pro-choice?

echo zoe shows how it depends on the context

it's getting darker

the winds of war are getting stronger than before, and the last thing we need is this windbag's visit.

i wouldn't be surprised if he shows up wearing a dynamite vest...

director's cut

viewpoint has an alternate vision:

You'll recall that in the climactic episode of The Lord of the Rings there was a walled city in which perhaps thousands of people, including many women, children, and elderly took shelter from inhuman savages who had laid seige to their fortress. The attackers thirsted for the blood of the hapless inhabitants and were eager to utterly destroy them and their city.

Those who huddled in terror within feared they would be horribly raped, tortured, and killed in the most gruesome fashion, but they took hope from the fact that they were protected by a phalanx of great warriors who had come from distant lands to defend the city from the savages who howled their threats from beyond the walls. The warriors were very brave and highly skilled in the art of war, but they faced enormous difficulties and what seemed to be overwhelming odds.

So, one night they decided that protecting those who shivered in fear in their hiding places really wasn't worth the cost and they considered leaving. "But what of the poor women and children in the fortress?" some asked. "Aren't they depending on us? Haven't we promised we'd protect them? Won't they be slaughtered if we abandon them?"

The reply came down from their superiors that "these people should be able by now to fend for themselves, and if they can't that's their problem, not ours." Thus the mighty army rode out that night under cover of darkness, fleeing to safety, and the people inside the fortress wept bitterly as the savage beasts swept in and brutally murdered them all.

Actually, that last part didn't happen in the movie, but only because the warriors in the story weren't listening to Harry Reid and MoveOn.org.

details

after a good initial impression (and one possible setback), fred thompson's website now has many more details of how he stands on the issues.

he's baaaaaack

...and he still puts an extra "h" at the end of the name of this blog.

maybe it's for balance?

Fred's In

update: okay, maybe he's not the candidate real conservatives would hope for. we'll see...

Fred Thompson is apparently running for President.

We've heard lots of speculation and hardly any specifics, but this first part of his platform looks pretty good:

The Framers drew their design for our Constitution from a basic understanding of human nature. From the wisdom of the ages and from fresh experience, they understood the better angels of our nature, and the less admirable qualities of human beings entrusted with power.

The Framers believed in free markets, rights of property and the rule of law, and they set these principles firmly in the Constitution. Above all, the Framers enshrined in our founding documents, and left to our care, the principle that rights come from our Creator and not from our government.

We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.

The federalist construct of strong states and limited federal government put in place by our Founders was intended to give states the freedom to experiment and innovate. It envisions states as laboratories in competition with each other to develop ideas and programs to benefit their people, to see what works and what does not.

This ingenious means of governing a large and diverse nation prevailed for more than a century. But today our Constitution and the limited, federalist government it established, are considered by many to be quaint or out of touch with the world we live in, to be swept aside by political expediency.

The Supreme Court sometimes ignores the written Constitution to reflect its view of the times. So does Congress, which routinely forgets that our checks and balances, the separation of powers and our system of federalism are designed to diffuse power and protect the liberties of our people. Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, “Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?” But they don’t.

The result has been decades of growth in the size, scope and function of national government. Today’s governance of mandates, pre-emptions, regulations, and federal programs bears little resemblance to the balanced system the Framers intended.

...

When you hold firm to the principles of federalism, there’s another advantage: our federal government can better carry out its own defining responsibilities – above all else, the security of our nation and the safety of our citizens. Sometimes I think that our leaders in Washington try to do so many things, in so many areas, that they lose sight of their basic responsibilities.

We saw some improvement in the post-1994, “Contract with America” takeover of Congress – strings to federal programs were cut, more federal programs were being turned over to states, historic legislation to reduce unfunded mandates became law, and we rolled back the Clinton anti-federalism executive order. But in recent years we’ve seen backsliding.

...

It is not enough to say that we are “for” federalism, because in today’s world it is not always clear what that means. What we are “for” is liberty for our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are questions we must answer. Our challenge – meaning the federal government, the states, our communities and constituents – is to answer these questions together.

juche ideal

update & bump: via IGST, the winds of war were blowing last month, and we didn't even know it...

Take a look at Kim Jong Il's paradise on earth, read this Orwellian biography of their dear leader, then tell me again why anyone believes they can negotiate with him.

news credibility...

is less than zero.

here's
three
lists

with dozens of examples why.

(...and they have the nerve to complain that their ratings are down.)

Randall Hoven concludes:

• These offenses have been going on for years, long before the internet. But there does seems to be a rise in the number of reported offenses in recent years. Did the number of offenses go up, or did the fraction of discovered offenses go up?
• In a good number of these cases, the errors were caught by non-journalists, sometimes communicating over the internet.
• The Pulitzer Prize and the Nobel Peace Prize just ain't all they're cracked up to be.
• If this is the visible part of the iceberg, just how big is the iceberg?

numbers

here's something to tide you over until i write a real post:

"arabic numerals" aren't exactly arabic,

how "arabic numerals" came to the west, and

be glad we don't use "egyptian fractions".

gone but not forgotten

this blog has not been completely abandoned. i'm still just completely out of motivation to attempt to write anything worthwhile...

It Is Well

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

It is well,
with my soul.
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blessed assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.

It is well,
with my soul.
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

It is well,
with my soul.
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.

It is well,
with my soul.
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

(written by a man who had more to mourn than i)

Constitution Party

Via a rightfully angry Miss O'Hara, the Constitution Party looks like an idea whose time has come... or whose time has been around since 1787...

(comment moderation is still in effect, and trolls will be ignored)

blogroll categories

you may notice that there are now fewer categories in my blogroll. the majority of links have been put into the 'main roll'. this in no way intended to reflect poorly on anyone listed. it's just that a single category of 'humorous', 'cool', 'popular', (or any other single word) is inadequate to describe many of them.

graphic content

I was inspired by a convergence of ideas* recently, and created a graphic to express the thought. Feel free to use it however you want, I'd just appreciate a link back here if you do.



(* thanks to Local Malcontent and Anonymous Atheist)

late summary

In this post I announced my intention to clarify and expand on some of the comments made in this post. However there have been various delays (obviously); some in my control, some not. In the meantime as I considered how to clarify those ideas, it seemed that they all turned into refutations of arguments which would only lead to further arguments, civil or otherwise. Even the best of them were little more than paraphrasing what C.S. Lewis has already said much more eloquently.

One theme did run throughout those various topics which is worth mentioning: If a person refuses to believe the Source of truth, any further discourse would be hollow words, biting and devouring one another in the sophistication of logic. No one may be saved or condemned by mere argument, but on the foundation of their faith, and faith in anything within the world - no matter how noble it appears - is doomed.

cancer cure?

original post march 2007:

New Scientist reports hopeful news on the health front:

It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers... dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.

It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.

Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.

update & bump April 22 2007:

Though there is still potential for DCA to become a cure, the hype may be premature. Other articles pro and con here, here, here, here, here, and... lots more.

sifting

The previous post drew many comments from one atheist, with several overlapping issues being mentioned. Though I tried to respond to each, I did so in a hasty and disorganized manner. The next few posts will separate and try to clarify some of those issues. Topics may include:

Separation of church and state.
Morality vs Relativism.
Old Testament laws.
Faith requirements for all belief systems.
Reliability of ancient texts.
and others.

Return of the King-Bashing

Molten Thought points to an American Spectator article about a dangerous trend:

While (blasphemous modern "art") and Church-bashing documentaries are frustrating, there is something that is more offensive still. That much of the media in the U.S. and Europe are politically liberal is a given. What is becoming increasingly alarming is the anti-Christian slant with which they present the news and its growing influence on some Americans...

This manipulation of public opinion is at work as we speak. Is the practice of infanticide called abortion a political hot potato? If so, it's (reported as) the fault of the followers of Jesus, and not those who actually take innocent life. Are diseases like AIDS killing thousands? Don't look to those who encourage sexual licentiousness; (they) blame the Catholic Church for not handing out condoms in Africa. Terrorism? (It's reported as) merely payback for Christian-American repression and/or the Crusades.

But could this disinformation policy practically affect the thinking of the huge majority of Americans who claim to worship Jesus Christ? Too much of the public seems to be acting out these nefarious ideas, the worst of which is the doctrine that people must keep their faith -- the Christian one only, thank you -- out of public life lest they be considered religious fanatics. After all, everyone knows that "more people have been killed as a result of religious wars" than any other, right?

The 20th century was the bloodiest, most savage epoch in recorded human history, yet little of the carnage was a direct result of religious pursuits; quite the opposite. Most of the regimes responsible for the deaths of untold millions were those that discarded Christianity in favor of the State. The extent of suffering in the service of Communism, Socialism and Nazism was unprecedented; as was that of those who opposed them.

Our constitutional republic, with its safeguarding of religious liberty and God-given rights, is one of the only forms of government that can stand in the doorway of such ferocity. As we presently see, there are certain religions whose tenets are totally incompatible with protecting those rights for all. Our Christian heritage -- tempered by the experiences of our European forefathers -- paradoxically guarantees the rights of others to disparage its Founder with impunity.

But this does not mean we must accede to their irrational fears and hatred for those whose charity toward them springs from the heart of Jesus Christ. As history has painfully demonstrated, less Christianity leads to more violence and hate, while true adherence to the Gospel can only bring the peace and love of which liberals so fondly speak.

missing

Sad report: the Mish-Mash blog seems to have gone away, hopefully only temporarily. The last entry was sometime around Thanksgiving 06, and hosting was suspended about a week ago. His... unique... brand of humor will be missed.

p.s. some of the graphics for this site were hosted on his site, and so are now missing, most noticeably the title bar. this will be fixed in the near future.

among other things...

Viewpoint points to fifteen reasons that it's far more rational to believe in God than to disbelieve:

1. The exquisite fine-tuning of the cosmic parameters, forces and constants.
2. The existence in the biosphere of specified complexity (i.e. biological information).
3. The fact of human consciousness.
4. Our sense that we are obligated to act morally.
5. Our belief in human dignity.
6. Our belief in human worth.
7. Our belief in human rights.
8. Our desire for justice for others.
9. Our need for meaning and purpose in life.
10. Our longing for life beyond death.
11. Our sense that we have an enduring self.
12. Our sense that we are free to make genuine choices and that the future is not determined.
13. Our sense that the universe must have had a cause and that it didn't cause itself.
14. Our sense of guilt.
15. Our sense that reason is trustworthy.

...and if you already believe, these articles are also good.

update: Theosebes reports on both the irrational and rational. One relevant quote from the rational:

Director of the Human Genome Project Dr. Francis Collins reflects on his spiritual journey from atheism to belief: "I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus."