as escort. Added to the cohort permanently stationed at Jerusalem, that would have given him about 1,200 troops and he was surrounded by 50,000 or more pilgrims, all of them armed! I say they were armed because given the problems with bandits in Judea, travelers were allowed to travel armed and invariably did. Even the Essenes, religious ascetics, carried weapons when they traveled. The crowd would have had daggers, swords and clubs certainly, perhaps even bows.
No amount of training could make up for that kind of numerical disparity. Should things erupt, Pilate was in a hopeless military position and, as a soldier, he would know it. Given the situation, and his past experiences with the Jews, of course he was hesitant; he would have been a complete idiot not to be hesitant!
Ultimately Pilate agreed to the execution
Obviously, since Jesus was in fact executed, but why? The trial occurred at least 5 years into Pilate's rule and he had been working with Caiaphas since the beginning. He would know by now when he could rely on the High Priest and when he couldn't.
What Caiaphas would have realized was that this was the perfect opportunity to head off a future problem. The crowd had dispersed, the pilgrims were focusing on the holiday preparations, and if they moved quickly, it would all be over before the population realized what was happening.
Its unlikely Pilate viewed Jesus as much of a threat; he would be more concerned about the 50,000 armed pilgrims! But for Caiaphas, Jesus's antics in the Temple would have been a direct threat, not only to his authority, but to a very lucrative source of cash. Based on their quid pro quo relationship and Caiaphas's superior understanding of the Jews, it's not to difficult to believe that the High Priest would have convinced Pilate that executing this troublemaker was the smart, as well as the safer, decision.
Now, one other point needs to be addressed, which is exactly how did folks find out what took place? The trial may not have been terribly public as that would have focused the pilgrims on what was occurring (exactly the opposite of what Caiaphas and Pilate would want!), but it probably wasn't kept all that secretive either. There would have been servants, most of them Jews, as well as soldiers around, able to eavesdrop on what was going on. They would have talked and it's not surprising that the gist of the proceeding could be learned by anyone that was interested. Later the gospel writers, with expansion and embellishments undoubtedly, recorded what had occurred.
It's not terribly important that the gospels may add imaginative details. What is important is that the core of the events, Pilate was the judge; Pilate was initially hesitant to act, Pilate ultimately agreed to the execution, appear quite reasonable under the circumstances and might very well be accurate!
Surprise, surprise! Yet again the gospels indicate that they might very well be far more accurate as historical documents than some scholars and historians are willing to give them credit for.
I don't have a problem with the Bible as a historical document nor do I have a problem with it as a source of wisdom. It's the idea that it is the infallible source of law and morality that I reject.
The Easter candy reminded me of an article I wrote a few years back that, it turns out, I’ve never posted on this blog, so I’ve decided to correct that omission.
On a number of occasions I’ve encountered arguments to the effect that the actions in the gospels attributed to Pontius Pilate during the trial of Jesus are contrary to what is known about Pilate’s personality and couldn’t possibly be accurate. Interestingly enough, I consider the described actions quite reasonable and even likely for the historical reasons outlined below. Now I’m not referring to specific details but rather to the three main points upon which all the gospels agree.
1. That Pilate was the judge at the trial.
2. That Pilate was hesitant to execute Jesus
3. That ultimately Pilate agreed to the execution.
What do we know about the man reputed to have given the orders for the crucifixion of Jesus? Surprisingly enough, the answer is quite a bit based upon the histories written at the time and some inferences derived from what is known about Roman Government, Roman Society and Judea in the early part of the first century.
Judea was a third class province, below the dignity of someone of Senatorial rank to govern. As a result it was assigned to a Prefect of Equestrian rank. The Equestrians were the lower nobility of Rome and a Prefect was a military rather than a civilian title. In contrast, the neighboring Province of Syria would have been governed by a Roman of Consular rank, the highest crust of the Roman upper nobility.
Pilate probably had some military experience to his credit and in fact was very likely more of a soldier than a politician. His new command appears to have consisted of 5 auxiliary infantry cohorts plus a small wing of auxiliary cavalry. Since the main mission of this force would have been to keep the local brigands under control, it’s also likely that each infantry cohort had a cavalry detachment. So the total force would have been about 3,500 men, some 2,500 infantry and 1,000 cavalry. These were 2nd rate Romans troops and small in number. They could handle bandits and minor disturbances, but in any major insurrection Pilate would have been in serious trouble.
While technically independent, Pilate would normally have been under the guidance, and protection, of the Consular Legate of Syria who had 4 Roman Legions at his disposal plus auxiliaries for something like 30,000 troops. In the event of real trouble, Pilate would have had to appeal to the Syrian Legions for help. He just didn’t have the manpower, especially considering even the small force he had was split between Jerusalem, Caesarea and patrolling the countryside.
Normally he would have been under the Syrian Governor’s guidance and protection, but during the first 6 years of Pilate’s command there was no Syrian governor in Antioch. Tiberius seems to have been experimenting with a sort of remote rule and the governor of Syria was in Rome! Since it’s unlikely that anyone on the spot in Syria had the authority to move the Syrian Legions to Judea without directions from Rome, Pilate must have been feeling a tad exposed.
In addition to his inability to rely on any immediate help from Syria in the event of an emergency, Pilate’s rule is marked by another unique circumstance. While Gratus, his predecessor as Prefect, replaced the Temple High Priest four times in his eleven year rule, Pilate stuck with the man he found in the office when he arrived, Caiaphus. One can only speculate why, but one can be pretty sure it was related to some type of quid pro quo agreement. Pilate may not have been a true politician, but he wasn’t stupid either and as an officer would have recognized an ally when he saw one.
That Pilate was more of a soldier than a politician is demonstrated by his first mistake early in his term as Prefect. Given the small force at his disposal, his first concern would have been the strategic placement of the few troops he had. That led him to redeploy a cohort from Caesarea to Jerusalem. Unfortunately he chose one whose standards carried an image of the emperor. Despite Josephus’ claims that this was a deliberate attempt to subvert Jewish practices and law, it appears to most historians more like a beginner’s mistake. Either Pilate was unaware of Jewish practices or, as a hard nosed military type, found it hard to believe the standards were really going to cause a problem. He was wrong, they did, and the next thing he knew several thousand Jews had appeared in Caesarea demanding that the standards be removed. Pilate had the good sense to back down and exchange cohorts; his small force would have been quickly overwhelmed in a general uprising which is what this appeared to be on the verge of becoming.
This brings us to Good Friday and the trial of Jesus. Let’s recap for a second and keep a few things in mind.
1. Pilate was most likely more of a soldier than a politician.
2. Pilate had a relatively small force of about 3,500 men.
3. Pilate could expect no immediate help from the Syrian Legions in the case of real trouble.
4. Pilate probably had a mutually beneficial quid pro quo arrangement with Caiaphas.
Pilate was the Judge at Jesus's Trial
At first blush it appears a little strange that the Roman governor would preside at the trial of a Jewish peasant. It appears strange because the word “governor” implies to us a high ranking political authority. But Pilate was a Prefect, a military officer and at the time, technically, the commanding officer in Jerusalem.
At any other time except Passover, the decision of what to do about Jesus would probably have fallen to the commander of the Jerusalem garrison who was more than likely an ex-senior centurion that had managed to be promoted to command of the auxiliary cohort. But at this time Pilate, as the senior officer on the spot, was the commander of the garrison so it’s very likely that he would in fact have to be the man to pass judgment. Who else would there be? That’s how military command works
Pilate was hesitant to execute Jesus
Pilate probably traveled from Caesarea with a cohort as escort. Added to the cohort permanently stationed at Jerusalem, that would have given him about 1,200 troops and he was surrounded by 50,000 or more pilgrims, all of them armed! I say they were armed because given the problems with bandits in Judea, travelers were allowed to travel armed and invariably did. Even the Essenes, religious ascetics, carried weapons when they traveled. The crowd would have had daggers, swords and clubs certainly, perhaps even bows.
No amount of training could make up for that kind of numerical disparity. Should things erupt, Pilate was in a hopeless military position and, as a soldier, he would know it. Given the situation, and his past experiences with the Jews, of course he was hesitant; he would have been a complete idiot not to be hesitant!
Ultimately Pilate agreed to the execution
Obviously, since Jesus was in fact executed, but why? The trial occurred at least 5 years into Pilate's rule and he had been working with Caiaphas since the beginning. He would know by now when he could rely on the High Priest and when he couldn't.
What Caiaphas would have realized was that this was the perfect opportunity to head off a future problem. The crowd had dispersed, the pilgrims were focusing on the holiday preparations, and if they moved quickly, it would all be over before the population realized what was happening.
Its unlikely Pilate viewed Jesus as much of a threat; he would be more concerned about the 50,000 armed pilgrims! But for Caiaphas, Jesus's antics in the Temple would have been a direct threat, not only to his authority, but to a very lucrative source of cash. Based on their quid pro quo relationship and Caiaphas's superior understanding of the Jews, it's not to difficult to believe that the High Priest would have convinced Pilate that executing this troublemaker was the smart, as well as the safer, decision.
Now, one other point needs to be addressed, which is exactly how did folks find out what took place? The trial may not have been terribly public as that would have focused the pilgrims on what was occurring (exactly the opposite of what Caiaphas and Pilate would want!), but it probably wasn't kept all that secretive either. There would have been servants, most of them Jews, as well as soldiers around, able to eavesdrop on what was going on. They would have talked and it's not surprising that the gist of the proceeding could be learned by anyone that was interested. Later the gospel writers, with expansion and embellishments undoubtedly, recorded what had occurred.
It's not terribly important that the gospels may add imaginative details. What is important is that the core of the events, Pilate was the judge; Pilate was initially hesitant to act, Pilate ultimately agreed to the execution, appear quite reasonable under the circumstances and might very well be accurate!
Surprise, surprise! Yet again the gospels indicate that they might very well be far more accurate as historical documents than some scholars and historians are willing to give them credit for.
I don't have a problem with the Bible as a historical document nor do I have a problem with it as a source of wisdom. It's the idea that it is the infallible source of law and morality that I reject.
What Should Influence our Laws More?
How does one relate to a group of people whose philosophy runs counter to the principles of the country?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the last time I looked, the government of the United States was to be driven by the will of the people. This is the fundamental principle of Western Democracy, the will of the people, as long as it doesn’t stomp on the rights of the minority, trumps all.
How then do we account for a segment of the population that disagrees with this principle? In a recent Pew Forum poll the question was asked “Which should be the more important influence on the laws of the United States? Should it be the Bible or should it be the will of the American people, even when it conflicts with the Bible?”
The overwhelming majority of Americans understand that the twin principles of government by the people and religious freedom dictate that the answer to this question must be “the will of the American people” and they answered this way by a margin of 63%-32%.
Are you concerned that 32% of the country thinks the Bible should trump the will of the people especially considering that the majority of these morons probably don’t even know what the Bible says? It certainly bothers me. Do you suppose any demographic group would be ignorant enough that a majority voted that the Bible should have more influence? It would be a real shock wouldn’t it? Well, guess what, the group known as Evangelical Christians voted that way by an almost reverse margin of 60%-34%. Get it, 60% of Evangelical Christians think that the Bible should have more influence than the will of the American People when it comes to the laws of these United States.
This is why I consider Evangelical Christianity the single biggest danger to Western Democracy that exists today. They are like a fifth column intent on destroying the principles upon which the country is founded and replacing them with their own distorted views. And I’m supposed to respect this opinion and not identify it for the stupidity that it is simply because it has a religious foundation? I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one!
Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn’t mean I have to afford that opinion any degree of approval. Sometimes someone’s opinion stinks like last week’s garbage and this is one of those cases.
Blacks, by a margin of 50% to 48%, believe the Bible should have a greater influence while Whites, by a margin of 65%-35%, understand that it should be the will of the people.
Half the Blacks in this country believe that a book that accepts slavery and advocates a philosophy of the exclusion of those who are different, which is the foundation of racism, should have more influence on our laws than the will of the people. I find that really sad. I’d like to ask that 50% whether we should have all just accepted Genesis 9:27 as a justification for segregation and left Jim Crow in place.
Then again, education, as usual, looks like a possible cure here as those with a college degree understood it should be the will of the people by a margin of 75%-20%, those with some college by a margin of 66%-30% and, those with at least a High School diploma, by a margin of 58%-38%. Only those that didn’t even make it through High School split almost evenly, but still gave a small edge to the will of the people, by a margin 0f 47%-46%.
Those who take the Bible literally, 65%, and those who attend church services at least weekly, 52%, were more likely to say the Bible should have more influence. One encouraging point was that younger folks, by a margin of 74%-22%, understood that it should be the will of the people.
Like I said before, it’s quite likely that many of these idiots that are saying the Bible should have more influence on our laws don’t even know what the Bible says. Oh, I’m sure they’ve read selected “feel good” stories or had them read to them from the pulpit. There is no lack of admirable wisdom in the Bible. But I’ll bet you most of them would be stunned to learn of the myriad “hard passages” also contained in the Bible.
I think it was Isaac Asimov that said the Bible was the greatest argument for atheism he had ever encountered. I’ll make the observation that no intelligent person, that reads the Bible objectively, could conceivably come to the conclusion that it’s the word of God.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the last time I looked, the government of the United States was to be driven by the will of the people. This is the fundamental principle of Western Democracy, the will of the people, as long as it doesn’t stomp on the rights of the minority, trumps all.
How then do we account for a segment of the population that disagrees with this principle? In a recent Pew Forum poll the question was asked “Which should be the more important influence on the laws of the United States? Should it be the Bible or should it be the will of the American people, even when it conflicts with the Bible?”
The overwhelming majority of Americans understand that the twin principles of government by the people and religious freedom dictate that the answer to this question must be “the will of the American people” and they answered this way by a margin of 63%-32%.
Are you concerned that 32% of the country thinks the Bible should trump the will of the people especially considering that the majority of these morons probably don’t even know what the Bible says? It certainly bothers me. Do you suppose any demographic group would be ignorant enough that a majority voted that the Bible should have more influence? It would be a real shock wouldn’t it? Well, guess what, the group known as Evangelical Christians voted that way by an almost reverse margin of 60%-34%. Get it, 60% of Evangelical Christians think that the Bible should have more influence than the will of the American People when it comes to the laws of these United States.
This is why I consider Evangelical Christianity the single biggest danger to Western Democracy that exists today. They are like a fifth column intent on destroying the principles upon which the country is founded and replacing them with their own distorted views. And I’m supposed to respect this opinion and not identify it for the stupidity that it is simply because it has a religious foundation? I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one!
Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn’t mean I have to afford that opinion any degree of approval. Sometimes someone’s opinion stinks like last week’s garbage and this is one of those cases.
Blacks, by a margin of 50% to 48%, believe the Bible should have a greater influence while Whites, by a margin of 65%-35%, understand that it should be the will of the people.
Half the Blacks in this country believe that a book that accepts slavery and advocates a philosophy of the exclusion of those who are different, which is the foundation of racism, should have more influence on our laws than the will of the people. I find that really sad. I’d like to ask that 50% whether we should have all just accepted Genesis 9:27 as a justification for segregation and left Jim Crow in place.
Then again, education, as usual, looks like a possible cure here as those with a college degree understood it should be the will of the people by a margin of 75%-20%, those with some college by a margin of 66%-30% and, those with at least a High School diploma, by a margin of 58%-38%. Only those that didn’t even make it through High School split almost evenly, but still gave a small edge to the will of the people, by a margin 0f 47%-46%.
Those who take the Bible literally, 65%, and those who attend church services at least weekly, 52%, were more likely to say the Bible should have more influence. One encouraging point was that younger folks, by a margin of 74%-22%, understood that it should be the will of the people.
Like I said before, it’s quite likely that many of these idiots that are saying the Bible should have more influence on our laws don’t even know what the Bible says. Oh, I’m sure they’ve read selected “feel good” stories or had them read to them from the pulpit. There is no lack of admirable wisdom in the Bible. But I’ll bet you most of them would be stunned to learn of the myriad “hard passages” also contained in the Bible.
I think it was Isaac Asimov that said the Bible was the greatest argument for atheism he had ever encountered. I’ll make the observation that no intelligent person, that reads the Bible objectively, could conceivably come to the conclusion that it’s the word of God.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
HBO’s Rome – Episode 18
The Battle of Philippi, as imagined by HBO’s Rome, is a bloody affair moving in slow motion. The bloodiness is probably accurate although I suspect the movements of those involved were quite a bit more frantic.
Cassius and Brutus both die fighting rather than through the suicide route, although I guess you could call Brutus’s actions suicidal. Brutus is noble to the end. He refuses to retreat when surprised by the combined forces of Octavian and Antony. He tells his remaining troops to save themselves, requesting one officer to “tell my mother something suitable” before wading into the advancing enemy legionaries.
The battle follows a housecleaning back in Rome by Octavian and Antony to eliminate enemies and accumulate wealth. Octavian comes up with the idea but Antony carries it to a level that appears to bother Octavian and clearly upsets Agrippa. Atia even convinces Antony to do away with the father of Octavia’s friend Jocasta whom Atia considers a bad influence. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
It’s Vorenus and the collegium gangs that get the job of eliminating those on “the list.” As a reward the gangs are entitled to all the loot they can carry. Vorenus suggests they use the windfall to feed the people. This idea is received with less than overwhelming enthusiasm.
Included on the list is Cicero whom Pullo gets the job of eliminating and then nailing Cicero’s hands, as Antony promised would happen, to the senate door. On the domestic front, there seem be a number of plots being hatched. Memmio, a rival gang captain, appears to be working on something involving Vorenus’s older daughter and a gigolo type character. Gaia, a female hard ass slave, looks like she’s constantly scheming. After getting blown off by Vorenus after a night of sex, Gaia seems to be making plays for Pullo, to the distress of Eirene, and Mascius, the ex-soldier that is Vorenus’s number 3 man. I originally thought she might become the Niobi replacement but perhaps I was wrong. Lyde is trying to convince Vorenus that his older daughter should be allowed to marry but Vorenus, hard nose that he is, is convinced that no man worth having would accept a wife that had been forced into prostitution. Eirene is pregnant, Agrippa got it together with Octavia, Atia has figured out that Agrippa and Octavia got it together and Atia has mentioned the M word for the second time to Antony. Oh yeah, and Timon appears to now see eye to eye with his brother and now they both sound like siccari including beating on the elders considering bribing the Romans on behalf of Herod.
A lot of stuff happens in an hour on this show. So where is it all going? With Philippi dispensed with by episode 18, what’s going to happen in the last 6 shows? Clearly it’s going to be Antony and Cleopatra getting it together, Atia getting royally pissed over that, the battle of Actium and the asp. One wonders how they’re going to handle the little problem of Caesarion. Historically Octavian had the boy eliminated. In the show however the boy is possibly the son of Pullo and I wonder if that's going to have any impact.
On the home front, I have no idea. I don’t know whether we’re heading for a happily ever after kind of ending or a total catastrophe. At the moment, a total catastrophe seems more likely. And where are they going with this Timon and his brother subplot?
Like last year the show is following a very rough outline of history while playing fast and loose with the details. This allows you to have a handle on the general direction the show is going to take without knowing either how it’s going to get there or what’s going to happen when it arrives. That keeps you guessing which is what I find enjoyable about watching the show. We shall see, what we shall see I suppose.
Cassius and Brutus both die fighting rather than through the suicide route, although I guess you could call Brutus’s actions suicidal. Brutus is noble to the end. He refuses to retreat when surprised by the combined forces of Octavian and Antony. He tells his remaining troops to save themselves, requesting one officer to “tell my mother something suitable” before wading into the advancing enemy legionaries.
The battle follows a housecleaning back in Rome by Octavian and Antony to eliminate enemies and accumulate wealth. Octavian comes up with the idea but Antony carries it to a level that appears to bother Octavian and clearly upsets Agrippa. Atia even convinces Antony to do away with the father of Octavia’s friend Jocasta whom Atia considers a bad influence. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
It’s Vorenus and the collegium gangs that get the job of eliminating those on “the list.” As a reward the gangs are entitled to all the loot they can carry. Vorenus suggests they use the windfall to feed the people. This idea is received with less than overwhelming enthusiasm.
Included on the list is Cicero whom Pullo gets the job of eliminating and then nailing Cicero’s hands, as Antony promised would happen, to the senate door. On the domestic front, there seem be a number of plots being hatched. Memmio, a rival gang captain, appears to be working on something involving Vorenus’s older daughter and a gigolo type character. Gaia, a female hard ass slave, looks like she’s constantly scheming. After getting blown off by Vorenus after a night of sex, Gaia seems to be making plays for Pullo, to the distress of Eirene, and Mascius, the ex-soldier that is Vorenus’s number 3 man. I originally thought she might become the Niobi replacement but perhaps I was wrong. Lyde is trying to convince Vorenus that his older daughter should be allowed to marry but Vorenus, hard nose that he is, is convinced that no man worth having would accept a wife that had been forced into prostitution. Eirene is pregnant, Agrippa got it together with Octavia, Atia has figured out that Agrippa and Octavia got it together and Atia has mentioned the M word for the second time to Antony. Oh yeah, and Timon appears to now see eye to eye with his brother and now they both sound like siccari including beating on the elders considering bribing the Romans on behalf of Herod.
A lot of stuff happens in an hour on this show. So where is it all going? With Philippi dispensed with by episode 18, what’s going to happen in the last 6 shows? Clearly it’s going to be Antony and Cleopatra getting it together, Atia getting royally pissed over that, the battle of Actium and the asp. One wonders how they’re going to handle the little problem of Caesarion. Historically Octavian had the boy eliminated. In the show however the boy is possibly the son of Pullo and I wonder if that's going to have any impact.
On the home front, I have no idea. I don’t know whether we’re heading for a happily ever after kind of ending or a total catastrophe. At the moment, a total catastrophe seems more likely. And where are they going with this Timon and his brother subplot?
Like last year the show is following a very rough outline of history while playing fast and loose with the details. This allows you to have a handle on the general direction the show is going to take without knowing either how it’s going to get there or what’s going to happen when it arrives. That keeps you guessing which is what I find enjoyable about watching the show. We shall see, what we shall see I suppose.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Death Penalty Update
It’s been a while since I’ve done a general death penalty post. Well, 2007 is off and running. There have been five executions already, one in Oklahoma and four, yeah, that’s right, FOUR, in Texas. Do you suppose they drink different water in Texas or what?
Rick Halperin, at his Death Penalty News & Updates site at SMU, reports that another 21 executions, including 9 in Texas, were scheduled around the country between now and mid-August. I say “were” because five of those were in Tennessee and Governor Phil Bredesen has now placed all executions there on hold because of problems with the state’s “Manual for Execution” which, among other idiocies, contained instructions that the condemned prisoner’s head be shaved. Tennessee uses lethal injection. Where were they thinking of inserting the needle if they have to shave the head?
Around the country, two states, Illinois and New Jersey, have formal moratoriums on executions in place. One state, New York, has had its death penalty declared unconstitutional since 2004 and appears to be in no rush to reinstate it. Ten states, including California, Florida and Ohio, have executions effectively halted due to legal issues with lethal injection procedures. Twelve states are considering either abolishing capital punishment or declaring a formal moratorium. The states most likely to abolish the death penalty in the near future are New Jersey, where a special committee has recommended abolition by an overwhelming 12-1 margin, Nebraska, whose judiciary committee unanimously approved moving an abolition measure to the senate floor and Colorado, whose judiciary committee passed an abolition resolution by a vote of 7-4.
On a sour note, five states, including Texas of course, are considering expanding the application of the death penalty! Four of these states, Texas, Missouri, Virginia and Georgia are in the south. The fifth is Utah which I’m not 100% certain is a part of the United States anyway. Actually, I suspect Utah is really a myth. I mean, has anyone actually ever met someone from Utah?
Rick Halperin, at his Death Penalty News & Updates site at SMU, reports that another 21 executions, including 9 in Texas, were scheduled around the country between now and mid-August. I say “were” because five of those were in Tennessee and Governor Phil Bredesen has now placed all executions there on hold because of problems with the state’s “Manual for Execution” which, among other idiocies, contained instructions that the condemned prisoner’s head be shaved. Tennessee uses lethal injection. Where were they thinking of inserting the needle if they have to shave the head?
Around the country, two states, Illinois and New Jersey, have formal moratoriums on executions in place. One state, New York, has had its death penalty declared unconstitutional since 2004 and appears to be in no rush to reinstate it. Ten states, including California, Florida and Ohio, have executions effectively halted due to legal issues with lethal injection procedures. Twelve states are considering either abolishing capital punishment or declaring a formal moratorium. The states most likely to abolish the death penalty in the near future are New Jersey, where a special committee has recommended abolition by an overwhelming 12-1 margin, Nebraska, whose judiciary committee unanimously approved moving an abolition measure to the senate floor and Colorado, whose judiciary committee passed an abolition resolution by a vote of 7-4.
On a sour note, five states, including Texas of course, are considering expanding the application of the death penalty! Four of these states, Texas, Missouri, Virginia and Georgia are in the south. The fifth is Utah which I’m not 100% certain is a part of the United States anyway. Actually, I suspect Utah is really a myth. I mean, has anyone actually ever met someone from Utah?
HBO’s Rome
I’m having trouble keeping up. Two episodes have gone by since my initial update and things are progressing.
Atia avoided a gruesome death thanks to a slave’s sneaking a taste from her dinner. This led to a little torture session for the poisoner, curtesy of Timon, followed by the abduction and beating of Servilia. This was more than Timon could handle however and he stomped out, after releasing Servilia, shouting “I’m not an animal!” Appears that Timon has found religion, or perhaps refound it, as last we saw him he was praying alongside his supposedly rehabilitated brother. I still think the brother sounds like a Zealot though.
Pullo ran into the grown up Octavian while searching for Vorenus. It appears Octavian still looks upon Pullo and, by extension, Vorenus favorably, although Vorenus’s loyalty to Antony could be a problem down the line.
For the moment however that’s all sort of irrelevant. Cicero has recalled Brutus and Cassius to Rome at the head of a large enough Army that Octavian and Antony have buried the hatchet in the face of the common threat.
Vorenus and Pullo managed to locate Vorenus’s children and rescue them from slavery with only one death, that of the overseer. That was a little disappointing as I was expecting a bloodbath. Unfortunately the two daughters are holding a grudge. With some justification they blame Vorenus for their time in slavery and for the death of Niobi. They’ve already tried to run away once and only returned in response to Lyde’s urging.
In the meantime, Vorenus has re-assumed gang command in the Aventine and negotiated a peace with the two gangs his group had been in conflict with. Getting demoted back to number 3 didn’t thrill the ex-soldier that had been in charge during the absence of Vorenus and Pullo.
So, it’s Octavian and Antony in an alliance of convenience in order to deal with Brutus and Cassius. Timon has found religion and Vorenus has conflicts brewing both within his criminal gang and within his family. One wonders how they’re going to work this all out? Oh yeah, Agrippa has the hots for Octavia.
Brutus and Cassius are marching toward Rome from Asia. Octavian and Antony need to meet up with them in Macedonia for the battle of Philippi so the two need to get moving. I’m wondering if Vorenus and Pullo will remain behind or march with the army? I can envision a developing plot between the disgruntled #3 in command and the disgruntled older daughter while daddy is away.
The battle of Philippi was rather a long drawn out affair, far too drawn out for it to be accurately represented on a TV series. Look for a fast march to Macedonia by Octavian and Antony followed by a quick decisive engagement. Historically both Brutus and Cassius committed suicide. One wonders how HBO will portray their deaths?
Near the end of last season, Vorenus’s life was going well while Pullo descended into the depths of depression and depravity, but that all came apart in the last episode. Early this season it was Pullo’s life on the upswing, with his marriage to Eriane, and Vorenus’s life in ruins. Now things appear to be stabilizing but it’s the eye of the storm. All around them are conflicts brewing. I wonder how it’s all going to end? With the emergence of Timon as a man of God one wonders if somehow monotheism in general, and Christianity in particular, will end up with a role to play. There are still 40 years to go until the birth of Jesus, but a little thing like historical accuracy has never bothered TV before.
Atia avoided a gruesome death thanks to a slave’s sneaking a taste from her dinner. This led to a little torture session for the poisoner, curtesy of Timon, followed by the abduction and beating of Servilia. This was more than Timon could handle however and he stomped out, after releasing Servilia, shouting “I’m not an animal!” Appears that Timon has found religion, or perhaps refound it, as last we saw him he was praying alongside his supposedly rehabilitated brother. I still think the brother sounds like a Zealot though.
Pullo ran into the grown up Octavian while searching for Vorenus. It appears Octavian still looks upon Pullo and, by extension, Vorenus favorably, although Vorenus’s loyalty to Antony could be a problem down the line.
For the moment however that’s all sort of irrelevant. Cicero has recalled Brutus and Cassius to Rome at the head of a large enough Army that Octavian and Antony have buried the hatchet in the face of the common threat.
Vorenus and Pullo managed to locate Vorenus’s children and rescue them from slavery with only one death, that of the overseer. That was a little disappointing as I was expecting a bloodbath. Unfortunately the two daughters are holding a grudge. With some justification they blame Vorenus for their time in slavery and for the death of Niobi. They’ve already tried to run away once and only returned in response to Lyde’s urging.
In the meantime, Vorenus has re-assumed gang command in the Aventine and negotiated a peace with the two gangs his group had been in conflict with. Getting demoted back to number 3 didn’t thrill the ex-soldier that had been in charge during the absence of Vorenus and Pullo.
So, it’s Octavian and Antony in an alliance of convenience in order to deal with Brutus and Cassius. Timon has found religion and Vorenus has conflicts brewing both within his criminal gang and within his family. One wonders how they’re going to work this all out? Oh yeah, Agrippa has the hots for Octavia.
Brutus and Cassius are marching toward Rome from Asia. Octavian and Antony need to meet up with them in Macedonia for the battle of Philippi so the two need to get moving. I’m wondering if Vorenus and Pullo will remain behind or march with the army? I can envision a developing plot between the disgruntled #3 in command and the disgruntled older daughter while daddy is away.
The battle of Philippi was rather a long drawn out affair, far too drawn out for it to be accurately represented on a TV series. Look for a fast march to Macedonia by Octavian and Antony followed by a quick decisive engagement. Historically both Brutus and Cassius committed suicide. One wonders how HBO will portray their deaths?
Near the end of last season, Vorenus’s life was going well while Pullo descended into the depths of depression and depravity, but that all came apart in the last episode. Early this season it was Pullo’s life on the upswing, with his marriage to Eriane, and Vorenus’s life in ruins. Now things appear to be stabilizing but it’s the eye of the storm. All around them are conflicts brewing. I wonder how it’s all going to end? With the emergence of Timon as a man of God one wonders if somehow monotheism in general, and Christianity in particular, will end up with a role to play. There are still 40 years to go until the birth of Jesus, but a little thing like historical accuracy has never bothered TV before.
Friday, February 09, 2007
So What About Barack Obama?
Beats the hell out of me. I don’t know enough about the man or what he stands for and I’m sorry, but simply being black, articulate, handsome and charismatic isn’t enough.
Ok, granted he’s a lot smarter than George Bush Jr., would probably not get caught molesting interns like Bill Clinton, clearly has a superior intellect when compared to George Bush Sr., would be capable of making weightier decisions, beyond simply what jelly bean to eat next, than Ronald Reagan and wouldn’t get pushed around by some Ayatollah like Jimmy Carter.
In other words he couldn’t possibly be any worse then the lightweights we’ve suffered through over the past 25 years or so. That being the case, what the hell, go Barack go!
Ok, granted he’s a lot smarter than George Bush Jr., would probably not get caught molesting interns like Bill Clinton, clearly has a superior intellect when compared to George Bush Sr., would be capable of making weightier decisions, beyond simply what jelly bean to eat next, than Ronald Reagan and wouldn’t get pushed around by some Ayatollah like Jimmy Carter.
In other words he couldn’t possibly be any worse then the lightweights we’ve suffered through over the past 25 years or so. That being the case, what the hell, go Barack go!
Religious Protests over a Ramp?
The religious mind never ceases to amaze me. In the latest round of absurdities the AP has reported on the protest by hundreds of Muslims over the Israeli government’s plans to replace a ramp leading up to the Noble Sanctuary, the third most holy site in Islam.
Here are some of the quotes reported by the AP.
Raed Salah, a leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, said “The aggression happening now is a tragedy, a crime,” and then went on to accuse Israel of declaring “a regional religious war.”
They’re fixing a freaking ramp that they believe has become unsafe. Maybe they should wait until the damn thing collapses and kills a dozen or so people? What would you accuse them of then, genocide? Talk about exaggeration! The Israeli’s swear the work isn’t going to damage the Muslim Holy site. Personally I think they should bull doze the whole thing along with all the other mosques, churches and synagogues. Then they could use the land for something useful.
U.N. ambassadors from the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference called on the U.N. Security Council “to take immediate and urgent action in order to bring an end to Israeli intransigence and violations against the blessed Al Aqsa mosque.”
The U.N. Security Council? You brought this before the U.N. Security Council? Can somebody please explain to me again how the religious are rational? They’re all nuts if you ask me and Muslims must be the craziest of the lot.
UNESCO issued a statement calling on Israel “to suspend any action that could endanger the spirit of mutual respect until such time as the will to dialogue prevails once again.”
What mutual respect? Again I ask what kind of reaction could we expect if the damn ramp collapsed and killed 20 or 30 Muslims?
I find this so ridiculous as to be beyond comprehension.
Here are some of the quotes reported by the AP.
Raed Salah, a leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, said “The aggression happening now is a tragedy, a crime,” and then went on to accuse Israel of declaring “a regional religious war.”
They’re fixing a freaking ramp that they believe has become unsafe. Maybe they should wait until the damn thing collapses and kills a dozen or so people? What would you accuse them of then, genocide? Talk about exaggeration! The Israeli’s swear the work isn’t going to damage the Muslim Holy site. Personally I think they should bull doze the whole thing along with all the other mosques, churches and synagogues. Then they could use the land for something useful.
U.N. ambassadors from the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference called on the U.N. Security Council “to take immediate and urgent action in order to bring an end to Israeli intransigence and violations against the blessed Al Aqsa mosque.”
The U.N. Security Council? You brought this before the U.N. Security Council? Can somebody please explain to me again how the religious are rational? They’re all nuts if you ask me and Muslims must be the craziest of the lot.
UNESCO issued a statement calling on Israel “to suspend any action that could endanger the spirit of mutual respect until such time as the will to dialogue prevails once again.”
What mutual respect? Again I ask what kind of reaction could we expect if the damn ramp collapsed and killed 20 or 30 Muslims?
I find this so ridiculous as to be beyond comprehension.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Super Bowl XLI
Boy what a soggy mess. The only thing I could think about the whole game was “thank goodness it’s not me sitting there getting drenched!”
Actually, that’s not really true; I was also groaning that the missed extra point in the 1st quarter pretty much blew any chance I had for collecting cash from the pool I invested $10 in since I had 4-4.
Beyond that, I thought the commercials were way below par for a Super Bowl and I was terribly disappointed that Prince didn’t slide on the wet stage and land on his butt during his water soaked performance at half-time.
Such are the thoughts that go through one’s mind when one couldn’t care less who wins the damn game. Given the weather, the game was more than a little sloppy with loads of turnovers, most of which seemed to be the courtesy of the Bears overmatched quarterback Rex Grossman. Talk about having a bad day.
So Payton gets his first ring and, hopefully, this will establish such a level of sibling rivalry that Eli will drag the Giants, probably kicking and screaming, to a date with destiny of their own. Or at least one can dream as the glory of 1990 is beginning to grow dim.
Final score, Colts 29 and Bears 17.
Actually, that’s not really true; I was also groaning that the missed extra point in the 1st quarter pretty much blew any chance I had for collecting cash from the pool I invested $10 in since I had 4-4.
Beyond that, I thought the commercials were way below par for a Super Bowl and I was terribly disappointed that Prince didn’t slide on the wet stage and land on his butt during his water soaked performance at half-time.
Such are the thoughts that go through one’s mind when one couldn’t care less who wins the damn game. Given the weather, the game was more than a little sloppy with loads of turnovers, most of which seemed to be the courtesy of the Bears overmatched quarterback Rex Grossman. Talk about having a bad day.
So Payton gets his first ring and, hopefully, this will establish such a level of sibling rivalry that Eli will drag the Giants, probably kicking and screaming, to a date with destiny of their own. Or at least one can dream as the glory of 1990 is beginning to grow dim.
Final score, Colts 29 and Bears 17.
Friday, February 02, 2007
The Story of the Grainfield
Mark tells a story about Jesus and the disciples crossing a grainfield one Sabbath.
Mark 2:23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
Mark 2:25 He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Mark 2:27 Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
The story is repeated in both Matthew 12 and Luke 6. Matthew omits the name of the priest but adds some expansion including these words to what Jesus says:
Matthew 12:6 “I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.”
Luke’s version is almost identical to Mark’s except that he also, strangely enough, omits the name of the priest. Why do Matthew and Luke omit the name of the priest?
Well, if you go back to the original story, which comes from 1 Samuel 21, there’s a possible reason. The name of the priest that David gets the bread from is Ahimelech and not Abiathar. Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech and escaped the revenge that Saul takes upon Ahimelech and his family for helping David.
Now Samuel doesn’t call Ahimelech the high priest, but Ahimelech does appear to be the head priest at a place called Nod. So what’s the deal here? Did Jesus make a mistake or did Mark make a mistake? Either way it sort of makes you wonder. If Jesus made the mistake, is it likely that God, even in the guise of a man, would misquote his own scripture? If Mark made the mistake, well, so much for the inerrancy of the text.
But here’s something else, all three gospels say that David also gave some of the bread to his companions. But David didn’t have any companions. David is fleeing from Saul by himself. Ahimelech even asks him “Why are you alone?” David lies to the priest saying that he is on a confidential mission for the king which “No one is to know anything about” and that he ordered his men “to meet me at a certain place.” In reality David did no such thing, since he wasn’t on a mission from the king but was fleeing for his life, he had no troops escorting him. Others don’t join David until 1 Samuel 22. When he is talking Ahimelech into giving him the consecrated bread, he’s by himself.
So the whole story is a totally incorrect retelling of the story from 1 Samuel 21. So who blew it? Did Jesus have a memory lapse or did Mark? Matthew and Luke did what damage control they could by omitting the priest’s name. They couldn’t omit the statements about David’s companions without making the whole story completely irrelevant to something being done by the apostles.
If the bible is inerrant, then Jesus was wrong or was making things up, in other words, lying. If Jesus actually told the story correctly, then all three gospels are inaccurate in their description of the event.
I’m sure there exists an apologetic answer to this although I’ve never come across it. One obvious point is that the story of David is incidental to the points Jesus is making. First, he is pointing out the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Second, he is making the point that the Pharisee’s interpretation of the law is not necessarily the right interpretation of the law.
Regardless of how often someone tries to convince me that Jesus was an ignorant peasant with limited intellectual skills, the argument doesn’t stick. He certainly didn’t have a cosmopolitan outlook on life and his education was probably limited by the fact that he was living in a backwater of the empire. He may have been ignorant in the sense that he didn’t have the benefit of a classical or liberal education, and he probably had no conception of the world beyond the limited confines of Galilee and Judea, but his mental faculties strike me as having been top notch.
Yes, I’m convinced that Jesus was a pretty smart cookie. Maybe someone should start a religion based upon his teachings? The main point of the story that, despite the unmitigated arrogance of the Pharisees, their interpretation is not necessarily the right interpretation, should be taken to heart by the modern day Pharisees, those who call themselves “Evangelical Christians.”
Mark 2:23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
Mark 2:25 He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Mark 2:27 Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
The story is repeated in both Matthew 12 and Luke 6. Matthew omits the name of the priest but adds some expansion including these words to what Jesus says:
Matthew 12:6 “I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.”
Luke’s version is almost identical to Mark’s except that he also, strangely enough, omits the name of the priest. Why do Matthew and Luke omit the name of the priest?
Well, if you go back to the original story, which comes from 1 Samuel 21, there’s a possible reason. The name of the priest that David gets the bread from is Ahimelech and not Abiathar. Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech and escaped the revenge that Saul takes upon Ahimelech and his family for helping David.
Now Samuel doesn’t call Ahimelech the high priest, but Ahimelech does appear to be the head priest at a place called Nod. So what’s the deal here? Did Jesus make a mistake or did Mark make a mistake? Either way it sort of makes you wonder. If Jesus made the mistake, is it likely that God, even in the guise of a man, would misquote his own scripture? If Mark made the mistake, well, so much for the inerrancy of the text.
But here’s something else, all three gospels say that David also gave some of the bread to his companions. But David didn’t have any companions. David is fleeing from Saul by himself. Ahimelech even asks him “Why are you alone?” David lies to the priest saying that he is on a confidential mission for the king which “No one is to know anything about” and that he ordered his men “to meet me at a certain place.” In reality David did no such thing, since he wasn’t on a mission from the king but was fleeing for his life, he had no troops escorting him. Others don’t join David until 1 Samuel 22. When he is talking Ahimelech into giving him the consecrated bread, he’s by himself.
So the whole story is a totally incorrect retelling of the story from 1 Samuel 21. So who blew it? Did Jesus have a memory lapse or did Mark? Matthew and Luke did what damage control they could by omitting the priest’s name. They couldn’t omit the statements about David’s companions without making the whole story completely irrelevant to something being done by the apostles.
If the bible is inerrant, then Jesus was wrong or was making things up, in other words, lying. If Jesus actually told the story correctly, then all three gospels are inaccurate in their description of the event.
I’m sure there exists an apologetic answer to this although I’ve never come across it. One obvious point is that the story of David is incidental to the points Jesus is making. First, he is pointing out the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Second, he is making the point that the Pharisee’s interpretation of the law is not necessarily the right interpretation of the law.
Regardless of how often someone tries to convince me that Jesus was an ignorant peasant with limited intellectual skills, the argument doesn’t stick. He certainly didn’t have a cosmopolitan outlook on life and his education was probably limited by the fact that he was living in a backwater of the empire. He may have been ignorant in the sense that he didn’t have the benefit of a classical or liberal education, and he probably had no conception of the world beyond the limited confines of Galilee and Judea, but his mental faculties strike me as having been top notch.
Yes, I’m convinced that Jesus was a pretty smart cookie. Maybe someone should start a religion based upon his teachings? The main point of the story that, despite the unmitigated arrogance of the Pharisees, their interpretation is not necessarily the right interpretation, should be taken to heart by the modern day Pharisees, those who call themselves “Evangelical Christians.”
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Friends of God
“Friends of God” is the name of an HBO documentary about Evangelical Christianity in America. I knew if I watched it, that the show was going to upset me, I just didn’t realize by how much.
They had a sequence showing Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis pitching his garbage to a meeting room full of preschoolers. Ham used ever dirty pitch trick you could imagine from half truths to innuendo to outright lying. If that wasn’t infuriating enough, then the HBO interviewer talked to the kids asking them about their beliefs. What a demonstration of a well brain washed group.
Worse were the conversations with slightly older, and I would assume veterans of Ham’s presentation, seeing how well the message has stuck, and how nailed shut the minds have become. I loved the one kid who explained that people accept evolution because they haven’t been given all the evidence (!?) and how the universities are biased in favor of evolution! How about biased in favor of the evidence?
Allow me to provide an example of the crap spewed by one of Ham's presenters. The question being addressed was why dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the bible which, if they had been contemporary with ancient man, they should have been. To explain this omission the presenter asked the children rhetorically if "automobile" was in the bible or "computer?" Of course not he answered, because these are what he called "new words" just like dinosaur was a "new word." Of course he neglected to mention that the only reason dinosaur is a "new word" is folks back then didn't need a word to describe what they had no knowledge of. If there had been dinosaurs wandering around, they would have had a word to describe them, just like they had words to describe lions and tigers and bears. It would not have been the precise word "dinosaur," but it would have been some word. Perhaps "bigthingthatknocksdownhouses" or something like that.
And we let people who bring their own kids to be brainwashed vote? No wonder this goddamn country is going to the dogs. The show got me so furious I started yelling at my wife who disagrees with my position that all religions are cults.
Bottom line, people like this are dangerous. They’re not funny and amusing but harmless yokels; they are dangerous and need to be fought, with words if sufficient, and with bullets if necessary.
Over the last few months I had sort of mellowed in my attitude toward religion. Well that show ended that. Now I’m all stirred up all over again.
They had a sequence showing Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis pitching his garbage to a meeting room full of preschoolers. Ham used ever dirty pitch trick you could imagine from half truths to innuendo to outright lying. If that wasn’t infuriating enough, then the HBO interviewer talked to the kids asking them about their beliefs. What a demonstration of a well brain washed group.
Worse were the conversations with slightly older, and I would assume veterans of Ham’s presentation, seeing how well the message has stuck, and how nailed shut the minds have become. I loved the one kid who explained that people accept evolution because they haven’t been given all the evidence (!?) and how the universities are biased in favor of evolution! How about biased in favor of the evidence?
Allow me to provide an example of the crap spewed by one of Ham's presenters. The question being addressed was why dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the bible which, if they had been contemporary with ancient man, they should have been. To explain this omission the presenter asked the children rhetorically if "automobile" was in the bible or "computer?" Of course not he answered, because these are what he called "new words" just like dinosaur was a "new word." Of course he neglected to mention that the only reason dinosaur is a "new word" is folks back then didn't need a word to describe what they had no knowledge of. If there had been dinosaurs wandering around, they would have had a word to describe them, just like they had words to describe lions and tigers and bears. It would not have been the precise word "dinosaur," but it would have been some word. Perhaps "bigthingthatknocksdownhouses" or something like that.
And we let people who bring their own kids to be brainwashed vote? No wonder this goddamn country is going to the dogs. The show got me so furious I started yelling at my wife who disagrees with my position that all religions are cults.
Bottom line, people like this are dangerous. They’re not funny and amusing but harmless yokels; they are dangerous and need to be fought, with words if sufficient, and with bullets if necessary.
Over the last few months I had sort of mellowed in my attitude toward religion. Well that show ended that. Now I’m all stirred up all over again.
Rome is Back
The first three episodes of the second, and final, season of the HBO series Rome have been aired and I’m finding the series interesting but decidedly mediocre. I don’t even bother to watch the shows when they premier, I catch them a day or two later on HBO On Demand.
I guess they’ve decided to skip the whole Antony marries Octavia bit as too complicated and leave Antony hooked up with Atia; unless of course that poisoner Servilia hired to get Atia manages to succeed. We’ll find out next week. In the meantime Antony has left Rome for Gaul after Cicero done him wrong in the senate, Octavian has hooked up with school chum Agrippa in Campania, where they have apparently raised a nice little army, and Brutus and Cassius are looking for financial support in the far reaches of the empire. Oh yeah, and Cleopatra has turned up in Rome. I’ve also learned that the role of Octavian is to be recast bringing in an older actor to play the grown up Octavian.
On the domestic front, Orestes Fulman has, apparently, kidnapped and sold Vorenus’s daughters, and Niobe’s sister Lyde, into slavery. Voranus and Pullo, after depopulating Fulman’s gang of thugs, cut off the man’s head but were first convinced that the girls, and Niobe’s son, were dead. Then, at the insistence of Antony, Vorenus sort of took over the Aventine as a kind of deranged godfather type. Unfortunately, at the moment, Vorenus is in Gaul with Antony and his criminal empire appears to be coming apart. Vorenus and Pullo have also had a falling out and Pullo was wandering with Eirene when Lyde, who escaped from the slavers, shows up. At the end of episode three Pullo is riding hard, I assume to let Vorenus know that his daughters are alive. Another side plot seems to be developing with Timon. His brother, who sounds like a 1st century BCE version of a Zealot, has shown up and is acting in a decidedly suspicious manner. Whew.
Now I’m up to date and we shall see what develops.
I guess they’ve decided to skip the whole Antony marries Octavia bit as too complicated and leave Antony hooked up with Atia; unless of course that poisoner Servilia hired to get Atia manages to succeed. We’ll find out next week. In the meantime Antony has left Rome for Gaul after Cicero done him wrong in the senate, Octavian has hooked up with school chum Agrippa in Campania, where they have apparently raised a nice little army, and Brutus and Cassius are looking for financial support in the far reaches of the empire. Oh yeah, and Cleopatra has turned up in Rome. I’ve also learned that the role of Octavian is to be recast bringing in an older actor to play the grown up Octavian.
On the domestic front, Orestes Fulman has, apparently, kidnapped and sold Vorenus’s daughters, and Niobe’s sister Lyde, into slavery. Voranus and Pullo, after depopulating Fulman’s gang of thugs, cut off the man’s head but were first convinced that the girls, and Niobe’s son, were dead. Then, at the insistence of Antony, Vorenus sort of took over the Aventine as a kind of deranged godfather type. Unfortunately, at the moment, Vorenus is in Gaul with Antony and his criminal empire appears to be coming apart. Vorenus and Pullo have also had a falling out and Pullo was wandering with Eirene when Lyde, who escaped from the slavers, shows up. At the end of episode three Pullo is riding hard, I assume to let Vorenus know that his daughters are alive. Another side plot seems to be developing with Timon. His brother, who sounds like a 1st century BCE version of a Zealot, has shown up and is acting in a decidedly suspicious manner. Whew.
Now I’m up to date and we shall see what develops.
Hillary Throws her Hat into the Ring
To no ones real surprise Hillary Clinton announced that she was, officially, seeking the Democratic Presidential nomination. Let the games begin! It’s too early for me to back any particular candidate since the guy I wanted, Russ Feingold, has decided not to run. We shall see what we shall see as things develop.
The NFL Playoffs
My Giants lost to the Eagles, but played pretty well, the Cinderella Saints lost to Chicago, the Patriots upset San Diego but then got bounced by the Colts. To make a long story short it’s the Bears and Colts. By not posting every week I managed to avoid embarrassing myself again this year but would you believe I managed to call both championship games correctly?
Two Black head coaches will square off against each other in the Super Bowl. The NFL has certainly come a long way hasn’t it? Who’s going to win? I have to go with Eli’s big brother Payton to finally get the ring. But I'm still going to be rooting for the Bears!
Two Black head coaches will square off against each other in the Super Bowl. The NFL has certainly come a long way hasn’t it? Who’s going to win? I have to go with Eli’s big brother Payton to finally get the ring. But I'm still going to be rooting for the Bears!
Welcome Back
Well I finally broke free for a bit so I can update my poor neglected blog. Isn’t it terrible how work tends to get in the way of doing stuff you want to do? I missed putting in my two cents on a whole bunch of stuff so all I can do now is try and get up to date.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
New Jersey Commission Recommends Abolition of the Death Penalty
The New Jersey Commission studying the death penalty has recommended abolition by a margin of 12-1. The sole dissenter was the author of the current death penalty statute passed in 1982.
This is big. I mean this is really big. Governor Corzine is not a fan of the death penalty and public opinion in the Garden State has been swinging toward life without parole for several years now but nevertheless, a discrete repeal of the death penalty in New Jersey could influence New York. The Empire State has never bothered to repair its statute declared unconstitutional by the state supreme court and has been in a sort of limbo with respect to the death penalty. Given all the current problems with the death penalty this could start a trend with states like Michigan and California following suit.
Such a trend would signal a surge into the 21st century. Hey, who knows, you get rid of the death penalty and maybe scientific literacy, and the acceptance of Evolution, and Gay Rights might not be all that far behind. Except in the South of course where they’re working hard on marching back to the 16th century.
This is big. I mean this is really big. Governor Corzine is not a fan of the death penalty and public opinion in the Garden State has been swinging toward life without parole for several years now but nevertheless, a discrete repeal of the death penalty in New Jersey could influence New York. The Empire State has never bothered to repair its statute declared unconstitutional by the state supreme court and has been in a sort of limbo with respect to the death penalty. Given all the current problems with the death penalty this could start a trend with states like Michigan and California following suit.
Such a trend would signal a surge into the 21st century. Hey, who knows, you get rid of the death penalty and maybe scientific literacy, and the acceptance of Evolution, and Gay Rights might not be all that far behind. Except in the South of course where they’re working hard on marching back to the 16th century.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Giants at Redskins
You’ve got to be kidding? As much as I love them I’ll be the first to admit that the Giants have stunk up the league over the last eight weeks. Only a heroic performance by Tiki Barber, running for an incredible 230 yards, and an absolutely miserable Redskins team, has allowed Coughlin to manage an anemic 8-8 record by thumping Washington 34-28. Yet they still managed to get to football’s promised land? They squeaked into the playoffs as the sixth seed? That’s unbelievable. They’re going to get killed in Philadelphia on Sunday. It would have been better if Tiki’s last game had been his career performance at Washington.
So now the play-off teams are set. Way back in early November, at the halfway mark of the season, I made my predictions. Let’s see if I did any better than my play-off predictions last year.
In the AFC, I said New England, Baltimore, Indianapolis and San Diego would win the divisions and I was right on all four. Granted it didn’t take a genius to figure this out, but it still makes me 4-0. Unfortunately I said Cincinnati and Jacksonville would get the Wild Cards and it turned out to be the Jets and Kansas City. That makes me 0-2 there for a final record of 4-2 for the AFC.
In the NFC, I said Philadelphia, Chicago, Atlanta and Seattle would win the divisions, but it turned out that my confidence in Atlanta and skepticism about New Orleans were both misplaced and the Saints captured the NFC South. That makes me 3-1 there. I said New Orleans and Dallas would get the Wild Cards and it turned out to be Dallas and the Giants. That makes me 1-1 there for a final record of 4-2 for the NFC and 8-4 overall.
Even though I managed to identify 9 of the 12 play-off teams, I think I’ll hold on to my day job.
So now the play-off teams are set. Way back in early November, at the halfway mark of the season, I made my predictions. Let’s see if I did any better than my play-off predictions last year.
In the AFC, I said New England, Baltimore, Indianapolis and San Diego would win the divisions and I was right on all four. Granted it didn’t take a genius to figure this out, but it still makes me 4-0. Unfortunately I said Cincinnati and Jacksonville would get the Wild Cards and it turned out to be the Jets and Kansas City. That makes me 0-2 there for a final record of 4-2 for the AFC.
In the NFC, I said Philadelphia, Chicago, Atlanta and Seattle would win the divisions, but it turned out that my confidence in Atlanta and skepticism about New Orleans were both misplaced and the Saints captured the NFC South. That makes me 3-1 there. I said New Orleans and Dallas would get the Wild Cards and it turned out to be Dallas and the Giants. That makes me 1-1 there for a final record of 4-2 for the NFC and 8-4 overall.
Even though I managed to identify 9 of the 12 play-off teams, I think I’ll hold on to my day job.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
The End of Saddam
The pseudo Iraqi government finally did what it’s been threatening to do, it executed Saddam Hussein along with two of his cronies.
If anyone ever deserved having his neck stretched, Saddam was the guy. Although I don’t see this solving anything, at least we can be pretty sure the guy wasn’t innocent.
I don't know what else to say really.
If anyone ever deserved having his neck stretched, Saddam was the guy. Although I don’t see this solving anything, at least we can be pretty sure the guy wasn’t innocent.
I don't know what else to say really.
Saints at Giants
Good grief! What a miserable season. Tiki’s last game turned into a total bust. I think only the water boy didn’t drop a pass. I mean that was truly pathetic.
Things started out ok with Tiki Barber being the only Giant player introduced on what was his final game at Giants Stadium. Then the Giants scored first on a 50 yard pass play. Things went downhill rapidly after that.
The early chants of “Tiki Barber, Tiki Barber” deteriorated first into “Fire Coughlin, Fire Coughlin” and then hit rock bottom with “Let’s Go Yankees!” The final chant being the fans putting the team on notice that not only had they given up on the season, they had ceased to care.
Oh well, there’s always next year. Final score Saints 30 and Giants 7.
Things started out ok with Tiki Barber being the only Giant player introduced on what was his final game at Giants Stadium. Then the Giants scored first on a 50 yard pass play. Things went downhill rapidly after that.
The early chants of “Tiki Barber, Tiki Barber” deteriorated first into “Fire Coughlin, Fire Coughlin” and then hit rock bottom with “Let’s Go Yankees!” The final chant being the fans putting the team on notice that not only had they given up on the season, they had ceased to care.
Oh well, there’s always next year. Final score Saints 30 and Giants 7.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Merry Christmas 2006
Well it’s that time of year again. I don’t send Christmas cards, and haven’t for many years, but I send out a few holiday greeting e-mails to old friends I don’t have much contact with any more and put holiday greeting posts on a few forums. For my current acquaintances I prefer to provide greetings in person.
I see the usual assortment of “Keep Christ in Christmas” signs up and wonder whether or not these folks understand that virtually everything that we’ve come to associate with Christmas is really pagan in origin. Hey, as a matter of fact it was originally the old Roman pagan holiday of Saturnalia that was adopted by the church and not really tamed until the 17th or 18th century.
That being the case, it’s not so much a matter of keeping Christ in Christmas as it is a matter of a sort of hostile takeover along with the enforcement of puritan Christian morality. Luckily most folks haven’t lost their appetite for a good time and pretty much ignore the whole idea.
Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays or whatever makes you happy.
I see the usual assortment of “Keep Christ in Christmas” signs up and wonder whether or not these folks understand that virtually everything that we’ve come to associate with Christmas is really pagan in origin. Hey, as a matter of fact it was originally the old Roman pagan holiday of Saturnalia that was adopted by the church and not really tamed until the 17th or 18th century.
That being the case, it’s not so much a matter of keeping Christ in Christmas as it is a matter of a sort of hostile takeover along with the enforcement of puritan Christian morality. Luckily most folks haven’t lost their appetite for a good time and pretty much ignore the whole idea.
Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays or whatever makes you happy.
Eagles and Giants
SOB! Boy, this has been a terribly depressing season. We got whomped again, this time by the Eagles and two touchdowns in the last 4 minutes, 36-22. I hate to complain, but with two critical interceptions, including the crusher at the end of the game, Eli is not helping any.
I see in the N.Y. Post that a son of Wellington Mara decked an Eagles fan on Wall Street after being heckled over the loss. Assuming the Post story is accurate, because with the Post you never know, I'll bet that felt good. I had this female Eagles fan yelling in my ear last Sunday. If it had been a guy I guarantee you he would have had his teeth rearranged on the back of one of the seats. Unfortunately females have an immunity from that kind of stuff.
Oh well, the last game is Sunday against New Orleans. I'll probably go to say farewell to Tiki. To add insult to injury, I didn't realize the bill for the "just in case" play-off tickets was due a week ago. Not that I expect to miss any games by sending it in late, but I hope it doesn't jeopardize my regular season tickets. At least I think I hope it doesn't jeopardize them.
I see in the N.Y. Post that a son of Wellington Mara decked an Eagles fan on Wall Street after being heckled over the loss. Assuming the Post story is accurate, because with the Post you never know, I'll bet that felt good. I had this female Eagles fan yelling in my ear last Sunday. If it had been a guy I guarantee you he would have had his teeth rearranged on the back of one of the seats. Unfortunately females have an immunity from that kind of stuff.
Oh well, the last game is Sunday against New Orleans. I'll probably go to say farewell to Tiki. To add insult to injury, I didn't realize the bill for the "just in case" play-off tickets was due a week ago. Not that I expect to miss any games by sending it in late, but I hope it doesn't jeopardize my regular season tickets. At least I think I hope it doesn't jeopardize them.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Civil Unions and Stem Cell Research in New Jersey
As expected the New Jersey state legislature passed a bill on Thursday approving Civil Unions for gay couples four months ahead of the deadline issued by the New Jersey Supreme Court. The bill will extend all of the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples. Governor Corzine is expected to sign the bill after what he called a study to insure that “we’re getting what we intended to get.”
The only thing withheld by the bill is the word marriage itself, but the battle isn’t over. The measure passed easily, 56-19 in the Assembly and 23-12 in the Senate, and both legislators and the Governor indicated that periodic reviews of the language left the door open for ultimately exchanging the term “Civil Union” for marriage.
Well it’s certainly a step in the right direction and with a friendly populace, a friendly legislature and a friendly governor, New Jersey will most likely remain a place where gays can push their agenda with a fair likelihood of success. New Jersey could easily become the first state to legalize gay marriage through the legislature as the Zeitgeist moves onward.
The same legislature approved $270 million in appropriations for stem cell research at Rutgers University over the objections of religious and antiabortion groups. At least some parts of the country are trying to move into the 21st century despite the medieval attitude in Washington.
The only thing withheld by the bill is the word marriage itself, but the battle isn’t over. The measure passed easily, 56-19 in the Assembly and 23-12 in the Senate, and both legislators and the Governor indicated that periodic reviews of the language left the door open for ultimately exchanging the term “Civil Union” for marriage.
Well it’s certainly a step in the right direction and with a friendly populace, a friendly legislature and a friendly governor, New Jersey will most likely remain a place where gays can push their agenda with a fair likelihood of success. New Jersey could easily become the first state to legalize gay marriage through the legislature as the Zeitgeist moves onward.
The same legislature approved $270 million in appropriations for stem cell research at Rutgers University over the objections of religious and antiabortion groups. At least some parts of the country are trying to move into the 21st century despite the medieval attitude in Washington.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Giants at Panthers
Hey, we won one! Actually I thought they were going to blow it again. There is something fundamentally wrong with this team’s “we have the lead so let’s just hold ‘em” defense.
Actually that’s probably not true. I played defense myself and by the end of the game you’re beat especially when there’s a lack of substitutes. Defense takes more out of you than offense. On offense you know what to expect on each play. On defense you never know what’s coming. I was a cornerback and about the last thing I wanted to see in the 4th quarter was a fresh set of legs coming in at wide receiver. Anyway, the final score was 27-13.
With Dallas getting mauled by New Orleans and Philadelphia beating Washington, things are suddenly up in the air again. This Sunday’s game between the Giants and Eagles, currently the #5 and #6 seeds, should have a major impact on the Wild Card race in the NFC or even possibly the NFC East title because Dallas goes to Atlanta, which is currently the #7 seed.
Elsewhere, one has to wonder how Indianapolis can get blasted by Jacksonville 44-17 and New England could get blanked by Miami 21-0. I guess anyone can have a bad day, but it really makes you wonder.
Actually that’s probably not true. I played defense myself and by the end of the game you’re beat especially when there’s a lack of substitutes. Defense takes more out of you than offense. On offense you know what to expect on each play. On defense you never know what’s coming. I was a cornerback and about the last thing I wanted to see in the 4th quarter was a fresh set of legs coming in at wide receiver. Anyway, the final score was 27-13.
With Dallas getting mauled by New Orleans and Philadelphia beating Washington, things are suddenly up in the air again. This Sunday’s game between the Giants and Eagles, currently the #5 and #6 seeds, should have a major impact on the Wild Card race in the NFC or even possibly the NFC East title because Dallas goes to Atlanta, which is currently the #7 seed.
Elsewhere, one has to wonder how Indianapolis can get blasted by Jacksonville 44-17 and New England could get blanked by Miami 21-0. I guess anyone can have a bad day, but it really makes you wonder.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
HBO’s Rome, Second Season
The second, and rumored last, season of HBO’s Rome begins on January 14th 2007. WOOHOO!!! I’ve been trying to put bits and pieces together from the clips on the HBO web site, but there isn’t a lot of information.
Octavian does get adopted by Caesar in his will and Pullo puts it straight up, saying “you’ll be wanting revenge then” and volunteering his services. Looks like Vorenus decides to take over the Aventine, but exactly why is unclear. Cleopatra shows back up and it appears like they’re going to skip the whole Antony marries Octavia bit and go right for the Antony and Cleopatra angle. Either way, Atia’s reaction should be a joy to behold.
I did see a file clip related to Phillippi so we get to at least 42 BCE. The affair between Antony and Cleopatra starts around 38 BCE but you can’t tell from the clips what will come first in the show. Let’s keep in mind that the little gold digger Cleopatra has what she can claim is Caesar’s son, Caesarion. The battle of Actium, which would sort of signal the end of the series, occurs in 31 BC.
The first season started around 50 BCE. A number of events including the death of Caesar’s daughter Julia, the battle of Alesia, the surrender of Vercingetorix and crossing of the Rubicon are sort of smudged together in the first two episodes although they took place over a period of five to six years. Caesar crossed the Rubicon (iacta alea est) in January of 49 BCE and was assassinated in 44 BCE so the first season covered something like six or seven years and included events stretched out over ten years. That means taking the second season all the way to the battle of Actium wouldn’t be out of the question. Since this is supposed to be the last season it would make some sense to take it to a convenient conclusion and Actium, plus the aftermath in Egypt with the asp and all that, would be a logical place to end it.
Octavian does get adopted by Caesar in his will and Pullo puts it straight up, saying “you’ll be wanting revenge then” and volunteering his services. Looks like Vorenus decides to take over the Aventine, but exactly why is unclear. Cleopatra shows back up and it appears like they’re going to skip the whole Antony marries Octavia bit and go right for the Antony and Cleopatra angle. Either way, Atia’s reaction should be a joy to behold.
I did see a file clip related to Phillippi so we get to at least 42 BCE. The affair between Antony and Cleopatra starts around 38 BCE but you can’t tell from the clips what will come first in the show. Let’s keep in mind that the little gold digger Cleopatra has what she can claim is Caesar’s son, Caesarion. The battle of Actium, which would sort of signal the end of the series, occurs in 31 BC.
The first season started around 50 BCE. A number of events including the death of Caesar’s daughter Julia, the battle of Alesia, the surrender of Vercingetorix and crossing of the Rubicon are sort of smudged together in the first two episodes although they took place over a period of five to six years. Caesar crossed the Rubicon (iacta alea est) in January of 49 BCE and was assassinated in 44 BCE so the first season covered something like six or seven years and included events stretched out over ten years. That means taking the second season all the way to the battle of Actium wouldn’t be out of the question. Since this is supposed to be the last season it would make some sense to take it to a convenient conclusion and Actium, plus the aftermath in Egypt with the asp and all that, would be a logical place to end it.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
The Healthiest State?
Minnesota is the healthiest state according to the United Health Federation which bases its ranking on a series of factors including prevalence of obesity, prevalence of smoking, motor vehicle deaths, violent crime and infectious disease rate.
At the bottom of the list was Louisiana which slipped into last place probably due to the aftermath of Katrina. Last years #50, Mississippi, managed to claw its way up to 49.
At the bottom of the list was Louisiana which slipped into last place probably due to the aftermath of Katrina. Last years #50, Mississippi, managed to claw its way up to 49.
Right behind Minnesota were Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii and Connecticut. In general the Northeastern and Northern Midwestern states ranked the best. Just ahead of Mississippi were South Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas. The South did just horrible. The ten worst states were all from the South.
New Jersey ranked 14th overall and 1st in the High School Graduation category but 49th in Adequacy of Pre-natal care and 45th in incidence of Infectious Disease. Indiana was 33rd overall. Its highest ranking was 17th in Motor Vehicle Deaths and incidence of Infectious Disease. It was 49th in Prevalence of Smoking, 47th in Cancer Deaths and 45th in Poor Mental Health Days.
Giants and Cowboys
Good game, a lousy ending, but a good game. I guess I need to go locate my “Wait until next year” button. Unfortunately I have a feeling it’s going to take more than a year to put together another winning team.
I hope Coughlin has his resume updated, because I think he’s history after this year. There were far too many questionable decisions on his part. Final score, Cowboys 23 and Giants 20.
I've still got two more home games. Wonder if anyone would buy the tickets? Nah, I'm going.
I hope Coughlin has his resume updated, because I think he’s history after this year. There were far too many questionable decisions on his part. Final score, Cowboys 23 and Giants 20.
I've still got two more home games. Wonder if anyone would buy the tickets? Nah, I'm going.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Letter from the Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, issued an open letter yesterday to the American People. Since I’m a member of the American People I figured I’d better read it because it might be important.
First I had to put aside my three reasons for distrusting Ahmadinejad. First, and foremost, he was a member of the Basij movement during the Iran-Iraq war. These are the lovely folks that sent children out as human mine sweepers with little plastic “keys to Paradise” around their necks. Second, he doesn’t have a problem with a Theocracy, and third he’s a religious Muslim, or at least he claims to be one.
Ahmadinejad addresses a number of areas but makes the mistake of putting the one he is least likely to get support for from the American People first. He starts by attacking the “Persistent aggressions by the Zionists.” While I sympathize with the Palestinian People, I also sympathize with the Israeli People. There is plenty of blame and suffering to go around in that conflict and I think it’s unjustified to put all the blame on the Israelis.
From then on however I found myself nodding in agreement more often than shaking my head. Some excerpts, with commentary.
“Since the commencement of the US military presence in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially.”
I don’t know about exponentially but it certainly has grown. The level of terror is beyond imagining and the country appears on the verge of full scale civil war which can only make it worse. I think the Iranians, as neighbors of Iraq, have every reason to be concerned.
“Although Saddam was overthrown and people are happy about his departure, the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people has persisted and has even been aggravated.”
And we don’t seem to be doing much to alleviate it. It appears to me that the administration is more concerned about making Halliburton stockholders rich than it is about the welfare of the Iraqi People. A welfare by the way, that the United States became responsible for, at least in part, when we sent the 3rd Infantry across the border.
“I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure.”
I’m certainly not happy about it. Unfortunately there are those, especially those making a bundle off the war, that are happy about it and they tend to have a lot more influence with this administration than peons like me.
“You have heard that the US administration is kidnapping its presumed opponents from across the globe and arbitrarily holding them without trial or any international supervision in horrendous prisons that it has established in various parts of the world. “
Yes, and I think it’s a disgrace.
“You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed ‘war on terror.’ But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations. “
I can’t really find much fault with this assessment. The activities of the Bush administration HAVE helped to spread terrorism and have tarnished the reputation of the U.S. around the world. I’m certain that the verdict of history will be that this was the worst presidential administration ever and it ushered in a dark age in American history. A dark age which hopefully will end with the exit of Bush and his cronies on January 20, 2009. I say hopefully because I don’t think another Republican presidency will raise the veil any. We need a total housecleaning.
“The US administration’s illegal and immoral behavior is not even confined to outside its borders. You are witnessing daily that under the pretext of ‘the war on terror,’ civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed.”
As the myriad ACLU newsletters keep reminding me in increasingly shrill language. I now know how concerned Germans must have felt as the Nazis managed to use the legal political system to destroy that system. The Bush administration seems to feel that it is above the law and at liberty to flaunt the law whenever it feels like it and I’m flabbergasted that more people aren’t outraged about that.
“I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it.”
Some of us do. Unfortunately a fair number seem perfectly willing to wave goodbye to civil liberties in the United States as long as the President says “God” every two sentences and Gay Marriage remains illegal.
“We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent.
But, can terrorism be contained and eradicated through war, destruction and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents?”
Clearly war, destruction and the killing of innocents is simply going to fuel terrorism if people feel that it’s their only option for fighting back or defending themselves. But what’s the answer? You identify a non-solution but offer nothing in its place.
Unfortunately the letter then goes into another rant about Zionists including the resurrection of the tired old anti-Semitic charge about control “of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors.”
While the man raises some valid points, his unjustified ranting against “Zionists” plus his history (yes, I’m now bringing my prejudices into the analysis) leave me doubting the sincerity of the letter. I’m not convinced this is a man that should be trusted. That doesn’t change the truth in some of what he says, it just means I’m not all that certain I would want to be “good buddies” with the guy. I think I smell a rat.
First I had to put aside my three reasons for distrusting Ahmadinejad. First, and foremost, he was a member of the Basij movement during the Iran-Iraq war. These are the lovely folks that sent children out as human mine sweepers with little plastic “keys to Paradise” around their necks. Second, he doesn’t have a problem with a Theocracy, and third he’s a religious Muslim, or at least he claims to be one.
Ahmadinejad addresses a number of areas but makes the mistake of putting the one he is least likely to get support for from the American People first. He starts by attacking the “Persistent aggressions by the Zionists.” While I sympathize with the Palestinian People, I also sympathize with the Israeli People. There is plenty of blame and suffering to go around in that conflict and I think it’s unjustified to put all the blame on the Israelis.
From then on however I found myself nodding in agreement more often than shaking my head. Some excerpts, with commentary.
“Since the commencement of the US military presence in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially.”
I don’t know about exponentially but it certainly has grown. The level of terror is beyond imagining and the country appears on the verge of full scale civil war which can only make it worse. I think the Iranians, as neighbors of Iraq, have every reason to be concerned.
“Although Saddam was overthrown and people are happy about his departure, the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people has persisted and has even been aggravated.”
And we don’t seem to be doing much to alleviate it. It appears to me that the administration is more concerned about making Halliburton stockholders rich than it is about the welfare of the Iraqi People. A welfare by the way, that the United States became responsible for, at least in part, when we sent the 3rd Infantry across the border.
“I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure.”
I’m certainly not happy about it. Unfortunately there are those, especially those making a bundle off the war, that are happy about it and they tend to have a lot more influence with this administration than peons like me.
“You have heard that the US administration is kidnapping its presumed opponents from across the globe and arbitrarily holding them without trial or any international supervision in horrendous prisons that it has established in various parts of the world. “
Yes, and I think it’s a disgrace.
“You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed ‘war on terror.’ But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations. “
I can’t really find much fault with this assessment. The activities of the Bush administration HAVE helped to spread terrorism and have tarnished the reputation of the U.S. around the world. I’m certain that the verdict of history will be that this was the worst presidential administration ever and it ushered in a dark age in American history. A dark age which hopefully will end with the exit of Bush and his cronies on January 20, 2009. I say hopefully because I don’t think another Republican presidency will raise the veil any. We need a total housecleaning.
“The US administration’s illegal and immoral behavior is not even confined to outside its borders. You are witnessing daily that under the pretext of ‘the war on terror,’ civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed.”
As the myriad ACLU newsletters keep reminding me in increasingly shrill language. I now know how concerned Germans must have felt as the Nazis managed to use the legal political system to destroy that system. The Bush administration seems to feel that it is above the law and at liberty to flaunt the law whenever it feels like it and I’m flabbergasted that more people aren’t outraged about that.
“I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it.”
Some of us do. Unfortunately a fair number seem perfectly willing to wave goodbye to civil liberties in the United States as long as the President says “God” every two sentences and Gay Marriage remains illegal.
“We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent.
But, can terrorism be contained and eradicated through war, destruction and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents?”
Clearly war, destruction and the killing of innocents is simply going to fuel terrorism if people feel that it’s their only option for fighting back or defending themselves. But what’s the answer? You identify a non-solution but offer nothing in its place.
Unfortunately the letter then goes into another rant about Zionists including the resurrection of the tired old anti-Semitic charge about control “of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors.”
While the man raises some valid points, his unjustified ranting against “Zionists” plus his history (yes, I’m now bringing my prejudices into the analysis) leave me doubting the sincerity of the letter. I’m not convinced this is a man that should be trusted. That doesn’t change the truth in some of what he says, it just means I’m not all that certain I would want to be “good buddies” with the guy. I think I smell a rat.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Death Penalty Update
The current number of executions in the United States for 2006 stands at 52 with three more scheduled during December. That would bring the total to 55 down 5 from the 60 executions in 2005.
Of the 52 executions, 43 took place in the South, 6 were in the Midwest with 5 in the state of Ohio and 3 were in the West. The Northeast had no executions in 2006.
Fourteen states had at least one execution in 2006. Texas had the most with 24 followed by Ohio with 5. One of the three remaining scheduled executions is also in Ohio which would bring that states total to 6.
Texas already has 11 executions scheduled for 2007 including the execution of a female, Cathy Henderson, in April of 2007. The state of Tennessee, which has only had 2 executions, has 7 executions scheduled in 2007.
In other words, nothing much has changed. The South, with Texas leading the way, continues to be the region of the country where executions are the most common and the Northeast continues to be the region where they rarely occur. As a matter of fact, of the 4 executions that have occurred in the Northeast since 1976, all were of so-called volunteers, individuals that, for whatever reason, ceased appealing their death penalty sentence.
The New Jersey committee studying the death penalty was supposed to have issued its report by November 15, 2006 to the governor and legislature, but I haven’t seen anything to that effect so far. The hope is, of course, that the committee will recommend abolition. We shall see what we shall see.
Of the 52 executions, 43 took place in the South, 6 were in the Midwest with 5 in the state of Ohio and 3 were in the West. The Northeast had no executions in 2006.
Fourteen states had at least one execution in 2006. Texas had the most with 24 followed by Ohio with 5. One of the three remaining scheduled executions is also in Ohio which would bring that states total to 6.
Texas already has 11 executions scheduled for 2007 including the execution of a female, Cathy Henderson, in April of 2007. The state of Tennessee, which has only had 2 executions, has 7 executions scheduled in 2007.
In other words, nothing much has changed. The South, with Texas leading the way, continues to be the region of the country where executions are the most common and the Northeast continues to be the region where they rarely occur. As a matter of fact, of the 4 executions that have occurred in the Northeast since 1976, all were of so-called volunteers, individuals that, for whatever reason, ceased appealing their death penalty sentence.
The New Jersey committee studying the death penalty was supposed to have issued its report by November 15, 2006 to the governor and legislature, but I haven’t seen anything to that effect so far. The hope is, of course, that the committee will recommend abolition. We shall see what we shall see.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Angels in America
I read something one time that theorized that there were multiple parallel dimensions of reality. The closer ones were very similar, perhaps with only minor differences, and that it was sometimes possible to exchange places with your alternate self in one of those closer dimensions. You can sometimes detect that this has happened by noticing a difference.
At least that’s the theory. More likely is that you haven’t switched dimensions but are merely suffering from a faulty memory. I mentioned this because of “Angels in America,” a six part mini-series that appeared on my HBO on Demand movie list and for which I have absolutely no memory. Yet it appears that the six part mini-series, based upon two three hours plays, should have been something that I recalled.
Looking it up on the web led to the revelation that not only were the plays critically acclaimed, winning a slew of drama critic circle awards as well as the Tony Award for Best Play, but the mini-series was the most watched made for cable movie of 2003 and won both the Golden Globe and the Emmy Awards.
So how the heck did I miss this? Yes, granted I was struggling through some personal problems at that time but it still strikes me as a tad strange that I have absolutely no memory of this program.
Anyway, I’ve managed to watch five of the six episodes and I’m not all that sure what to make of the whole thing. It’s sort of weird and funny about non-funny things. The fantasy sequences are really bizarre and on the verge of comical but there’s nothing comical about the situations that the characters find themselves in.
Some of the dialogue is absolutely stunning. In one fantasy sequence Mary-Louise Parker, who plays a Mormon, has this exchange with Justin Kirk, who plays a gay man with aids.
Parker: I'm a Mormon.
Kirk: I'm a homosexual.
Parker: Oh. In my church we don't believe in homosexuals.
Kirk: In my church we don't believe in Mormons.
But my favorite is Jeffrey Wright, who played Martin Luther King in “Boycott,” as the gay nurse Belize. He matches wits and insults with Al Pacino as a dying Roy Cohn, of the Rosenberg Trial fame, often with the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg, played by Meryl Streep, looking on in bemusement. Like I said, it’s a very weird show made weirder by the fact that there are actors playing multiple roles. I thought there was something a little strange about the rabbi in one of the opening sequences only to find out later that “he” was being portrayed by Meryl Streep who has three roles.
I’m not sure if I’m enjoying this show as much as I’m exploring it.
At least that’s the theory. More likely is that you haven’t switched dimensions but are merely suffering from a faulty memory. I mentioned this because of “Angels in America,” a six part mini-series that appeared on my HBO on Demand movie list and for which I have absolutely no memory. Yet it appears that the six part mini-series, based upon two three hours plays, should have been something that I recalled.
Looking it up on the web led to the revelation that not only were the plays critically acclaimed, winning a slew of drama critic circle awards as well as the Tony Award for Best Play, but the mini-series was the most watched made for cable movie of 2003 and won both the Golden Globe and the Emmy Awards.
So how the heck did I miss this? Yes, granted I was struggling through some personal problems at that time but it still strikes me as a tad strange that I have absolutely no memory of this program.
Anyway, I’ve managed to watch five of the six episodes and I’m not all that sure what to make of the whole thing. It’s sort of weird and funny about non-funny things. The fantasy sequences are really bizarre and on the verge of comical but there’s nothing comical about the situations that the characters find themselves in.
Some of the dialogue is absolutely stunning. In one fantasy sequence Mary-Louise Parker, who plays a Mormon, has this exchange with Justin Kirk, who plays a gay man with aids.
Parker: I'm a Mormon.
Kirk: I'm a homosexual.
Parker: Oh. In my church we don't believe in homosexuals.
Kirk: In my church we don't believe in Mormons.
But my favorite is Jeffrey Wright, who played Martin Luther King in “Boycott,” as the gay nurse Belize. He matches wits and insults with Al Pacino as a dying Roy Cohn, of the Rosenberg Trial fame, often with the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg, played by Meryl Streep, looking on in bemusement. Like I said, it’s a very weird show made weirder by the fact that there are actors playing multiple roles. I thought there was something a little strange about the rabbi in one of the opening sequences only to find out later that “he” was being portrayed by Meryl Streep who has three roles.
I’m not sure if I’m enjoying this show as much as I’m exploring it.
Giants at Titans
Ouch. Every once in a while you get a game that it takes YEARS to recover from. This was one of those games. A blown 21 point lead in the first as the result of a series of errors any one of which, if it hadn’t been made, might have salvaged the 24-21 loss.
The first error was the lob pass call on a second and four early in the fourth quarter. The second mistake was Plaxico Burress giving up on that pass which resulted in an interception. The third mistake was the personal foul on the 4th and 7. Without the flag the Giants would have taken over on downs with the score still 21-0. The fourth was, of course, Kawanuka letting Young go when he appeared to have him wrapped up on the 4th and 10 with less than 2 minutes left.
I don’t blame the rookie though because I know precisely what happened. He was afraid of getting called for roughing the quarterback so he made the mistake of releasing his grip prior to the whistle.
I blame Coughlin. There is something fundamentally wrong with the way this team is playing and I can only blame the coaching for that.
The first error was the lob pass call on a second and four early in the fourth quarter. The second mistake was Plaxico Burress giving up on that pass which resulted in an interception. The third mistake was the personal foul on the 4th and 7. Without the flag the Giants would have taken over on downs with the score still 21-0. The fourth was, of course, Kawanuka letting Young go when he appeared to have him wrapped up on the 4th and 10 with less than 2 minutes left.
I don’t blame the rookie though because I know precisely what happened. He was afraid of getting called for roughing the quarterback so he made the mistake of releasing his grip prior to the whistle.
I blame Coughlin. There is something fundamentally wrong with the way this team is playing and I can only blame the coaching for that.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Imams Get Kicked off of Plane
Well you knew it had to happen eventually and it did yesterday. Six Islamic Imams, returning from a conference in Minneapolis to Phoenix, were asked to get off a US Airways flight due to “suspicious behavior.”
Apparently what triggered the incident was three members of the group praying in the terminal. Yes, I think I would have been more than a little suspicious if I saw three Muslims praying just before getting on board an aircraft especially if the other three in the group weren’t praying.
To make matters worse, the six were seated in different parts of the aircraft. Yup, that would just about clinch it for me.
Guys, I’m sorry if you have been inconvenienced or insulted but better safe than sorry. Get used to the idea because it’s probably going to get worse. If you don’t like it, feel free to move to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
Boy, I sound like a gun totin’ Red Stater don’t I? The Dukes of Hazzard got nothin’ on me does they? I openly admit to this hypocritical chink in my liberalism. I find Islam to be the worst of the religions, both in terms of doctrine and the culture that has grown up around it, and don’t find myself feeling particularly tolerant towards it. The fact that its version of a religious fruitcake keeps threatening to explode a dirty nuke in my backyard hasn’t helped any either.
One of the Imams involved expressed frustration that, despite extensive efforts by Muslim leaders, many Americans know so little about Islam. "If up to now they don't know about prayers, this is a real problem," he said.
Not for me its not. I couldn’t care less. Of course it might be for you if every time you decide to pray they chuck you off an airplane. Like I said before, have you given any thought to relocating to a more sympathetic country like Afghanistan maybe? If not, then have you given any thought to chucking the philosophy of hatred and death that you’ve adopted?
Apparently what triggered the incident was three members of the group praying in the terminal. Yes, I think I would have been more than a little suspicious if I saw three Muslims praying just before getting on board an aircraft especially if the other three in the group weren’t praying.
To make matters worse, the six were seated in different parts of the aircraft. Yup, that would just about clinch it for me.
Guys, I’m sorry if you have been inconvenienced or insulted but better safe than sorry. Get used to the idea because it’s probably going to get worse. If you don’t like it, feel free to move to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
Boy, I sound like a gun totin’ Red Stater don’t I? The Dukes of Hazzard got nothin’ on me does they? I openly admit to this hypocritical chink in my liberalism. I find Islam to be the worst of the religions, both in terms of doctrine and the culture that has grown up around it, and don’t find myself feeling particularly tolerant towards it. The fact that its version of a religious fruitcake keeps threatening to explode a dirty nuke in my backyard hasn’t helped any either.
One of the Imams involved expressed frustration that, despite extensive efforts by Muslim leaders, many Americans know so little about Islam. "If up to now they don't know about prayers, this is a real problem," he said.
Not for me its not. I couldn’t care less. Of course it might be for you if every time you decide to pray they chuck you off an airplane. Like I said before, have you given any thought to relocating to a more sympathetic country like Afghanistan maybe? If not, then have you given any thought to chucking the philosophy of hatred and death that you’ve adopted?
What do You Mean IF you’re Wrong?
My question is a reaction to an opinion piece written by Oliver "Buzz" Thomas, a Baptist Minister with an upcoming book entitled, “10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).”
The opinion piece is entitled “When Religion Loses its Credibility” and bemoans the danger inherent in religion digging in its heels about homosexuality being a choice. The scientific evidence is mounting up that it’s determined at birth, by any number of genetic and physical factors, and is about as much a choice as being left handed or having blue eyes. Buzz is concerned that religion will lose its “moral authority” once proven wrong.
I have a number of observations about this piece. First of all, religion has no moral authority. At least it doesn’t have any in this country at the moment. It carries some weight for those who adhere to its dogma, but that’s voluntary. It has no moral authority because it no longer has any means of enforcing its definition of morality upon those of us that find it laughable. Religion lost it's authority when the 1st Amendment was ratified and a Constitutional expert like Thomas should know that.
Second, I doubt that science proving that homosexuality is not a choice will have any impact upon religion whatsoever. The right wing evangelical fruitcakes will simply ignore the evidence as they ignore the evidence about evolution. The so called liberals will probably start telling us how instrumental religion was in getting homosexuals, who are after all God’s children, accepted. Both will be lies, but lying is what religion does best isn’t it?
As for Thomas, I looked him up and he’s a Baptist Minister that belongs to the ACLU and has an abiding faith in the first amendment and the separation of church and state. I can’t understand how someone with his credentials swallows the whole Christianity thing. On the other hand, does he swallow it or does he just recognize a good gig when he sees it?
My last observation is a question. I wonder what the 10 things are? I bet I could come up with 10. Oh boy, my own 10 things list.
Alencon’s “10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).”
#10 – You really don’t have to drag your butt out of bed to go to church every Sunday.
#9 – All of your “Christmas Traditions” are pagan in origin.
#8 – You should really keep your donations to the church to feed your own family and fix up your own house. If Jesus could feed 4,000 people on a few loaves and fishes, why can’t he provide food and shelter for those who bring his word to the masses?
#7 – Men really did evolve from lower order animals.
#6 – Homosexuality isn’t a choice.
#5 – Jesus would be horrified to see what Christianity has done to his teachings
#4 – The bible IS full of errors, contradictions and absurdities.
#3 – Revelations is total hogwash.
#2 – The bible is NOT the word of God
#1 – You’re NOT going to heaven when you die.
The opinion piece is entitled “When Religion Loses its Credibility” and bemoans the danger inherent in religion digging in its heels about homosexuality being a choice. The scientific evidence is mounting up that it’s determined at birth, by any number of genetic and physical factors, and is about as much a choice as being left handed or having blue eyes. Buzz is concerned that religion will lose its “moral authority” once proven wrong.
I have a number of observations about this piece. First of all, religion has no moral authority. At least it doesn’t have any in this country at the moment. It carries some weight for those who adhere to its dogma, but that’s voluntary. It has no moral authority because it no longer has any means of enforcing its definition of morality upon those of us that find it laughable. Religion lost it's authority when the 1st Amendment was ratified and a Constitutional expert like Thomas should know that.
Second, I doubt that science proving that homosexuality is not a choice will have any impact upon religion whatsoever. The right wing evangelical fruitcakes will simply ignore the evidence as they ignore the evidence about evolution. The so called liberals will probably start telling us how instrumental religion was in getting homosexuals, who are after all God’s children, accepted. Both will be lies, but lying is what religion does best isn’t it?
As for Thomas, I looked him up and he’s a Baptist Minister that belongs to the ACLU and has an abiding faith in the first amendment and the separation of church and state. I can’t understand how someone with his credentials swallows the whole Christianity thing. On the other hand, does he swallow it or does he just recognize a good gig when he sees it?
My last observation is a question. I wonder what the 10 things are? I bet I could come up with 10. Oh boy, my own 10 things list.
Alencon’s “10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).”
#10 – You really don’t have to drag your butt out of bed to go to church every Sunday.
#9 – All of your “Christmas Traditions” are pagan in origin.
#8 – You should really keep your donations to the church to feed your own family and fix up your own house. If Jesus could feed 4,000 people on a few loaves and fishes, why can’t he provide food and shelter for those who bring his word to the masses?
#7 – Men really did evolve from lower order animals.
#6 – Homosexuality isn’t a choice.
#5 – Jesus would be horrified to see what Christianity has done to his teachings
#4 – The bible IS full of errors, contradictions and absurdities.
#3 – Revelations is total hogwash.
#2 – The bible is NOT the word of God
#1 – You’re NOT going to heaven when you die.
Giants at Jaguars
God I hate Monday night games, especially those as ugly as last night’s. With seven defensive starters, plus Amani Toomer, sidelined with injuries, it could be a very long last few games.
If last night is any indication of what’s to come, maybe I’ll take up watching hockey. The final, very ugly, score was Jaguars 26 and Giants 10.
Elsewhere, the Eagles lost McNabb for the season and the Cowboys handed Indianapolis its first loss as Tony Romo begins to take on the appearance of a mobile John Elway. God I’m so depressed over the idea of Dallas winning the NFC East. Maybe Ronde can return three interceptions for touchdowns Thursday because that’s about the only way I can see Tampa Bay beating Dallas on Thanksgiving.
Bah
If last night is any indication of what’s to come, maybe I’ll take up watching hockey. The final, very ugly, score was Jaguars 26 and Giants 10.
Elsewhere, the Eagles lost McNabb for the season and the Cowboys handed Indianapolis its first loss as Tony Romo begins to take on the appearance of a mobile John Elway. God I’m so depressed over the idea of Dallas winning the NFC East. Maybe Ronde can return three interceptions for touchdowns Thursday because that’s about the only way I can see Tampa Bay beating Dallas on Thanksgiving.
Bah
Sunday, November 19, 2006
A Jesus Doll for Christmas?
The Marine Reserve Toys for Tots program initially turned down an offer of 4,000 talking Jesus dolls from the manufacturer.
I understand the Marines’ logic since the toys could go to any needy child but it’s still hard to miss the irony of a decision that says that dolls of Jesus aren’t appropriate gifts at Christmas.
At least that was the initial decision. Now the Marines have decided to accept the 4,000 dolls and claim they have located appropriate places to donate them.
Well, that may be, but the fact that the toys needed special treatment sort of underscores the fact that maybe they weren’t a good idea to begin with doesn’t it? Now before everyone starts pointing out that Christmas is all about Jesus, allow me to point out that I covered that one last year here “Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?”
What most of us associate with Christmas, including the giving of gifts, is actually pagan in origin and was simply adapted by the early church for the new religion. That being the case, I don’t have a hard time associating the Toys for Tots program with the general holiday season rather than looking upon it as a Christmas specific thing.
I am uncomfortable whenever an agency associated with the government does anything that can be viewed as an endorsement of a particular religion or religion in general. If its Jesus dolls this year, what is it next year, video tapes of bible stories?
Yes this is the old slippery slope argument and I know full well that it is pure logical fallacy. Ignoring the slippery slope for the moment, there is still the concern that even the hint of government endorsement leads to two classes of citizens. There are the fully enfranchised citizens that are members of the endorsed group, and the second class citizens, that aren’t members of the endorsed group.
This was the division created by the Jim Crow laws in the past. This is the division created by Defense of Marriage Acts in the present. This is the division that too many evangelical Christian organizations advocate in defiance of the American tradition of the separation of church and state and the American principle of equal protection under the law.
Still, with that being said, I find it hard to justify not giving a toy to a child especially around Christmas.
I was on the company’s web site and they have five biblical dolls. For $20 you can choose from Jesus, Mary, Moses, David or Esther. The pitch is pure evangelical Protestant right down to Jesus mouthing John 3:3, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
So, according to the Jesus doll, if you’re not a “Born Again Christian” you’re going to hell. Will Roman Catholics, Episcopalians and Greek Orthodox please form an orderly line by the down escalator? Non-Christians, please wait until the heretics are serviced.
I find it especially amusing that that the entire “Born Again” idea comes from a conversation that could only have been held in Greek because the play on words only works in Greek and not Aramaic, Hebrew or English. While it’s quite possible that Nicodemus spoke Greek, and not out of the realm of the reasonable that Jesus spoke Greek, it’s rather unlikely they would be talking privately in that language rather than Aramaic. In other words, I doubt that the conversation ever took place.
Anyway, I hope the kids enjoy the dolls.
I understand the Marines’ logic since the toys could go to any needy child but it’s still hard to miss the irony of a decision that says that dolls of Jesus aren’t appropriate gifts at Christmas.
At least that was the initial decision. Now the Marines have decided to accept the 4,000 dolls and claim they have located appropriate places to donate them.
Well, that may be, but the fact that the toys needed special treatment sort of underscores the fact that maybe they weren’t a good idea to begin with doesn’t it? Now before everyone starts pointing out that Christmas is all about Jesus, allow me to point out that I covered that one last year here “Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?”
What most of us associate with Christmas, including the giving of gifts, is actually pagan in origin and was simply adapted by the early church for the new religion. That being the case, I don’t have a hard time associating the Toys for Tots program with the general holiday season rather than looking upon it as a Christmas specific thing.
I am uncomfortable whenever an agency associated with the government does anything that can be viewed as an endorsement of a particular religion or religion in general. If its Jesus dolls this year, what is it next year, video tapes of bible stories?
Yes this is the old slippery slope argument and I know full well that it is pure logical fallacy. Ignoring the slippery slope for the moment, there is still the concern that even the hint of government endorsement leads to two classes of citizens. There are the fully enfranchised citizens that are members of the endorsed group, and the second class citizens, that aren’t members of the endorsed group.
This was the division created by the Jim Crow laws in the past. This is the division created by Defense of Marriage Acts in the present. This is the division that too many evangelical Christian organizations advocate in defiance of the American tradition of the separation of church and state and the American principle of equal protection under the law.
Still, with that being said, I find it hard to justify not giving a toy to a child especially around Christmas.
I was on the company’s web site and they have five biblical dolls. For $20 you can choose from Jesus, Mary, Moses, David or Esther. The pitch is pure evangelical Protestant right down to Jesus mouthing John 3:3, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
So, according to the Jesus doll, if you’re not a “Born Again Christian” you’re going to hell. Will Roman Catholics, Episcopalians and Greek Orthodox please form an orderly line by the down escalator? Non-Christians, please wait until the heretics are serviced.
I find it especially amusing that that the entire “Born Again” idea comes from a conversation that could only have been held in Greek because the play on words only works in Greek and not Aramaic, Hebrew or English. While it’s quite possible that Nicodemus spoke Greek, and not out of the realm of the reasonable that Jesus spoke Greek, it’s rather unlikely they would be talking privately in that language rather than Aramaic. In other words, I doubt that the conversation ever took place.
Anyway, I hope the kids enjoy the dolls.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Russ Isn’t Going to Run
I got an e-mail yesterday from Russ Feingold saying that he has decided to remain the junior Senator from Wisconsin and will not run for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination.
Shucks. Feingold struck me as a honest competent guy that would make a fine President. Oh well, maybe some other time. He’s still pretty young.
So who the heck does that leave me with? Rudi, Hillary, John Kerry or John McCain? Of course there’s always Tom Vilsack, the governor of Iowa, but I know absolutely nothing about him.
I didn’t vote for Kerry the last time around as much as I voted against Bush so he doesn’t fill me with enthusiasm. Besides, John will be working on getting his foot out of his mouth for years after that stuck in Iraq crack.
I lost my respect for McCain when he suddenly supported the teaching of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. If someone is willing to trade his integrity for the nomination, how can I have any confidence that he’ll do the right thing once he’s in the Oval Office?
That leaves Rudi and Hillary. I’d have to go with Rudi at the moment.
Shucks. Feingold struck me as a honest competent guy that would make a fine President. Oh well, maybe some other time. He’s still pretty young.
So who the heck does that leave me with? Rudi, Hillary, John Kerry or John McCain? Of course there’s always Tom Vilsack, the governor of Iowa, but I know absolutely nothing about him.
I didn’t vote for Kerry the last time around as much as I voted against Bush so he doesn’t fill me with enthusiasm. Besides, John will be working on getting his foot out of his mouth for years after that stuck in Iraq crack.
I lost my respect for McCain when he suddenly supported the teaching of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. If someone is willing to trade his integrity for the nomination, how can I have any confidence that he’ll do the right thing once he’s in the Oval Office?
That leaves Rudi and Hillary. I’d have to go with Rudi at the moment.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Bears at Giants
My God what a depressing game. First of all I wasn’t all that thrilled at getting Flex Timed and then there was the rain, which really doesn’t bother me because I’m under the overhang in the lower deck, and then, and then, there was that absurd performance.
The game pivoted on two plays. The first was a third and 22 that the Bears had on their own 20 with 1:30 in the first half. Instead of having to punt they managed a draw play to pick up the first down. A few seconds later we got to half with the Giants only ahead 13-10 rather than 13-3. The funny thing is, the half would have run out if Coughlin hadn’t called time-out.
The second play was, of course, the botched field goal that was run back for a touchdown in the second half. There were 75,000 people yelling “NO, not a 51 yarder in the rain with a shaky kicker,” but Coughlin made the call and it turned into a complete disaster.
Bah. Final score Bears 38 and Giants 20.
The game pivoted on two plays. The first was a third and 22 that the Bears had on their own 20 with 1:30 in the first half. Instead of having to punt they managed a draw play to pick up the first down. A few seconds later we got to half with the Giants only ahead 13-10 rather than 13-3. The funny thing is, the half would have run out if Coughlin hadn’t called time-out.
The second play was, of course, the botched field goal that was run back for a touchdown in the second half. There were 75,000 people yelling “NO, not a 51 yarder in the rain with a shaky kicker,” but Coughlin made the call and it turned into a complete disaster.
Bah. Final score Bears 38 and Giants 20.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Lieberman in Control?
With both the Montana and Virginia senate races now going to Democrats we have a rather interesting situation of the Senate being composed or 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and two Independents, Bernie Sanders from Vermont and Joe Lieberman from Connecticut.
Both Sanders and Lieberman say they will vote with the Democrats for organizational purposes which is why the Democrats have been declared to be in control of the Senate. Sanders is so far left that I think his head would explode if he ever even considered siding with the Republicans on anything but Lieberman is a whole different story.
After being beaten in the Democratic Primary and mounting a successful re-election campaign as an Independent, Lieberman owes nothing to anybody (or should it be nothing to everybody?) and can pretty much write his own ticket. Watch for Joe to do some maneuvering and horse trading over the next two years.
In the meantime Rumsfeld has "resigned." All I can say about that is it's about time. Now if we can only convince the other two spokes on the Axis of Evil, Bush and Cheney, to resign, we might be able to make some real progress toward entering the 21st century.
Both Sanders and Lieberman say they will vote with the Democrats for organizational purposes which is why the Democrats have been declared to be in control of the Senate. Sanders is so far left that I think his head would explode if he ever even considered siding with the Republicans on anything but Lieberman is a whole different story.
After being beaten in the Democratic Primary and mounting a successful re-election campaign as an Independent, Lieberman owes nothing to anybody (or should it be nothing to everybody?) and can pretty much write his own ticket. Watch for Joe to do some maneuvering and horse trading over the next two years.
In the meantime Rumsfeld has "resigned." All I can say about that is it's about time. Now if we can only convince the other two spokes on the Axis of Evil, Bush and Cheney, to resign, we might be able to make some real progress toward entering the 21st century.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Election 2006
Throw the bums out! That’s more or less what the voters did yesterday in what can only be interpreted as a repudiation of the Bush administration and the constant stream of scandals afflicting the Republican Party.
At last count the Democrats had gained 27 seats in the House. That will give them control of the House for the first time since 1994 and Nancy Pelosi stands ready to be first female Speaker and third in line for the presidency. The Democrats gained 4 seats in the Senate. Two seats, in Virginia and Montana, are still undecided. If both go to the Democrats then they will effectively control the Senate as well.
Closer to home Bob Menendez easily beat Tom Kean Jr. for the New Jersey Senate seat by something like 10 points. Junior will be back however and probably has a run for governor in his future. I don’t have a problem with Junior, and his Dad is a good guy, but I still voted for Menendez.
In other senate races I was interested in, the people of Florida soundly rejected Katherine Harris and, in Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, despite losing the Democratic primary, held on to his Senate seat. Good for the people of Florida but I'm not sure the folks in Connecticut made the right decision. Despite the fact that Lieberman says he will support the Democrats he strikes me as way too tolerate of the Bush Administration's policies.
Now let’s move on to some other stuff. Yes, seven states approved amendments banning gay marriage but by much smaller margins than in the past and, wonder of wonders, Arizona became the first state to defeat such a measure.
The extreme abortion ban, passed overwhelmingly by the legislature in South Dakota, was equally overwhelmingly rejected by the voters 55-45. In Missouri an initiative supporting stem cell research passed by a 51-49 margin.
I read these results as a repudiation of the extreme conservative position being pushed by the lunatic fringe in the Republican Party. By being loud and visible they’ve apparently managed to make it look like the country has abandoned its liberal roots. But this isn’t at all true. Like I’ve said many times, the average American is fair minded, ignorant as hell but fair minded. Right wing demagogues try to take advantage of that ignorance by establishing a climate of fear when there’s nothing to be afraid of. Once that ignorance is eliminated by education or knowledge the climate of fear, that the extreme right wing depends upon, evaporates.
Around the world people viewed the election results with a sigh of relief. Some sample quotes reported by the AP.
"’Of course, the citizens of the United States are humans with a conscience. It's a reprisal vote against the war in Iraq, against the corruption’ within the Bush administration, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said. ‘All this fills us with optimism.’”
You have to admit that the man has a way with words. I agree Hugo, I’m more optimistic that the world won’t go up in a big fireball today than I was last week.
“In an extraordinary joint statement, more than 200 Socialist members of the European Parliament hailed the American election results as "the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world.’”
We still have a long way to go though. The Bush Administration hasn’t been shy about doing whatever it wants in defiance of the law, what makes us think it will be shy about doing whatever it wants in defiance of Congress?
We still have to get rid the #1 Bum and replacing him with some equally moronic right winger in 2008 will just put us back where we started. Hillary is starting to look better and better but I’m still holding out for Russ Feingold. Although Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, was on the Bill Maher show a while back and he struck me as a very competent guy who might make a darn good president if he decided to run.
“One Frenchman, teacher Jean-Pierre Charpemtrat, 53, said it was about time U.S. voters figured out what much of the rest of the world already knew.”
Hey, let’s remember that more than half of us voted against Bush in 2000 and almost as many voted against him in 2004. Let's just say that it was about time more of the electorate figured it out.
“In Copenhagen, Denmark, 35-year-old Jens Langfeldt said he did not know much about the midterm elections but was opposed to Bush's values. He referred to the president as ‘that cowboy.’”
LOL! I like that, “that cowboy!” That is absolutely classic! Too bad it’s an insult to self-respecting cowboys everywhere.
“One opposition lawmaker (in Pakistan), Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, said he welcomed the election result but hoped for more. Bush ‘deserves to be removed, put on trial and given a Saddam-like death sentence,’ he said.”
That might be a little extreme, then again, on the other hand, maybe not. Just make sure you get Cheney at the same time Hafiz. We certainly don’t want to trade in Bush for Cheney.
Now let’s just hope that the Democrats don’t screw up so badly in the next two years that not only do the Republicans regain the House but keep the White House as well.
At last count the Democrats had gained 27 seats in the House. That will give them control of the House for the first time since 1994 and Nancy Pelosi stands ready to be first female Speaker and third in line for the presidency. The Democrats gained 4 seats in the Senate. Two seats, in Virginia and Montana, are still undecided. If both go to the Democrats then they will effectively control the Senate as well.
Closer to home Bob Menendez easily beat Tom Kean Jr. for the New Jersey Senate seat by something like 10 points. Junior will be back however and probably has a run for governor in his future. I don’t have a problem with Junior, and his Dad is a good guy, but I still voted for Menendez.
In other senate races I was interested in, the people of Florida soundly rejected Katherine Harris and, in Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, despite losing the Democratic primary, held on to his Senate seat. Good for the people of Florida but I'm not sure the folks in Connecticut made the right decision. Despite the fact that Lieberman says he will support the Democrats he strikes me as way too tolerate of the Bush Administration's policies.
Now let’s move on to some other stuff. Yes, seven states approved amendments banning gay marriage but by much smaller margins than in the past and, wonder of wonders, Arizona became the first state to defeat such a measure.
The extreme abortion ban, passed overwhelmingly by the legislature in South Dakota, was equally overwhelmingly rejected by the voters 55-45. In Missouri an initiative supporting stem cell research passed by a 51-49 margin.
I read these results as a repudiation of the extreme conservative position being pushed by the lunatic fringe in the Republican Party. By being loud and visible they’ve apparently managed to make it look like the country has abandoned its liberal roots. But this isn’t at all true. Like I’ve said many times, the average American is fair minded, ignorant as hell but fair minded. Right wing demagogues try to take advantage of that ignorance by establishing a climate of fear when there’s nothing to be afraid of. Once that ignorance is eliminated by education or knowledge the climate of fear, that the extreme right wing depends upon, evaporates.
Around the world people viewed the election results with a sigh of relief. Some sample quotes reported by the AP.
"’Of course, the citizens of the United States are humans with a conscience. It's a reprisal vote against the war in Iraq, against the corruption’ within the Bush administration, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said. ‘All this fills us with optimism.’”
You have to admit that the man has a way with words. I agree Hugo, I’m more optimistic that the world won’t go up in a big fireball today than I was last week.
“In an extraordinary joint statement, more than 200 Socialist members of the European Parliament hailed the American election results as "the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world.’”
We still have a long way to go though. The Bush Administration hasn’t been shy about doing whatever it wants in defiance of the law, what makes us think it will be shy about doing whatever it wants in defiance of Congress?
We still have to get rid the #1 Bum and replacing him with some equally moronic right winger in 2008 will just put us back where we started. Hillary is starting to look better and better but I’m still holding out for Russ Feingold. Although Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, was on the Bill Maher show a while back and he struck me as a very competent guy who might make a darn good president if he decided to run.
“One Frenchman, teacher Jean-Pierre Charpemtrat, 53, said it was about time U.S. voters figured out what much of the rest of the world already knew.”
Hey, let’s remember that more than half of us voted against Bush in 2000 and almost as many voted against him in 2004. Let's just say that it was about time more of the electorate figured it out.
“In Copenhagen, Denmark, 35-year-old Jens Langfeldt said he did not know much about the midterm elections but was opposed to Bush's values. He referred to the president as ‘that cowboy.’”
LOL! I like that, “that cowboy!” That is absolutely classic! Too bad it’s an insult to self-respecting cowboys everywhere.
“One opposition lawmaker (in Pakistan), Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, said he welcomed the election result but hoped for more. Bush ‘deserves to be removed, put on trial and given a Saddam-like death sentence,’ he said.”
That might be a little extreme, then again, on the other hand, maybe not. Just make sure you get Cheney at the same time Hafiz. We certainly don’t want to trade in Bush for Cheney.
Now let’s just hope that the Democrats don’t screw up so badly in the next two years that not only do the Republicans regain the House but keep the White House as well.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Texans and Giants
Well that was really ugly. Actually it was beyond ugly; it was downright disgraceful. Good thing it was just a game.
You have to win the ugly ones though and the Giants managed 14-10 but I wouldn’t write home about this one. Was everyone, except Tiki, out drinking the night before and hung over? Talk about playing down to an opponent.
Next week I get the “benefit” of flex scheduling as the Bears game gets shifted to Sunday night. I’m more than a little miffed about that. The game doesn’t start until 8:15. That means, unless we get blown out, not heading for home until after midnight. These people do understand that some of us work for a living don’t they?
Elsewhere the Bears turned the ball over 6 times and got butted by the Dolphins 31-13. The least they could have done was saved some of those turnovers for next Sunday. That loss leaves the Colts, at 8-0, as the last unbeaten team.
The weirdest game appears to have been played in Washington where three potential game winning field goals occurred in under a minute of play. First the Redskins missed, then the Cowboys got one blocked and then the Redskins put it away 22-19. That win sort of resuscitates the Redskins who would have been on the edge of elimination with another division loss. The Eagles looked the best of all the NFC East teams. They had a Bye week.
So half the season is over and how do things look? I know you’re just waiting for me to look like a complete idiot by getting everything wrong again aren’t you? Last year I did worse than someone could do by reading tea leaves or flipping coins but that’s what makes it fun.
AFC East
New England wins the division. No one else makes the playoffs.
AFC North
Baltimore wins the division. Cincinnati grabs a Wild Card berth.
AFC South
Indianapolis wins the division. Jacksonville gets a Wild Card spot.
AFC West
San Diego wins the division and both Denver and Kansas City get eeked out of a playoff position.
NFC East
Philadelphia wins the division and Dallas manages a Wild Card slot. My poor Giants fall victim to mounting injuries and an impossible schedule and miss the playoffs this year.
NFC North
Chicago wins the division. No one else makes the playoffs.
NFC South
Atlanta roars back in the second half of the season to win the division. New Orleans manages a Wild Card slot.
NFC West
Seattle wins the division. No one else makes the playoffs.
You have to win the ugly ones though and the Giants managed 14-10 but I wouldn’t write home about this one. Was everyone, except Tiki, out drinking the night before and hung over? Talk about playing down to an opponent.
Next week I get the “benefit” of flex scheduling as the Bears game gets shifted to Sunday night. I’m more than a little miffed about that. The game doesn’t start until 8:15. That means, unless we get blown out, not heading for home until after midnight. These people do understand that some of us work for a living don’t they?
Elsewhere the Bears turned the ball over 6 times and got butted by the Dolphins 31-13. The least they could have done was saved some of those turnovers for next Sunday. That loss leaves the Colts, at 8-0, as the last unbeaten team.
The weirdest game appears to have been played in Washington where three potential game winning field goals occurred in under a minute of play. First the Redskins missed, then the Cowboys got one blocked and then the Redskins put it away 22-19. That win sort of resuscitates the Redskins who would have been on the edge of elimination with another division loss. The Eagles looked the best of all the NFC East teams. They had a Bye week.
So half the season is over and how do things look? I know you’re just waiting for me to look like a complete idiot by getting everything wrong again aren’t you? Last year I did worse than someone could do by reading tea leaves or flipping coins but that’s what makes it fun.
AFC East
New England wins the division. No one else makes the playoffs.
AFC North
Baltimore wins the division. Cincinnati grabs a Wild Card berth.
AFC South
Indianapolis wins the division. Jacksonville gets a Wild Card spot.
AFC West
San Diego wins the division and both Denver and Kansas City get eeked out of a playoff position.
NFC East
Philadelphia wins the division and Dallas manages a Wild Card slot. My poor Giants fall victim to mounting injuries and an impossible schedule and miss the playoffs this year.
NFC North
Chicago wins the division. No one else makes the playoffs.
NFC South
Atlanta roars back in the second half of the season to win the division. New Orleans manages a Wild Card slot.
NFC West
Seattle wins the division. No one else makes the playoffs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
