Bill's Comments

Karl at Rite Wing TechnoPagan linked to this letter of apology and then added some items of his own:

Letter Of Apology

Author unknown - sentiment shared.

For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day My Lai massacre.

I heard some Arabs are asking for an apology. I humbly offer mine here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Arabs.

I am sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships. I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools.

I am sorry that Yassir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and hijacked the Palestinian "cause."

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA.

I am sorry that our own left wing elite and our media can't understand any of this.

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

I am sorry that those same bombers are seeking 72 virgins. I can't seem to find one here on Earth.

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think babies are a legitimate target.

I am sorry that our troops died to free more Arabs.

I am sorry they show so much restraint when their brothers in arms are killed. I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen "Daisy Cutters" on Fallujah. (Note: a "Daisy Cutter" is a 10,000 lb bomb, used to clear helicopter landing zones)

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site".

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, etc.

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.

I am sorry the French are french?

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do. We hang out our dirty laundry for all the world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated? Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujans.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait. You have a better chance of finding those 72 virgins.

Karls additions:

I have a few items to add.

I'm sorry we suck up 80% of the world's resources, in exchange for 80% of the money the rest of the world receives.

I'm sorry we use those resources to produce more than 80% of the world's goods and services, including life-saving drugs and high-tech equipment.

I'm sorry the USA sheds 80% of the blood spilled in wars to free people from their own tyrants.

I'm sorry that the USA promotes and advocates such a high standard of conduct. It must emberass the living daylights out of so many countries when their own conduct falls short by such an amount that they don't even claim any interest in following it.

I'm sorry we're among the few countries willing to even try to meet such a standard of conduct. I'm sorry that we, being human, fall short the sort of perfection so few even attempt.

I'm sorry the USA is such a horrible place that people spend all their resources, up to and including their lives, trying to get here from all those other countries to which this apology is sent.

I'm sorry the USA is willing to step forward and deal with bullies that leave the rest of the world trailing yellow liquid wherever they go.

I'm sorry the rest of the world, too frightened to express any anger to bullies, turn and call the USA a spoiled brat, and throw a temper tantrum and threaten to hold their breaths until we do what they want.

I'm sorry we had to be the first to set up a government conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

I'm sorry we need to fight in wars to ensure that this government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from this earth.

And to any who are offended by my apology or the one I linked to, I'm sorry you're such a crybaby.

The Jawa Report has some inspiring quotes from an organization called the Free Muslim Coalition. Go read the whole thing.

Quantum Thought reached over 10,000 hits today. Congratulations, Norm.

The AnalPhilosopher has posed a conundrum. I quote it to make sure I have it correctly. Since I can never pass up a test, I will comment below.

Today I was stumped by the following. I saw a young man on campus who was wearing leg coverings that came to mid-calf. Are they long shorts, I wondered, or short pants? What do you think? Defend your answer.

First of all, I immediately have a vision of what he is seeing, but have to be careful, because my vision may be consistent with the given data, which is actually sparse, but may not be accurate at all.

Here are some observations I would have rapidly made to determine the answer:

1. Where is the waist-band? a) At his waist or b) almost off his butt?

2. Where is the crotch of the pants relative to the bottom of the leg, a) less than 12 inches, b) 12-20 inches c) over 20 inches?

3. Do the coverings a) taper or b) stay straight

4. What is the size of the openings, a) about 12 inches or less in diameter b) well over 12 inches in diameter?

5. What is the material a) denim b) cotton broadcloth (like Dockers) c) suit serge?

6. Are they a) hemmed, b) cut off?

7. What is the style in general, a) staid or b) mod in the rock, punk, etc. sense?

Analysis:
1 a) argues for short pants. Wearing so-called Jams or big, low shorts is done low.
1 b) argues strongly for "long shorts" actually they may be regular, baggy shorts that are worn so low on his butt that they hit mid-calf.

2 a) argues almost absolutely for shorts that are riding very low. One of the essential definitions of shorts is short legged pants.
2 c) argues almost absolutely for pants. Twenty inches is a long inseam.
2 b) might be indeterminate, but actually is most likely excluded, as not existing except in children's pants.

3 a) would indicate pants, as there is no strong taper in shorts.
3 b) is a weak determinant because I have seen long pants with no taper and very large openings (18 inches in diameter or 28 inches across folded flat). However, a large opening would argue more for shorts than for pants unless there were strong criteria otherwise.

4 a) would argue for pants, they usually have narrow openings at the leg
4 b) is weak like 3 b) but can be good corroborative evidence

5 a) is mostly a supplemental criterion, putting more certainty on assignment of style
5 b) tends to argue for pants, I have never seen shorts that reach mid-calf in that material
5 c) unless cut off is pants

6 a) not determinative by itself
6 b) shorts almost by definition, though could be over-ridden by 1 a) or 2 c).

7 a) would tend to indicate short pants,
7 b) would require some confirmation, but weighs strongly for long shorts.

What I have done with this question is to change the approach. As stated, I consider the question indeterminate. There is insufficient information to make a decision. I have indicated the criteria I would use to properly answer the question.

However, I just tried to find a situation that would be sufficiently ambiguous and as soon as any criteria other than the end of the leg covering is applied, the answer starts becoming less ambiguous.

If this is a test of how does one use the sole criteria of leg opening ending at mid-calf to define long shorts or short pants, it fails, because the definition of shorts, as commonly used, requires some reference, either directly or indirectly, to the inseam length. Women have pants that come to mid-calf deliberately, and they are called neither long shorts nor short pants, but calypso pants. When I was a child they were called pedal pushers.

My thanks to Keith; this was a fun exercise. If I have completely missed the boat, let me and the whole world know in the comments.

This article from Fox News describes euthanasia of new-borns for terminal illness. I have extracted parts of it. It is important to read the rest.

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — A hospital in the Netherlands (search) — the first nation to permit euthanasia — recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital (search) came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives — a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.

...

The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.

Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.

The hospital revealed last month it carried out four such mercy killings in 2003, and reported all cases to government prosecutors. There have been no legal proceedings against the hospital or the doctors.

Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium has also legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is currently under debate. In the United States, the state of Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but this is under constant legal challenge.

The last two paragraphs are worth special comment:

"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do."

More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it's really about management and method of death, Stell said.

The withdrawal of life support is NOT the same as euthanasia. This is a blatant attempt to trivialize a major philosophical issue. Euthanasia is the active administring of a lethal substance or condition. Withdrawal of life support is not the same. The first condemned by religious authorities and the second is accepted under proper guidelines.

For those who want to read a clear exposition of this issue, here are links to a paper in two parts by J P Moreland. (1 and 2)

I think that PC is the one thing that will raise my blood pressure faster than all the others that I read in the news. This quote from PD James, the British mystery writer (and an excellent one) tells part of the story:

I believe that political correctness can be a form of linguistic fascism, and it sends shivers down the spine of my generation who went to war against fascism.

--P D James

There is more. Besides suppressing dissent and controlling what we are allowed to say, PC leads to distortions and lies. In fact, I think that may be one of its unstated goals--not to protect people from offense, but to propagate a world view that is a lie and to destroy fundamental values. Note that what is not PC are those things which have absolute moral value. PC values are relative. Suppression of the right is PC, but criticism of the left is not.

It reminds me of chickweed. Once it gets in a yard it is almost impossible to remove without major chemical treatment. Trying to remove it a plant at a time is doomed to failure, and that is what we are currently doing. There is a need, and I don't know how to satisfy it, for a major, large-scale eradication of PC domination -- something analogous to 2,4,D. (A most effective and non-green herbicide.)

This is what the liberal left does to those who differ, if they are able to.

Gardner's story is one that bears telling. He volunteered for the Navy, enlisting on his 18th birthday in February 1966. After training, he was shipped to Vietnam and served for two years as a gunner in the swift boat division. His superior, for four months, was none other than Lt. j.g. John F. Kerry.

"I had confrontations with him there. He nearly got us rammed by the VC one night because he wasn't watching the helm. I heard the motor coming close, turned on the spotlight, and the boat was only 90 feet away, coming fast. The VC was aiming an AK47 at us. I shot him out of the boat. We pulled a woman and a baby off the boat. Kerry wrote it up that we captured two VC and killed four more on the beach. None of that was true. The only thing true on Kerry's report was the date. The woman was catatonic and wouldn't call her baby VC and there were no VC on the beach. If we had seen that report before Kerry sent it up the chain of command, he would have been court-martialed and never allowed to run for office. And that's just the San Pan incident. There was much more. He is a self-aggrandizing bold-faced liar. I believe he caused the extension of that war."

Gardner told this story and others to radio stations and he wrote a piece for the local paper. Then, he says, he received a phone call from John Hurley, the veterans organizer for Kerry's campaign. Hurley, Gardner says, asked him to come out for Kerry. He told Hurley to leave him alone and that he'd never be for Kerry. It was then Gardner says, he was threatened with, "You better watch your step. We can look into your finances."

Next, Gardner said he received a call from Douglas Brinkley, the author of Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. Brinkley told Gardner he was calling only to "fact check" the book -- which was already in print. "I told him that the guy in the book is not the same guy I served with. I told him Kerry was a coward. He would patrol the middle of the river. The canals were dangerous. He wouldn't go there unless he had another boat pushing him."

Days later, Brinkley called again, warning Gardner to expect some calls. It seems Brinkley had used the "fact checking" conversation to write an inflammatory article about Gardner for Time.com. The article, implying that Gardner was politically motivated, appeared under the headline "The 10th Brother."

Twenty-four hours later, Gardner got an e-mail from his company, Millennium Information Services, informing him that his services would no longer be necessary. He was laid off in an e-mail -- by the same man who only days before had congratulated him for his exemplary work in a territory which covered North and South Carolina. The e-mail stated that his position was being eliminated. Since then, he's seen the company advertising for his old position. Gardner doesn't have the money to sue to get the job back.

"I'm broke. I've been hurt every way I can be hurt. I have no money in the bank but am doing little bits here and there to pay the bills," he said.

All the millions of dollars raised by Gardner and his fellow Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and all the proceeds from John O'Neill's book, Unfit for Command, go to families of veterans, POWs and MIAs.

And, even though Gardner is broke and jobless for speaking out, the husband and father of three says he'd do it all over again. He says it wasn't for politics. It was for America.

Think what would have happened if Kerry had won. It would have made the purges in communist countries look small.

Thanks to Drudge for the link to the complete article.

Here is the text of a talk I will deliver at our Wednesday evening Advent Service.

Last Sunday was the First Sunday in Advent, the beginning of the ecclesiastical year. It is a time of anticipation, but different from other times of anticipation. From Advent we move to Christmas and after a few weeks to Lent. Lent is also a time of anticipation, but of a far different character.

During Lent we are anticipating the death of Jesus and his triumph over death on Easter Sunday. But we are also spending our time contemplating our own sinfulness and being made aware of our inadequacies, as well as Jesus’ suffering. And it makes the joy of Easter more apparent having emerged from the depths of our Lenten meditations.

There is a major difference in the joy of Jesus’ birth and the joy of his salvation on the cross. The cross requires death as part of the process of salvation. Without death there is no triumph. At Advent we are anticipating the beginning of life, not its end. And we will celebrate that life on Christmas.

So what is our anticipation like at Advent? We are not contemplating our sinfulness as a major focus. We have just completed the harvest and the joys and pleasures of Thanksgiving. We enter into Advent with joy and satisfaction.

It is also the start of the Christmas season with the constant crowds and sales, and children anticipating the coming of Santa Claus. So in the world around us we are excited, harried from shopping and crowds, possibly concerned over the money we are spending or expected to spend, even feeling somewhat like the Grinch or Scrooge. There is almost an hysterical quality about the secular Christmas season, in its anticipation of gifts, food and celebration.

At the same time in the church we are anticipating the birth of Jesus. Certainly there is joy, but it is more contemplative. There is not the concern over getting something that might or might not be there, salvation is always there. We do not have to battle crowds to pay our homage to the birth of Jesus, there is room for everyone. Nor do we have to concern ourselves with all the material issues – we receive the gift of God’s love, and in return we give the gift of our homage, adoration, and praise. We can be more relaxed, focused, and peaceful.

As we anticipate the beginning of the life of Jesus, so we also can anticipate our renewal as we start the church year anew. It is coincidental that we celebrate the calendar New Year so close to Christmas, but we can use it to consider Advent much like writing New Year’s resolutions – a time to think about the beginning of Jesus’ life and a re-beginning of our own lives.

During the first Advent, when Mary and Joseph awaited the birth of Jesus, wondering what would be the future, the anticipation was one of the unknown. Today we know the outcome of that story, but there is still that which is unknown, our own futures. So we can anticipate the known birth of Jesus and its meaning, and at the same time anticipate the renewal of our selves.

This Advent as we await the birth of Jesus, let us also prepare for our own rebirth and renewal.

I have blogged on the virtues of Frederick Forsyth before. Here is an exerpt from his book, The Phantom of Manhattan[1], which is a sequel to The Phantom of the Opera. It is a short and emotional read, with Forsyth's usual clear presentation of right, wrong, and redemption. This particular passage is from a lecture by one of the characters, who at this stage of the story is a respected professor of journalism.

Journalism is a form of power. Badly used, power is a tyranny; well and carefuly used it is a requirement without which no society can survive and prosper. But that brings us to rule four: it is not our job to ever to join the Establishment, to pretend that we have, by close juxtaposition, actually joined the high and the mighty. Our job in a democracy is to probe, to uncover, to check, to expose, to unveil, to question, to interrogate. Our job is to disbelieve, until that which we are being told can be proved to be true. Because we have power, we are besieged by the mountebanks, the phonies, the charlatans, the snake-oil salesmen--in finance, commerce, industry, showbiz and above all politics.

Your masters must be Truth and the reader, no one else, Never fawn, never cower, never be bullied into submission and never forget that the reader with his dime has as much right to your effort and your respect, as much right to hear the truth as the Senate. Remain therefore skeptical in the face of power and privilege and you will do us all credit.

That it were believed today.

[1] The Phantom of Manhattan, Frederick Forsyth, Thomas Dunne Books, an imprint of St. Martin's Press, New York, N.Y., 1999, p. 150.

I have earthworms in my flower beds. That of itself is not a particularly outstanding fact. Most people have earthworms in their flower beds. However, if you consider that my flower beds are around a three years old condo and are composed of a six foot layer of clay subsoil overlain by three inches or less of bark mulch, and that I have never brought in earthworms, how did they get there? They didn't crawl in from somewhere else, the entire area is just like the ground around my condo.

Backtrack a bit to beginning zoology or perhaps to parasitology. One of the ways lower phyla disperse is by hitching rides on more mobile phyla. Malaria a protozoan uses misquitoes. Parasitic worms pass eggs in the feces of their hosts, which are eaten by the larvae of the parasitic insects that feed on the hosts, which in turn are eaten by the hosts to infest or re-infest themselves. I would speculate that the same occurs with earthworms, which are annelids (segmented worms) vs. platyhelmenthids (flat worms) or nematodes (round worms). Nature is conservative, one she discovers a good trick she keeps on using it in modified ways.

Here is the mechanism. Robins eat earthworms. I have seen robins in my yard the last year or two. I do remember that earthworms have eggs. They also propagate by regeneration (each segment can form a new worm). Robins eat earthworms, the eggs are excreted. Since robins are always looking for new territory to feed, they visit my yard, leave earthworm eggs, even though I have no earthworms at first, and in a year or two, they have a new cafeteria, and I have healthier flowers and grass.

By the way, plants do the same thing, hitch rides on and in animals.

If there is anyone in my readership that does not read the Maverick Philosopher, here is a link he published to an essay that I highly recommend.

The courts are now engaging in prior restraint, an activity which has been explicitly ruled as unconstitutional. See this report by Quantum Thought.

Battleground God is a very interesting test that checks the consistency of ones beliefs in God. Here are my results:

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting no bullets suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.

The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, this did not occur, and consequently, you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!

Thanks to American Digest for the link.

I hope everyone has a happy Thanksgiving and has much to be thankful for.

Here is the last of my poetic offerings as a Thanksgiving post.

The Ten O'Clock Scholar has a post on pacifism well worth reading.

Teaser:

Indeed, pacifism enables Evil.

A Rabbi, reflecting on Ecclesiastes, makes the case for more Hate; some excerpts from an article which should be read in full (he answers all the obvious objections to such a position):
Evil currently stalks the earth because there isn't enough hate.

is the title of this powerful essay by Mychal Massie. Definitely read it.

Thanks to Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog for the link.

aren't so ordinary. This article in TCS shows how faith-based work in the community is far more effective than government programs. Well worth reading.

Rupert Murdock has an excellent essay this morning in the WSJ Opinion Journal.

These days, it's not always easy to talk about the benefits of immigration. Especially since 9/11, many Americans worry about borders and security. These are legitimate concerns. But surely a nation as great as America has the wit and resources to distinguish between those who come here to destroy the American Dream--and the many millions more who come to live it.

...

The point is that by almost any measure of educational excellence you choose, if you're in America you're going to find immigrants or their children at the top. I don't just mean engineers and scientists and technicians. In my book, anyone who comes here and gives an honest day's work for an honest day's pay is not only putting himself closer to the American Dream, he's helping the rest of us get there too.

Read it all. Those two paragraphs aren't the best parts.

The Maximum Leader has asked a fascinating question dealing with the very issue of predestination. Actually his ruminations strike deeply at the roots of Christian doctrine. Not only do they point out difficulties with predestination, but they imply a conflict with the ideas of Jesus being human and the Son of God both and being aware of it. They also assume that the Biblical story is correct, that God sent Jesus down to do as he did, to save mankind. There are very deep issues here. I have copied the two critical paragraphs:

Riddle your Maximum Leader this... Can Judas really be held responsible for his betrayal of Jesus if one is a good reformed Protestant Christian and believes in predestination? If you do, then it was in God's own plan that Judas do what he did. How can you hold him in fault for something he was predestined to do? Without Judas, how would Jesus have fulfilled his purpose?

Even if you don't believe in predestination, think about it. Jesus would have still needed a betrayer. Jesus had foreknowledge of his betrayal, though perhaps not his betrayer. This would imply, at least, that it was in the Divine Plan for someone to act in the role of betrayer. Can that person, Judas Iscariot, really be fully culpable for his role in The Plan? Does he deserve to be devoured by Satan in the lowest circle of Hell?

I have always had a problem with the concept of predestination. Martin Luther espoused it, in particular in his debates with Erasmus. My first blog on Determinism and Free Will discussed this. The problem with predestination is that it undercuts the whole idea of free will. It also destroys the concept of moral virtue, since if one is predestined, then the choices already are made. Morality rests on the existence of free will. Without the choice to sin or not, or to do evil or not, there is no virtue in not sinning or in not doing evil, and the supererogation(?, I shouldn't use Keith's words if I'm not sure how to spell them!) of doing good is also non-existent.

How could Judas feel remorse for something he did if he had no choice in the matter? Judas committed suicide when he realized the magnitude of his betrayal. Again, suicide is considered an unforgivable sin. (My guess is because the perpetrator of the murder is no longer alive to ask for forgiveness and be penitent.) So not only has Judas been predestined to betray Jesus, but he is also predestined to kill himself in an unforgivable sin. According to predestination doctrine, God condemned Judas to Hell from the get go. The poor schmuck didn't have a chance.

The problem gets worse if we hypothesize that God created Judas specifically for the role. It implies the whole thing is a setup. God creates the perfect man to be killed by Judas so that we can have all our sins forgiven. I have discussed this in various places in other posts, but never put it together in quite this way before. The nature of the underlying transaction doesn't make sense. It is a phenomenal synthesis of elements of the sacrifice of the first born son and the scapegoat. Only the scapegoat is sacrificed instead of run out of the city. Jesus crucifixion is often compared to the sacrifice of the lamb at Passover. So major cultic elements of the Jewish ritual are combined in the concept.

The Dantean idea of Judas being devoured in the lowest rung of Hell by the Devil has strong emotional appeal. After all the Devil and Judas betrayed God, the first God as God, and the second God as Man. But again if Jesus had to be betrayed for the good to come, then Mike is right, it is hardly fair or just to punish the betrayer. One could argue he is not the betrayer but the saver, for without the betrayal there is no martyrdom of Jesus.

Here is the point at which I become heretical. If one removes the idea that the whole betrayal and crucifixion was the plan of God and totally under his control, the problem becomes much more tractable. If we suppose that God is like us in a much larger sense in that He plays the hand He is dealt rather than stacking the deck, then Judas can indeed be considered immoral for his betrayal. We have an aspiring Rabbi that finds he cannot support the conventional doctrine and preaches a much more inclusionary and forgiving doctrine that is effectively undercutting the influence of the established faith. Judas has the choice of accepting the new doctrine or the old, and his avarice(or the Devil?) leads him to accept the old. In so doing he commits himself to remove the source of the new doctrine. After he does so, he so remorseful he kills himself. All these now are choices Judas makes not determined behavior. In this approach any betrayer would fit, not just specifically Judas.

To commit further heresy, [you have been warned] let us suppose the Epistle writers, in particular Paul, simply put the control of God and the cultic imagery into the story as their interpretation, and it struck such an emotional chord in his congregations that it stuck. After all, sin and sinfulness are major pre-occupations of many. To find a way to get to Heaven after all, via a satisfying symbolic route, would be very persuasive. My reading of the gospel material does not find Jesus' divinity. It is in the epistles that it is found.

As to Jesus foreknowledge of his betrayal, he was probably an austute enough politician to realize that the Sanhedrin was out to get him. I don't think it necessarily indicates a divine plan. We must also consider here that Jesus had to be fully human without divine knowledge for his actions to count as examples to us. I have argued that in the past, and the Maverick Philosopher had a series of discussions on this a month ago in a very philosophically deep way of the problem of Incarnation. In my way of thinking, Jesus was acting as fully human and not divine, until after the crucifixion. [One can still argue against divinity here also, but it is outside this discussion] In such a case he had no pre-knowledge other than what a careful observer and powerful analytical thinker would have.

The other way out of the problem is to define predestination in such a way that it allows for free will to change the outcome. That is an oxy-moron.

Yesterday (11/21/2004) was the final Sunday in the church year, and is designated as Christ the King Sunday. According to the sermon our pastor gave, this was first promulgated by Pius XI in 1925 as part of an effort to give some hope and encouragement to Europe which was still in a mess from WW I. I have not read the encyclical, but I have spent a lot of thought on this topic. It was the issue of Christ as King that started me on my study of the Gospels. I have related the story in one of my other religious posts.

This post will be longer than most, as I am going to bring together all the work I have done on this question. In particular, I want to emphasize the comparisons of translations of some critical passages that are often quoted as supporting the concept of Christ the King. I consider such use of the passages as an error, as I shall point out. I will present what I call my synthetic translation with commentary on the translation of the critical passages in the four gospels (I am only presenting the verses that relate to the question). This synthetic translation is the result of comparing nine different translations from three or four different translation traditions to determine what I would consider the best rendering of the underlying Greek text, which is the starting point. I will then bring in pertinent commentary, both from scholars and myself as a discussion. Finally I will make some concluding comments.

THE SYNTHETIC TRANSLATION

Because of the length, I am removing the translation and notes from here but leaving them in the copy in Bill's Religious Archive. I strongly urge anyone that wants to see the full argument to read that version. The translation notes contain much that forms a base for the discussion below.

MY COMMENTARY

Mark and Matthew both have the council gathering at morning, conferring, and then sending Jesus bound to Pilate. In Luke they are already in session in the morning, having not met at night. John has him led from Caiaphas’ house where he had been taken after questioning by Annas. All of the Gospels place Jesus at the high priest’s house in the morning and three of the four imply or report a discussion or examination.
I take that as sufficient evidence to imply at least one daytime hearing or “trial” of two, which is required for condemnation, according to all the commentaries. However, all commentators hedge their conclusion by noting that the source of legal standards may not have been completely applicable at the time of Jesus’ trials. I will reserve a full discussion of the Jewish trial process for a section of its own.

After arrival at Pilate’s residence, only John states whether they went in or not, and he specifically states that they did not for fear of being “defiled”. Apparently the Jews remained outside the residence, although only John’s narrative shows this with clear entry and exit from the Praetorium by Pilate. At the same time, according to John, Jesus is inside the Praetorium. At least one other commentator was struck as I am by the irony of the Sanhedrin condemning a man to death on trumped up charges and possibly an illegal trial proceeding, and then worrying about being defiled. At the same time they show no concern for Jesus, who is also a Jew. Jesus would be defiled also by being brought into the Praetorium, however, if the goal is to have him killed as soon as possible, he won’t be participating in Passover. Ugly people, the Sanhedrin.

At this point, there is a marked loss of detail in Mark and Matthew. They jump directly to the question, “Are you the king of the Jews.” However, both Luke and John provide some information on the charges the Sanhedrin is bringing. Note, however, that in John, there is a major equivocation. When asked what the charges are, the Jews say that he deserves to be tried. And when told to deal with it themselves, say that they aren’t allowed to invoke the death penalty. (Since this relates to the legality of the trial, I will provide discussion in that section) I am ignoring Jn18:32, possibly being an interpolation of a later scribe to show the fulfillment of a prophesy. In any case it does not contribute to the flow of the narrative or provide useful information. In Luke they specifically state a set of charges, stated as a threat to the civil authority. They deliberately misquote the “render unto Caesar” lesson as instruction to not pay taxes, and they imply that the claim to Messiahship is an attempt to be a civil king. My inclination based on the material itself is to consider Luke as being close to accurate. In addition, in John the question, “Are you the king of the Jews?” has insufficient precursors to make true sense. Mark and Matthew simply present the question without lead-in. Without the context of Luke, this question makes no sense.

Jesus answer as I have chosen it for my Marcan translation is ambiguous as is the answer to the Sanhedrin in Luke and Matthew. (However, see also my discussion in the Synthetic Translation Commentary on Luke in the section Jesus Before Pilate.) What is of interest, is that even Mark does not give the unequivocal “I am” that was in the examination before the Sanhedrin. In John the answer is not even given, Jesus asks a question of his own. John is where we see the re-emergence of the Jesus that has a combative or resistive streak. However, I have the idea from the scripture that Jesus is not arguing to save his life, but rather to make the point that he does not make the claim. Jesus does not preach civil revolt and in keeping with “render unto Caesar” he makes no claim of civil kingship. Pilate, or other civil authority, would have to make that pronouncement.

With respect to the dialog with Pilate, I do not see clarity for the question as to whether Jesus claims to be an ecclesiastical king. It is implied in the statement that “my kingdom is not of this world.” However, does “my” indicate the kingdom he owns, or the kingdom in which he has membership? There are a number of other problems with this dialog in John. First of all, what is John’s source and how reliable is it? Pilate is examining Jesus inside his court where no Jews have gone. But for that matter, how many Gentiles were there? And was John’s source well enough known to them for them to tell him what occurred? As reported the dialog is not a true dialog. Each is talking past the other. What Jesus says can be construed as a defense; he is assuring Pilate that he is not interested in civil authority. Unlike the common interpretation, I do not agree that Jesus is saying he was born to be a king. I think he is saying he is born to teach the truth. (See the Synthetic Translation Commentary for more detail on this.)

The longer I think on Pilate’s question, “What is truth?”, the more I am unclear as to what Pilate is really asking. I don’t think it is a serious question. It could be rhetorical, which is the way that I generally have taken it, but now I wonder if it is not derisive. A sarcastic question would be in keeping with a political person confronting a religious issue. It is a way of dismissing the issue without dealing with it.

At this point Jesus says nothing further. Mark (15:3-5) and Matthew (27:12-15) make this explicit, while John and Luke simply report nothing else as said by Jesus. Did Jesus quit talking because there was nothing else to say? Or was there simply no further oral tradition of his saying anything? From this point on, Jesus is a pawn controlled by others. He no longer takes an active role in further events.

When Pilate states Jesus’ innocence to the crowd they continue to insist on their various accusations, with Luke saying that Jesus is accused of “stirring up the people”. When the crowd mentions Galilee, Pilate sees an opportunity to curry favor with Herod, and sends Jesus to him to satisfy Herod’s curiosity. The Jerusalem Bible gives this footnote:
Lk only. His information might have come from Manaen. ‘who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch’. Ac 13:1. It was legally acceptable for a Roman magistrate to refer a prisoner to the ruler of the territory of his origin, in this case Herod Antipas, as tetrarch of Galilee.
According to Luke, Jesus says nothing to Herod. However, is that the real situation, or did Luke just not have any sources at the confrontation with Herod. Luke has Herod’s troops mock Jesus and put the robe on him, where the other Gospel writers have it done after Pilate argues with the crowd.

Overall, Mark and Matthew have little to say on this particular trial; my assessment is that they had little material in the oral tradition Mark recorded. Luke and John obviously have either additional sources or completely different sources for their accounts.

The material in the commentaries is extremely varied in scope and direction. Trying to bring it together into a coherent account is rather like trying to herd cats. Compared to the earlier comments on the seizure in the olive grove and the questioning before the Sanhedrin, the commentators seem far less critical and analytical in their approaches. By this point the drama in the story is very compelling, and it is almost impossible even in my hard-nosed stand not to be swept away in the evangelists’ building of a case against the Jews. Fortunately there are places here and there where the facts come through, and they are useful in keeping this inquiry on track.

By the end of this section, I think we shall begin to see that, though the Jews presented Jesus to Pilate with the hope of his being executed, and the gospels present Pilate as trying to defend Jesus, Pilate either played an active role or allowed himself to be manipulated into ordering the crucifixion. As one of the commentators said,” …despite his words Pilate is responsible. Washing his hands does not make them clean.” I would like to begin this analysis and commentary by looking at Pilate’s political status and situation and also his character. After that we will look at the charge that was presented to Pilate and the confounding of religious and political issues by the Jews. I would also like to consider the motivations of the Jews for bringing Jesus to Pilate rather than stoning him themselves (which we have touched on earlier), and finally consider the actual physical arrangement of Pilate, Jesus, and the Jews, and its implications on what may have actually transpired. This section of necessity runs on into the next section, but the break before the release of Barabbas is a good place to stop for the moment.

According to Kee , Rome used a Roman governor to rule Judea since 6 CE, because Archelaus, the son of Herod, had been hopelessly inefficient. Wilson and Vawter give Pilate’s dates as 26-36 CE. Wilson gives his title as procurator and Vawter gives it as Prefect. McKenzie also uses the title Procurator and gives the following description: “This officer is a subordinate of the provincial governor (Lat legatus) in the Roman system of provincial administration” Vawter adds this note on the political environment in Judea: “The Roman capital of Palestine was Caesarea, not Jerusalem, and it was in Caesarea that the chief praetorium was to be found (cf.Acts 23:35). Especially at the time of Jewish feasts, however, it was the custom for the prefect to take up residence in Jerusalem, to be on hand when rebellions might be expected to break out.” Skipping ahead to the release of Barabbas, it is implied that there had been a fairly recent riot, Barabbas being involved and having committed murder during it. In fact, Kee states , “By this time Pilate had been forced on several occasions to put down incipient messianic revolutionary movements”

My own assessment of Pilate’s character is that of a pragmatic politician—a man to whom the power and tenure of office outweighed any issues of principle. In immediate contrast to this, Allison notes that in the Egyptian and Syrian views Pilate is an unwilling participant and is innocent of Jesus blood. In fact, the Coptic church has canonized him. He notes “Tertullian, Apol. 21, even makes him ‘a Christian in his own convictions’”. However, the Western view is certainly much less charitable and is based on documentation other than the gospel accounts. The gospel accounts would have us see a “weak and vacillating [person], anxiously trying to please the Jews…” , , . These same commentators note in very strong terms that Pilate was definitely not weak. Pherigo notes, “He is known to have been severe and prompt in putting down possible rebellions (cf. Luke 13:1-2), and indeed was finally recalled to Rome and replaced because of his excessive cruelty to the Jews.” And Tuckett says, “…what we know from elsewhere of the man, viz., a cruel tyrant who would have not had the slightest compunction in executing an odd Jew or two to keep the peace.” Vawter assesses Pilate’s political nature. “His gesture in accommodating himself to Jewish reluctance to enter the praetorium is typical of the man—his blunders in administration were never in small matters.” This despite what Vawter says is contempt for the Jews. Shepard says that Pilate, “…yields to the fear of his own political position when they say, If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend.” As a final note, the commentators in Jerome have some far harsher assessments of Pilate’s character. Wright, Murphy and Fitzmyer quote Herod Agrippa I.’ “…inflexible by nature and cruel because of stubbornness.” [Guilty of ] “graft, insults, robberies, assaults, wanton abuse, constant executions without trial, unending grievous cruelty.” (quoted by Philo, Embassy to Gaius 38 § 301-2). These writers continue to describe the various atrocities committed by Pilate. Finally Pilate was sent back to Rome to account for his slaughter of some Samaritans. Legend has it that he either committed suicide under Caligula or was executed under Nero.

Given Pilate’s pragmatic and political nature, he couldn’t have cared less about blasphemy, yet that is what the Sanhedrin was apparently interrogating Jesus about. In order to get Pilate’s attention, they needed a charge that would imply a threat to him and his tenure. Mark and Matthew have no explicit charge—it is implied in the question, “Are you the king of the Jews?”. Pherigo, Kee, Wilson, Stendahl, and Mally , , , , all note that Messiahship would be taken as rebellion, since the Jews’ Messiah was looked to be another David. Luke is more specific, and he includes the charge that Jesus said not to pay taxes. , In John we see a gradual process of building a charge. The Jews first try to get Pilate to execute Jesus without providing specifics (using what Barrett calls “a hardly credible insolence” ), and Pilate forces them to reveal that they want Jesus killed. Having presented Jesus to Pilate with a sedition charge (claiming to be a messiah in the revolutionary sense), there is now a difficulty in looking at the hearings in the Sanhedrin. Blasphemy, for which Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin, does not directly translate into Messiahship. The Sanhedrin would definitely want there to be a connection to justify in their minds the need to crucify Jesus. So the question becomes whether the story of the creation of a charge of blasphemy is true or not. It may simply be that from Jesus behavior and preaching and the large crowds he attracted, that they concluded, conveniently, that he was attempting to be a Messiah, and the time in the evening was spent trying to frame a charge to Pilate. Given the commentators indications that the replies of Jesus to questioning may have been adaptations of scripture, it may well be that Jesus had little or no opportunity to defend himself.

Luke’s account has an incident that does not appear in the other Gospels—questioning by Herod. Baird and Stuhlmueller comment directly on the possible issues surrounding it. First Baird :
“Since this hearing is not found elsewhere in the gospels, some doubt its historicity. It seems unlikely that a Roman governor would recognize the rights of a petty tetrarch outside his own jurisdiction. In any case the purpose of the narrative is perhaps revealed in Acts 4:25-28. There Herod and Pilate are explicitly mentioned as fulfilling the prophecy of Ps. 2:2, that “kings…set themselves, and the rulers take counsel…against the Lord and his anointed.” For this prophecy to be fulfilled there must be a king as well as a governor involved in the trial of Jesus.”
And now, Stuhlmueller :
“Some, among them M. Dibelius (ZNW 16 [1915] 113ff.), have claimed that this section, found only in Lk, was fabricated from such notices as Lk 9:7-9 and Acts 4:27 [with Ps 2:1]. Others, including R. Bultmann, have stated that Luke found the “legend” already in existence (HST 273). Luke, however, may have rearranged the chronology and may have disregarded Palestinian geography for the thematic development of his theology; still, he claims to rely upon eye witnesses and reliable sources; he even hints at his source for the Herod material (Acts 13:1; Lk 8:3).”
For my own part, I subscribe to the creation of a story due to the desire of Luke to have the prophecy of Ps. 2:2 fulfilled. This is in keeping with my overall impression that not only the Evangelists, but many others, constantly desired scriptural justification for all that had occurred.

Having explored the background of the politics and character of Pilate, we now can look at the events themselves as described in the gospels. It would be useful to see where the various activities occurred. A table listing the verses of the merged version down the side and the main characters across the top would be useful, where the intersections have the location of persons. Such a table is built below.

Two observations come immediately to mind once the table is built: Mark 15:3-5 and the corresponding Matt 27:12-14 imply that Pilate, Jesus, and the Jews are in speaking distance of each other. Yet, from John and common sense, Jesus would be held inside the Praetorium while the Jews remain outside. Thus if the exchange described were to occur, Pilate would have gone out to the Jews, listened to the accusations, and then gone back in and questioned Jesus about them.

The other observation is that in Luke 23:10 it is implied that the Jews were outside Herod’s residence. What I would ask is, “Is it reasonable for the Jews to follow Jesus to Herod’s residence, and would Herod pay attention to them anyway?”

These observations bring further questions concerning the historicity of the gospels. In addition there are the easy questions such as, “Where did the details of the accounts come from?” No Jew was inside the Praetorium to hear Jesus and Pilate exchange words. It is quite likely that there were disciples in the crowd outside the Praetorium. We might treat the exchanges with the crowd with a bit more seriousness. Also we can note that the form of the exchanges between Jesus and Pilate have similarities to the exchanges between Jesus and the Sanhedrin.

The commentators have noted that the dialog with the Sanhedrin has definite scriptural components.
The interrogation is in many respects reminiscent of the Jewish Trial. The chief priest(s) and elders are present both times (26:57; vv. 12, 20). On both occasions Jesus is called by others ‘the Messiah’ (26:62-3; vv. 11-14). In both he none the less says to his interrogator, ‘You have said so’ (26:64; v. 11). Both trial deem Jesus worthy of death (26:66; vv. 24-6). And both are followed by scenes of mockery (26:67; vv. 27-31).

The implication could be made that in the absence of real information, the evangelists provided what they needed. Allison notes:
“If the subject is the Roman trial of Jesus, which ‘sounds less like a formal judicial hearing than a macabre example of oriental bargaining’ (France 1985:388), the focal issue is culpability for Jesus’ execution….The effect is to highlight not just the innocence of Jesus but also the fault of Rome’s representative and especially the guilt of the chief priests and elders, who manipulate Pilate and stir up the crowd against the Messiah.”

At this point we are to the question that started the author on this journey.

Jn18:37 PILATE: “You are a king, then” JESUS: “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to my voice.”

When Jesus says “For this I was born.” Technically, the antecedent of “this” is the statement by Pilate, not the kingship. Most people take the kingship as the antecedent. When asked earlier Jesus answer was ambiguous and I have discussed this at length in the commentary on the Synthetic Translation. Mally says, “you say it: The meaning of this answer is not clear and has often been debated; it probably is a “yes,” half consented to, implying that the speaker would put it differently.” It may also be that Jesus considered the question pointless. Subject to further study over time, of his earlier statements, there is nothing that is reliably a statement from Jesus in this study that indicates he considered himself a messiah.

Then what did occur in front of Pilate? We have Jesus hauled over to him, bound, in the custody of the Temple police and accompanied by the Jewish leadership. Pilate comes out to talk to them and receives the report that Jesus was attempting seditious acts, claiming to be a messiah, and supposedly telling the people not to pay taxes. This would of course get Pilate’s attention, and at the same time give the Jews a few “brownie points” for turning Jesus in. Pilate now questions Jesus, or does he? I think it likely he does, on the grounds that Pilate would not want to be on the wrong side of an internal political battle among the Jews. It could backfire massively if he took the wrong part and caused another riot by executing a popular leader. Does Jesus answer? Quite possibly not. If he argues he may not win, but if he does win, then he has it all to face again with the Jews. They will not accept his being left alive, he was too great a threat to their religious rule. Essentially Jesus made the decision in the olive grove when he told his followers not to fight. He may also have the idea that martyrdom at this point would make a far stronger point than his living and preaching could. In such a case, Pilate would wonder, since all he would have known in the past were people begging for their lives. Does Pilate go out and argue with the Jews three times? Doubtful. Once maybe, but if he receives further details of the so-called sedition, he would have chosen to be safe than sorry and signed the death warrant. He was not noted for compassion to Jews. As I have noted above, the mockery by the soldiers is not an unlikely event, and well may have occurred.

References:
Allison, Dale C., Jr., “57. Matthew”, in Oxford, pp. 844-885

Bowman, J. W., “The Life and Teaching of Jesus”, in Peake’s, pp. 733-747

Franklin, Eric, “59. Luke”, in Oxford, pp. 922-959

Baird, William, “The Gospel According to Luke”, in Abingdon, pp. 672-706

Barrett, C. K., “John”, in Peake’s, pp. 844-869

Kee, Howard Clark, “The Gospel According to Matthew”, in Abingdon, pp. 609-643

Kieffer, René, “60. John”, in Oxford, pp. 960-1000

Lampe, G. W. H., “Luke”, in Peake’s, pp. 820-843

Mally, Edward J., S.J, “The Gospel According to Mark”, in Jerome, Vol.II, pp. 21-61

McKenzie, John L., “The Gospel According to Matthew”, in Jerome, Vol.II, pp. 62-114

Pherigo, Lindsey P, “The Gospel According to Mark” , in Abingdon, pp. 644-671

Shepherd, Massey H., Jr., “The Gospel According to John”, in Abingdon, pp. 707-728

Stendahl, K., “Matthew”, in Peake’s, pp. 769-798

Stuhlmueller, Carroll, C.P., “The Gospel According to Luke”, in Jerome, Vol.II, pp. 115-164

Tuckett, C. M., “58. Mark”, in Oxford, pp. 886-921

Vawter, Bruce, C.M., “The Gospel According to John”, in Jerome, Vol.II, pp. 414-466

Wilson, R. McL,. “Mark”, in Peake’s, pp. 799-819

Wright, Addison G., S.S., Murphy, Roland E., O. Carm. And Fitzmyer, Joseph A. S.J., “A History of Israel”, in Jerome, Vol.II, pp. 671-700

SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS

In the synthetic translation I make the case that the translation is not supportive of Jesus claiming to be a king of any sort, this worldly, or other worldly, or allegorical. I consider that even the most explicit passage in John to still have sufficient ambiguity to cast doubt on such a claim by Jesus. Throughout all the reading I have done in the gospels, I have neither read that Jesus claims to be the Son of God, nor that he claims to be the Messiah, which in his time would be the longed-for warrior king that would lead Israel to glory.

Part of this stems from also from the gospels relating that the Jews basically wanted Jesus crucified for sedition, so therefore made the claim he was attempting to be a secular king, or a rebel. Also notice that the further in time we are removed from the events, the more definite the material becomes. This would be common in oral traditions as the story tellers want to make the story better. In Mark’s time there would still be direct witnesses that could contradict any license on the part of the story teller. By John’s time, almost all, if not all, of them would be dead.
Not so much in today’s rearing on Mr. Rogers with his bumbling King Friday XIII, and Sesame Street with puppets and no king, or all the other contemporary children’s programming, but in the past, kings were mythical in nature. They were the ultimate ruler for good or bad. A king’s rule was absolute. They formed a major support of the myths, legends, and fairy tales that people of my generation and older were raised on. It is therefore natural that people would attach the label “king” to Jesus, especially in light of the ambiguity of the gospels. It is a way of indicating their belief in his power – calling him the King of Kings.

Rusty Shackleford (The Jawa Report) has an excellent rant on Kevin Sites as a traitor. Well worth the read. Also one of the longest posts I can remember for Rusty.

At the behest of the Maximum Leader I have taken the Dante's Inferno test. Here are my results:

The Dante's Inferno Test has sent you to Purgatory!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:

Level	Score
Purgatory (Repenting Believers)	High
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)	Low
Level 2 (Lustful)	Low
Level 3 (Gluttonous)	High
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)	Very Low
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)	Moderate
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)	Very Low
Level 7 (Violent)	Moderate
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)	Moderate
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)	Low

Take the Dante's Divine Comedy Inferno Test

They must have given me a pass on some things. They definitely have stringent requirements to be considered a heretic.

At some point early in my blogging I made the statement that children come out of school dumber than they go in. This book reviewed here, supports my contention, and in fact asserts that is the goal of education.

Thanks to the Maverick Philosopher for the link.

Bussorah has a new post that could be considered humorous if it weren't so true -- a pointed exposition of the conflicts of ideas in the Democrat Party.

Ally has one of the best descriptions of the migration from a person fearing guns to a person that owns and appreciates them. She also has one of the most eloquent arguments for gun ownership that I have read.

There are two issues that seem to still be standing after the elections -- abortion and gay marriage. The AnalPhilosopher has a very nice concise statement that completely sums up the political and legal issues around abortion.

Karl, the Rite Wing TechnoPagan, has a nice comment on eco-economics.

Thanks to BUFFALOg for the link to this excellent essay.

Teaser:

Hi. Are you nuts?

Forgive me for being so blunt, but your reaction to our reelection of President Bush has been so outrageous that I’m wondering if you have quite literally lost your minds

...

Of course, you are entitled to whatever views about us that you care to hold.

...

If these beliefs seem strange to you, they shouldn’t. For these are precisely the beliefs that powered Western Europe – you -- from the Middle Ages into the Renaissance, on to the Enlightenment, and forward into the modern world.

Read the whole thing.

the BUFFALOg has a good post on multiculturalism and its invalidity. The cohort for multiculturalism is bilinqualism, an equally divisive concept.

This quiz is courtesy of the llamabutchers.

You Are the Investigator

5 You're independent - and a logical analytical thinker. You love learning and ideas... and know things no one else does. Bored by small talk, you refuse to participate in boring conversations. You are open minded. A visionary. You understand the world and may change it.

Thanks to the Ten O'Clock Scholar for the link to this rant. All I can say is WOW!

Wicked Thoughts has this most hilarious post on the Battle of Trafalgar.

Here is a quiz that I just found at the Quizilla home page. The welder has found his icon.


Your type of Dragon is Fire. Fire is a Dragon that
is in love with Matches.


What Type Of Dragon Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

With thanks to one of the minions of highest esteem in the MWO, Dr. Rusty Shackleford, here is the results of a new quiz. It is one that I most humbly submit the Maximum Leader should take.


Your Lightsaber is Blue

Blue is often associated with depth and stability.
It symbolizes trust, loyalty, wisdom,
confidence, and truth.


What Colored Lightsaber Would You Have?
brought to you by Quizilla

Quantum Thought has posted another grabber. This time it is a commentary from a Eastern European country, probably Rumania.

~An Ode to America~

"Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs. Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart.

Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the army, and the secret services that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about. The Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand.

After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a government official or the president was passing.

On every occasion, they started singing their traditional song: "God Bless America"! I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours,listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of people.

How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being? Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put in a collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy. What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their galloping history? Their economic power? Money? I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases with the risk of sounding commonplace.

I thought things over, but I reached only one conclusion...only freedom can work such miracles."

Cornel Nistorescu

The AnalPhilosopher in one of his posts makes this statement. It encapsulates every thing I have thought about TV. The last time I watched TV was the elections.

Television turns everything it touches—even matters of life and death—into entertainment. Sometimes I think it’s a net detriment to our lives.

From the top 10 letters of the week to the Weekly Standard comes this one:

REGARDING MATTHEW Continetti's Uncivil War, I'd say that the left is on some serious drugs if they think civil war is imminent. They had better hope it's not; this time, the tables are turned.

The red states are far better armed, and our camouflage jackets are not brand new. The red states have most of the military bases and a high percentage of the active military hails from either red states or red counties in blue states. Speaking of which, the majority of the blue state territory is, itself, red. Look at the county-by-county map, we've got them surrounded. Except for their street gangs, they are all pacifists and we grow virtually all their food, except brie and French wine--and armies don't march well on that.

I think there are some folks on the left who need to get a checkup from the neck up.

--Charles Buntin

From TCS comes Steven Schultz's article on the victory in Fallujah and its relationship to militant Islam. For me the guts of the article is the quote near the end:

The London Times on Monday, November 15, described Fallujah as "terrorized" by the jihadists, who posted notices ordering death sentences on walls and poles throughout the streets. "Mutilated bodies dumped on Fallujah's bombed out streets today painted a harrowing picture of eight months of rebel rule," it began. The characteristically arbitrary, if not insane tone of Wahhabi/Taliban "governance" was clearly in evidence: An order dated November 1 "gives vendors three days to remove nine market stalls from outside the city's library or face execution. The pretext given is that the rebels wanted to convert the building into a headquarters for the 'Mujahidin Advisory Council' through which they ran the city."

Orders to conform to Wahhabi "virtue" were backed up by graphic examples: "An Arab woman, in a violet nightdress, lay in a post-mortem embrace with a male corpse in the middle of the street. Both bodies had died from bullets to the head… Many of the residents who emerged from the ruins welcomed the U.S. marines, despite the massive destruction their firepower had inflicted on their city. A man in his sixties, half-naked and his underwear stained with blood from shrapnel wounds, cursed the insurgents as he greeted the advancing marines on Saturday night.

"'I wish the Americans had come here the very first day and not waited eight months,' he said, trembling. Nearby, a mosque courtyard had been used as a weapons store by the militants. Another elderly man, who did not want his name used for fear the rebels would one day return and restore their draconian rule, said he was detained by the militants last Tuesday and held for four days before being freed… 'It was horrible,' he told an Agence France-Presse reporter. 'We suffered from the bombings. Innocent people died or were wounded by the bombings. But we were happy you did what you did because Fallujah had been suffocated by the Mujahidin. Anyone considered suspicious would be slaughtered. We would see unknown corpses around the city all the time.'"

The account continues, "Even residents who regard themselves as observant Muslims lived in fear because they did not share the puritan brand of Sunni Islam that the insurgents enforced. One devotee of a Sufi sect, followers of a mystical form of worship deemed heretical by the hardliners, told how he and other members of his order had lived in terror inside their homes for fear of retribution.

"'It was a very hard life. We couldn't move. We could not work,' said the man sporting the white robe and skullcap prescribed by his faith. 'If they had any issue with a person, they would kill him or throw him in jail.'"

And we are concerned that in the heat of battle a potential danger to the marines was killed. Our media and left/liberal axis has their heads so far up their backsides they are looking at their tonsils.

So much has been written over the shooting of a prone Iraqi "insurgent". The publication of the video was really thoughtless -- another exercise in journalistic "It's all about me" and my scoop. Only a press that still wants to lose the war willingly publishes such videos. By now, regardless of the results of the investigation, the poor marine has been tried, judged, and would be willingly executed by the press. Nothing will undo the damage now.

How about, before we shoot the next pretend or real corpse, let's let the press check them out. Might change their tune the first time one of them gets the booby trap and prize.

Dennis Mangan (Mangan's Miscellany) has chosen to take an indefinite holiday from blogging. For myself, I hope it is not long. Dennis provides a lot of good material. He is willing to discuss issues at depth and he finds materials and takes stands on issues that are uncommon. It has been a pleasure to have him to read daily. I strongly disagree with Dennis that what he has generated is discussed better elsewhere. He raises points that are discussed nowhere else. Dennis, even if you are not blogging while you are vacating, please check in and comment by email or comment box from time to time. You will be missed.

I have posted in the past on problems of government tracking, here and here, and now Quantum Thought has an excellent and passionate statement on this as well.

The Texas Conservative has finally returned from a two-week break. The picture on his blog tells why he has been gone so long. If I were there I'm not sure I would want to come back very soon either.

Fr. Matthew, the SoDakMonk, has found a most interesting parable in this story. Read the story first.

The Maverick Philosopher posted some comments on gambling, of which, two of the conclusions I totally agree with:
1) terminate all state lotteries, and
2) "It's like strong drink: some people can handle it. But for others it's the devil in liquid form."

[OK, without the qualification I might have argued. Friendly, of course. :-)]

This article from Drudge about a settlement by Abercrombie & Fitch over alleged hiring discrimination, is describing just another form of affirmative action. Affirmative action, the granting of hiring preferences to minorities, is nothing more than an application of racism. The race of the person is what counts, not whether they are qualified or not.

More importantly it is an invalidation of private property rights. Abercrombie is owned by shareholders, who are private, both individually and collectively, regardless of all the screwing around with legalese. It is their company to be disposed of as they see fit, which includes whom they employ or don't employ.

This struck me once again, with more force than usual -- have you ever noticed that one almost never hears about discrimination against orientals, and in fact I have seen them be considered in the same category as whites when academics are considered. This to me is very strong evidence that affirmative action is merely a means for people to gain something they don't deserve at the expense of those that do, and at the same time tar everyone in their group with the brush of incompetence.

Bill O'Reilly is suggesting Bill Clinton for Secretary of State:

And now I'm going to be controversial. Now, I know the word is Condoleezza Rice (search) will get the job. And she is absolutely brilliant and very loyal to President Bush, but I would replace Secretary Powell with Bill Clinton.Yikes! The former president probably wouldn't take the job, but if he did, countries like France, Germany, and Spain would like the move, perhaps cooperate more with America. Add Canada and Indonesia to that group as well.

Mr. Clinton is a smart guy, knows the players and the issues, and has clout, especially in the Palestinian-Israeli arena. So there you go, bold move, little downside, maybe big benefits. But I'm sure President Bush isn't going to do it.

Let's look at it a bit.

"countries like France, Germany, and Spain would like the move, perhaps cooperate more with America"

Com'on, Bill. After all that you had to say about France and Germany, especially France? Do you really believe in the Foreign Policy by Personality theory? It helped defeat Sen. Kerry.

Mr. Clinton is a smart guy,

OK, I'll agree with that, although that and a dollar will buy a cup of coffee.

knows the players and the issues,

Does he really or does he only know what he needed to look good or advance his own agenda?

and has clout, especially in the Palestinian-Israeli arena.

[emphasis mine, bk]You have to be joking! Bill Clinton spearheaded the attempts to sell out Israel for the possibility of a Nobel Peace Prize. Arafat played him like a fish.

But I'm sure President Bush isn't going to do it.

So you don't have to worry about being taken seriously? Or held to be accountable? Then why do it?

Sorry, Bill, but your ratings can't be so bad as to pander to the Clintonites.

These are personal observations on the relationship of religion and morality and not an attempt at rigor.

It struck me long before I became a theist, that much of the Christian, and for that matter Judaic, moral code would work quite well without the imprimatur of God. Much, if not all, of the commandments and urgings worked very well without the necessity of being commandments from God. The obvious implication for an agnostic or atheist would be to consider the theological basis to be an add-on to support their promulgation in the populus.

Having stated thus far I looked in my extractions and found that four other bloggers had written on this subject far better than I. Here are the links to their writings.

First the AnalPhilosopher had this to say, which was a good presentation of both sides by an atheist who teaches philosophy of religion.

Then Lee McCracken (Verbum Ipsum) posted this continuation, which is the value of religion as seen by a believing Christian.

The third comment, again in response to Keith's post above, was from the SoDakMonk, and is an exposition of the strong stand of the Roman Catholic church on morals without Christianity.

Though I cannot find specific posts that I have saved, the Maverick Philosopher has also commented at depth on this issue, more with respect to the issue of belief and salvation, than to morality specifically. Note that a moral life is part of salvation.

My only additional comments are much less strong, perhaps as a reflection of my non-traditional theism. I think that religious justification for morality more directly brings an emotional support for moral behavior and thereby may render it easier of accomplishment. One is not fighting oneself. It also, however, brings the risk of a self-righteousness that is falsely justified by that same belief. Though self-righteousness is a common evil in both atheists and theists, I would consider it more pernicious in theists, because they are less inclined to examine the basis of belief or behavior when attributed to religious reason.

Once again we praise the Maximum Leader for his great wisdom in providing ways to test his minions compatibility. I offer here the results of the latest test:
I'm an apparently intelligent, moderate, not-too-generous, not-too-selfish, relatively well adjusted human being!
See how compatible you are with me!
Brought to you by Rum and Monkey

It does not say, but I am 75% compatible with the Maximum Leader. One should carefully note in this day and age that the compatibility is based on value norms and not interpersonal norms. One must be so careful now.

If anyone choses to take this test, linking from my website, they will determine their compatibility to me. Such a risk, I could lose all my readers!

[OK, I'm on my way to another customer and blogging from the Crown Room. It's a land-based equivalent of first class seats. By this time of night seriousness is not paramount.]

Once again, Gerard at American Digest, posts one of those very troubling different views that cannot be ignored.

Though it is on my normal blogging rounds, The Maverick Philosopher alerted me to this particular post by the Gates of Vienna. Read it, read the comments, and think. I agree with Bill Vallicella, I wish they would post more.

Considering I was in graduate school in the sixties, this fits.


You are a Square. What a weirdo.


What kind of Sixties Person are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Thanks to Shrine of the Holy Whapping via the Curt Jester for the link to the quiz.

Norm Weatherby (Quantum Thought) thinks that Jimmy Carter should go to Fallujah and start a Habitat for Humanity operation there. I disagree, in that by the time he gets there, the US Marines will have made it so safe that he can continue in his delusional world. I think he should be placed in one of three options: 1) a home for the incurably insane -- his obvious disconnection from reality as displayed in his eulogistic statements about Arafat would immediately qualify him. 2) Iran -- he would quickly come to understand those he professes to love and care about 3) Dufar -- his humanitarian impulses would find plenty of objects to attach to, and the bullets would reinforce the lessons.

[I'm with Ally, he is beneath contempt at this point.]

Steve Rugg (JusTalkin) has a great discussion on the relationship between government and religion. In his penultimate paragraph he says this:

I do not want anyone legislating religion, even if it is my own. On the other hand, I do not want the government allowing a religion such as extremist Islam to practice just because they have the freedom to practice as they please. Preaching hatred toward others to the point of inciting violence shouldn't be allowed, but how do you limit the authority of the government to restrict speech within a church or mosque? It is a difficult road to travel.

I think the way through the difficulty on incitement to violence is simply the swift and effective incarceration, trial, and conviction of those who incite violence as well as those who perpetrate it, once the violence has been committed or attempted. The issue is different when it is a mosque in the US vs. a secular or theocratic government in the Middle East. In the US freedom of religion is a Constitutional right, though harming others is forbidden. The line gets drawn when one attempts to act on incitement to violence. At that point both the incited and the inciter become culpable.

My thanks to the Maverick Philosopher for providing a link to this site. Michael Sudduth is a Professor of Philosophy specializing in analytical religious philosophy. He apparently does not blog, but his site is rich with material to be studied. My first impression is that one should enter prepared to work very hard. I think the rewards will be worth it.

The AnalPhilosopher has a post today that is a great lead-in to a post I thought about but didn't write yesterday. So today I will.

Racism has become what I call a rubber-band word. It has had its meaning stretched beyond all reasonableness to encompass many things it never was intended to in the first place. Racism is determining any issue strictly on the basis of race, regardless of other issues or factors involved. It generally has pejorative meaning, because it encompasses the behavior of white supremicists that used race as an excuse to persecute and kill people of color.

In today's world of political correctness, racism is now used to attack ANY discussion that involves race that does not automatically elevate persons of color above whites. It does not matter that the discussion is fact based or that the facts are more important than race. Simply bringing race into the discussion is racism. Malicious motives are automatically assumed.

The consequences of this are at the least destructive of construtive communication and discussion and at the worst literally deadly. We have all seen articles where legitimate discussion of issues that involve comparisons of people of color to others have been decried as racist, regardless of the bases in fact and the necessary elucidation of relationships in order to potentially improve them. Bill Cosby's remarks accurately describing the attitudes of black Americans that hold them back were decried as demeaning of blacks. Never mind their accuracy, they were considered wrong for saying something negative about black Americans. Also never mind that Bill Cosby is a black American himself.

In Belgium, the highest court in the land destroyed an entire political party by judicial fiat, stating "freedom of speech had its limits under tough new anti-racism legislation." This example could occur in the US in the future despite the First Amendment. So-called hate-crimes legislation contains within it the seeds of the destruction of First Amendment rights. The whole concept of hate crimes comes from political correctness. In Canada, freedom of religion has been attacked in the name of political correctness by the inclusion of sermons against homosexuality as hate crimes.

Finally we see the results in the workings of passenger screening on airlines. Drudge reported this:

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the "behavior pattern recognition" program at Logan — where two planes were hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center — saying it "effectively condones and encourages" racial and ethnic profiling.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of King Downing, the ACLU's national coordinator for racial profiling, who alleged he was harassed by state police last year. It seeks unspecified monetary damages, and asks the court to declare the screening system unconstitutional.

"This program is another unfortunate example of the extent to which we are being asked to surrender basic freedoms in the name of security," said John Reinstein, legal director of the ACLU's Massachusetts chapter. "This allows the police to stop anyone, any time, for any reason."

State police insist they focus on travelers' behavior, including loitering without luggage, wearing heavy clothes on a hot day and watching security methods at the airport.

George N. Naccara, the federal security director at Logan under the Transportation Security Administration, said troopers are trained not to stop people based on race or ethnicity.

"They make it very clear in the training that we're looking for abnormalities in behavior, and they begin their thought process very carefully," Naccara said.

Downing said he was asked for identification while he was making a phone call in October 2003 at Logan. He refused because he did not know the basis for the request, he said — and was told to leave. As he tried to depart, he was told he was under arrest for failing to produce identification.

Downing said he subsequently produced a driver's license and travel documents and was allowed to go; no charges were filed.

"I hadn't done anything wrong and I definitely hadn't done anything suspicious," Downing said. "All I was left to suspect was the fact that I was a person of color might have been the motivating factor."

In a statement, state police said they are "committed to protecting the constitutional civil rights of all citizens." The statement said an investigation had been "complicated by the unwillingness of the ACLU to cooperate," and that phone calls and a registered letter had not been answered.

Here we see political correctness and obsession with race potentially interfering with the prevention of terrorism. I cannot find the link now, but I read recently that airlines have been fined millions of dollars for supposedly racially profiling passengers. Note that because of political correctness, no more than two of any racial group may be challenged on a plane-load of passengers. If a terrorist needs five people to subdue a plane, then all he has to do is buy seven tickets. Five are guaranteed to get on. Political correctness could kill someone, or rather many someones.

To return to the importance of the original starting point. As Keith pointed out, if it redounds to the benefit of blacks, no one says anything. If it were to their detriment, regardless of the facts, it would be called racist.

Dick McDonald (The Right Scale) has a different take on various economic issues.

I guess what is usually said about women with red hair is true. Ally is plenty angry over Jimmy Carter's remarks about Arafat. Go, girl! I love it when she gets pissed.

The SoDakMonk has a good post today on a comment on ABC that said the US was heading back to slavery. Fr. Matthew also is very good at writing satire -- a most enjoyable post.

Rite Wing TechnoPagan is the new addition to the blogroll. Karl has a interesting, mostly political blog, conservative in orientation. He does find some less common items to post. Give it a try.

Norm Weatherby, Quantum Thought, has published the Marines' Prayer. It is one of the most moving published prayers I have ever read. Liturgy should have this kind of immediacy.

My friend, the AnalPhilosopher, has published two (1, 2) of the best complements to theists that I have seen. What makes this important is that Keith is an atheist. He is the kind of person that our country was founded by and for -- a person secure enough in his own beliefs that he is genuinely tolerant and appreciative of someone else's equally firm belief. Keith, the world needs more of you.

This morning in the shower I was contemplating problems with current political approach to taxation. I thought about the Fair Tax initiative (See Steve Rugg for details) and thought about the hue and cry, if suddenly people paying the huge tax bite had more money -- lots more money. And then considered the consequences, not in nice theoretical terms but in what happens when it gets spent. My guide was Scrooge McDuck.

When I was growing up, I was a regular and avid reader of "Walt Disney Comics" comic books. My favorite characters were the ducks, Donald Duck, Daisy Duck, (no relation to each other, in fact their "romance" was a good source of laughs), Huey, Dewey, and Louey, the very ornery nephews, Gladstone Gander, the luckiest being in the world, and my favorite -- Scrooge McDuck, the richest man in the world. He had vaults of money in the form of coins, and he swam in them, literally.

The particular lesson that got me started dealt with excess cash. Scrooge had so much money coming in that his vaults were overflowing. Being a miser at heart (though much nicer personally than most misers) he hated to have to build a new vault to store it. Enter Donald who said, "then spend it." Scrooge argued but relented, but also said he didn't know how. So Donald, Scrooge, and the nephews took a car trip, hauling a trailor of cash around behind them. Donald spent even more recklessly than the proverbial drunken sailor (my middle son is a sailor, and he can spend when stone, cold sober). The biggest and most expensive new car at every excuse, the most expensive food at the most expensive restaurants, etc. Near the end the nephews were sick of fancy food. Finally the trailor was empty. They return home and here is Scrooge's butler hauling in wheelbarrows of cash. Scrooge wonders what is going on, and the butler says that some fool is going around the country buying expensive cars that Scrooge makes, eating in restaurants that Scrooge owns, etc. The point is that spending money is good for the economy. However, there is a subtle point here. Scrooge is spending HIS money, not someone elses. This is not a brief for Keynesian economics.

Now that I am started here is a lesson on supply and demand. Donald is given a coin by Scrooge for some reason and Donald finds out it is a very old and rare coin in essentially mint condition. (Remember Scrooge is a miser, he would have coins he earned early on). Donald comes back and tells him, and Scrooge finds a bunch more which Donald sells for him. Scrooge then finds a whole jar of them. When Donald takes it to the dealer it is refused, because there would be so many that none of them would have value.

Finally I remember the time when some eastern potentate made claim to being the richest man in the world. Scrooge challenged him on it. So they started spending money. Everytime Scrooge bested the potentate. Finally they made two statues of themselves. First the potentate, 20 feet high, solid gold crusted with emeralds, rubies, etc. Then Scrooge pulls the cover off a 20 foot high top hat. The potentate laughs, "You could only build a top hat." Scrooge then pulls a lever and the whole thing comes up out of the ground on hydraulics, 60 feet high, solid platinum covered with diamonds. So Scrooge has won. Then the potentate sees Scrooge's empty vault and says, "but you are broke too now." Scrooge pulls another lever and says, "No, that was just petty cash." I think the parable is well stated.

"Touched by an Angel" was a successful TV show. Too bad someone can't create one based on solving economic problems with conservative economic values.

This International Herald Tribune report is very troubling and serves as a warning to us.

The public debate over how conservative Islam fits into Europe's most tolerant, liberal society had already become a no-holds-barred affair before the killing of van Gogh, who had publicly and repeatedly used epithets against Muslims. But his killing has now polarized the country, giving the rest of Europe a disturbing glimpse of what may be in store if relations with the continent's growing immigrant communities are not managed more adeptly.
...
The attacks have scratched the patina of tolerance on which the Dutch have long prided themselves, particularly here in their principal city, where the scent of hashish trails in the air, prostitutes beckon from storefront brothels and Hell's Angels live side by side with Hare Krishnas. But many Dutch now say that for years that tradition of tolerance suppressed an open debate about the challenges of integrating conservative Muslims.
...
For many years, such criticism of Islam and Islamic customs, even among Dutch extremists, was considered taboo, despite deep frustrations that had built up against conservative Islam in the country.
...
Many here say that began to change after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, when the Netherlands, like many other countries, began to consider the dangers of political Islam seriously. The debate fueled an anti-immigration movement and helped propel the career of the populist politician Pim Fortuyn, who was murdered by an environmental activist shortly before national elections in 2002.

By all accounts in the Netherlands, Fortuyn's murder removed any remaining brakes on the debate surrounding immigrants.

"After Pim Fortuyn's murder, there were no limitations on what you could say," said Edwin Bakker, a terrorism expert at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations. "It has become a climate in which insulting people is the norm."

He and others said the public discourse, even among members of government, reached an unprecedented pitch and included language that went far beyond the limits set for public forums in the United States.

All political correctness and its related dismissal of real issues do is to let things stew and simmer without relief until it all finally explodes in bitter vituperation on all sides. Read the rest of the article to see how uncivil the discussion has become.

Thanks to Drudge for the link.

Here is an articulate black man discussing racism in the US today. Read it. It is not what you might think.

Thanks to Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog for the link.

We never heard anything about Arafat's financial dealings when he was alive, now that he is almost dead we get this report from Fox News on his misuse and abuse of money from the public coffers. Why am I not surprised?

The "Contact Me" email address on the top right is now working. I will answer emails again at that address when I am home and not traveling. For all those whose emails I lost (from over the past month, that's how long we have been down), if you can find them in your sent mail and wish to resend them I would be grateful.

For the last month my home computer has been down, and I have not been able to receive email. Today we received our new computer, and in setting it up I lost all the email sent to wkeezer at mindspring dot com. There were about 70 emails lost. For all of you that wrote over the past month and received no reply, I wasn't ignoring you, I just couldn't get to it, and now it is irretrievably lost. My apologies. A windows administrator I am not.

You would do well to check out Norm Weatherby's (Quantum Thought) take on Iran's missile capabilities coupled with their soon to be realized nuclear capability.

In response to an email, the Maverick Philosopher has produced the clearest exposition of what a theocracy is and isn't, that I have read. By all means, read it.

Heathrow is using low energy X-ray machines to do whole body scans to discover concealed weapons. The images, in effect, remove all clothing from the subject. Subjects are asked first and the operators are the same sex.

Comments against:

But British civil rights group Liberty called the X-ray images unjustified and intrusive.

"We obviously do not object to taking security measures, but I remain totally unconvinced that it is necessary," a spokesman said.

To justify the intrusion, the airport should show current detectors are inadequate, he added.

"It's an obvious invasion of people's privacy -- it's a voyeur's charter."

The American Transport Security Administration, which has considered using the machines at U.S. airports, echoed Liberty's concerns.

"There are a number of privacy issues that need to be addressed before we would do field tests," a spokeswoman said.

Comments Pro:

"I stood in front of the screen and they took three pictures in different positions," said passenger Pernille Nielsen.

"I don't mind if the pictures are a little more personal as long as I'm safe in air -- that's what matters," she told Reuters.

Another passenger, Maria Love, said: "It's all about being safe, and I really have no problem with it."

A spokeswoman for BAA Heathrow said 98 percent of participants gave positive feedback.

Any actual or subtle coercion and it becomes a privacy invasion. Voluntarily it is personal exhibitionism or maybe realism.

Thanks to Drudge for the link.

The Belgian supreme court upheld a verdict that destroyed the largest political party in Belgium, calling it racist. Here are some excerpts from the article.

The supreme court upheld a verdict by a lower court in April that found the party to be guilty of "permanent incitement to segregation and racism".

The top court rejected all 21 arguments put forward by the Vlaams Blok in an appeal against the April ruling by a court in Ghent, saying that freedom of speech had its limits under tough new anti-racism legislation.[Emphasis mine, bk]

The verdict was met with applause from anti-racism activists inside the packed courtroom but gasps from party supporters.

Party officials had warned that the failure of the appeal would spell financial ruin for the Vlaams Blok with the loss of 250,000 euros (325,000 dollars) in annual public funding.

"What happened in Brussels today is unique in the Western world: never has a so-called democratic regime outlawed the country's largest political party," Vlaams Blok leader Frank Vanhecke said in a statement.

"Today, our party has been killed, not by the electorate but by the judges.

Thanks to Drudge for the link.

Steve Rugg (JusTalkin) has a good rant on the attitude of the intellectual left towards those of religious belief.

For all their supposed knowledge, they fail to see the issue as one of premises. Once the premises are established, it takes as much intellectual capacity to develop religious thought as it does secular thought. I've discussed this before.

From Fox News is this article on a District Court decision on UBL's driver. It says that the government must have a hearing to determine enemy combatant status vs. prisoner of war under the Geneva convention, and also said that a military commission must conform to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. My own view is that our courts are once again sticking it to us. The government will appeal immediately. Here are some excerpts:

The judge rejected the U.S. government's contention that Hamdan and other detainees are not prisoners of war but enemy combatants. Hamdan was declared an enemy combatant last month by a review tribunal during a hearing from which his lawyer was barred.

"Unless and until a competent tribunal determines that petitioner is not entitled to protections afforded prisoners of war under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention ... he may not be tried by military commission ... ," Robertson said in his ruling.

"There is nothing in this record to suggest that a competent tribunal has determined that Hamdan is not a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions."

The court also ruled that unless the military commission guidelines are changed to conform to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Hamdan cannot be tried by the commissions.

Robertson also ruled Hamdan has the right to confront witnesses that may have given evidence and has a right to see the evidence against him.

The commission rules state defendants can only see the unclassified evidence.

If the Guantanamo detainees are ultimately determined to be prisoners of war entitled to trial by court-martial, they would have available to them different standards for evidence and could appeal up to the Supreme Court.

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the government would appeal the ruling on the grounds that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to members or affiliates of Al Qaeda.

"We vigorously disagree with the court's decision, and will seek an emergency stay of the ruling and immediately appeal," Corallo said in a statement on the department's Web site.

"We believe the President properly determined that the Geneva Conventions have no legal applicability to members or affiliates of Al Qaeda ... ."

He claimed the ruling "put terrorism on the same legal footing as legitimate methods of waging war."

Of course the ACLU weighed in. No credit for guessing which side:

American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony Romero said the decision "sends a clear message that the fight against terrorism does not give the government license to disregard domestic and international law."

And it all stems from this Supreme Court decision:

Since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June cleared the way for detainees to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts, civilian attorneys have poured into Guantanamo to meet with clients.

God will judge the terrorists.
It is our job to create the meeting.
--U.S. Marines

Once again private money is stepping up to the challenge.

A new $50 million space prize has been launched with the aim of seeing tourists orbit the Earth by the end of the decade.

The prize is funded by Las Vegas hotelier Robert Bigelow through his company Bigelow Aerospace. It will award the purse - dubbed "America's Space Prize" - to the first company to orbit the planet twice on two separate occasions within 60 days. The two flights must carry five people or their weight equivalent and the prize must be won by 10 January 2010.

...

[T]he new prize will require vehicles to circle the globe at heights of at least 400 kilometres, attaining speeds of about Mach 25.

Thanks to New Scientist for the link.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45

The long awaited cleanup of Fallujah has begun. I am of two minds on it. The realist sees it as absolutely necessary to get rid of the bastards that have promoted the terrorism and death in Iraq. If they all get killed, so much the better. At the same time, a part of me is horribly sad that killing is necessary.

I am not a pacifist, though I will go out of my way to avoid conflict at times. I have had my fights (literally) while growing up, and though they were necessary to obtain the necessary freedom from harassment and respect of my peers, the older I get, the more they are object lessons rather than victories.

So now a lot of poor fools who listened, believed, and acted on the evil spouted by even bigger fools, will now receive a hard dose of reality. Most of them won't survive it, and the ones that do may not learn. Just as we constantly fight nature to prevent its taking our achievements back over, so we will always have to fight evil, whether in the form of radical Islam, or some other barbarian creed.

I have long wondered what would happen when the barbarians appeared at the gates. Europe is so decadent that they conform to my expectations. Obviously the US was not too far along. When this is all over for the near future, I think we need to re-establish the Rattlesnake Flag as a national standard. "Don't tread on me" gives fair warning, and we have made good on the threat.

With great thanks to the Maximum Leader for finding yet another way to humiliate his loyal minions, I hereby publish the results of the "What Monty Python Sketch Character are you?" quiz.


You are a Gumby! You like to smash bricks and say
things that no-one can understand...


What Monty Python Sketch Character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

And some of you actually take me seriously! BAWAHAHAHAHA

The AnalPhilosopher has a short post on the teachings of Jesus and redistributive politics, noting that Jesus did not advocate redistributive political solutions. This is so well written, compact and to the point, that I include the entire post here:

Did Jesus Advocate Coercion?

I’m tired of hearing liberals claim that Christianity supports wealth redistribution of the sort Democrats propose. Perhaps I’m ignorant, but I don’t know of any occasion in the Bible in which Jesus made political recommendations. He appears to have told his followers that they should distribute their excess wealth to the needy, but he didn’t tell them to take other people’s wealth (against their will) and distribute it to the needy. That’s theft! In short, Jesus was addressing individuals, not plumping for egalitarian tax policies. He was persuading, not coercing. He was a moralist, not a politician. Perhaps if liberals spent more time giving of themselves and less time trying to coerce others into giving, the world would be a better place by their standards.

posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson 11:46 AM

Keith's Philosophy of Religion class must be phenomenal.

Here are some thoughts and musings on the idea of contributions to the church.

Money: Of necessity, money is always a desired contribution to churches. Most protestant churches encourage tithing, which is 10% of one's income. In the best sense, a tithe is 10% of gross income. A lot of people look at it as 10% of take-home income. Most people don't tithe. A church that receives over 5% of its parishioner's estimated income is doing very well. Many people consider that if they make what they consider a generous contribution, they have discharged all obligation to the church. In many ways it is like trying to buy salvation, buying one's way into Heaven. One should give what seems desirable to give -- some give much some give little. Who makes it to Heaven depends on the attitude not the magnitude.

Time: This is the most valuable contribution someone can give. It requires many person-hours of work every week to make a church function smoothly. There are many relatively low-skilled activities that are necessary, altar care, calling parishioners, etc.

Talent: Those who have skills that can be used in the work of the church donate them. Business people usually end up on boards and running the finances, teachers teach Sunday School, people with an interest in writing publish church newsletters, those with craft skills provide seasonal decorations. In a thriving church, talents are accepted thankfully and encouraged to blossom. This creates new and vital programs.

One important note in all this is that the contribution should be given willingly for its own sake, simply because the contributor wished to do so. Contributions given with a goal to a return or for self-promotion usually end up not achieving the desired result for the contributor. This is not to say there is no personal satisfaction in contributing. This is the payoff. Selfless contributions as a duty are as bad as contributions as transactions. Duty always contains and underlying resentment that poisons the satisfaction to be gained.

A genuine desire to contribute can be considered a sign of the acceptance of Grace. Most protestants are still in the wonder of receiving grace without the hopeless burden of earning it; they don't realize there is a flip side. The acceptance of Grace implies the desire to provide all possible in return. I am not advocating retreating from life to become a religious recluse living in constant prayer and devotion. Actually, I'm not sure how valuable that is to the overall order of things. But living one's life consistent with professed belief, and contributing to the functioning of the church are valid ways to express exceptance of Grace.

Willing contributions of time and talent to a church generally lead to greater satisfaction with belonging to the church. This is because one is obtaining an emotional payoff from doing something personal and unique and having it accepted and appreciated.

A lack of desire to contribute would indicate either a problem with ones faith and belief, or a problem with the church environment. It is easier to look at the church than ones beliefs, but my experience has been that with a few notable exceptions, churches are generally filled with well-meaning and nice people. To badly butcher a quote from Julius Caesar, "It is because of ourselves and not our fellow parishioners that we are unhappy or discontented."

Craig Howard's BUFFALOg has been added to my blogroll. Craig linked to one of my posts. I have looked at his site, and it is a good moderate conservative commentary. (Craig let me know if you don't consider this a fair appraisal.)

Wretchard has this moving paragraph to conclude his piece on the upcoming attack on Fallujah:

Yet after the last technological refinement has been applied, the Marine infantry will go forward to close with an enemy many of whom have traveled thousands of miles specifically to kill them; pilgrims of death. The Marines will want to live; and yet by some miracle they will advance. There in the ancient Land Between the Rivers young men from big cities and small towns will perform the most incomprehensible act of generosity on earth and press their extravagant gift into our uncertain hands.

Wretchard at Belmont Club has posted a very good commentary on the murder of Theo van Gogh by Islamic terrorists. I think the comments are especially important, particularly the translation of an Islamic statement. Until Europe wakes up to the fact that they want to kill every body who is not an Islamic fundamentalist of their particular stripe, Europe is doomed.

Steve Rugg has posted on an outrageous decision by the Illinois 4th Appellate Court. Though I have argued against sterilization, I can see why people want to enforce it.

Ally (Who Moved My Truth? ) once again points out the double standard adopted by the liberal left on the abortion issue. And no Ally, despite sleep deficit the post was extremely coherent.

One of the continuing plaints I have seen this election is “my vote doesn’t/won’t count”, or words to that effect. I always find this troubling, since it implies a misperception of how and why voting works. There seem to be two parts to this, total tally and electoral vote.

Let us discuss total tally first. One perspective may be the one that sees a candidate win by tens of thousands of votes and says, “My vote didn’t matter. Look at the margin.” There is a major misperception here, of looking at something after the fact that wasn’t known prior to, and basing one’s judgment of value on the later perspective. When one casts ones vote, there is no knowledge of what the outcome will be. There may be a guess based on the all the constant polling that goes on prior to elections these days, but there is no knowledge.

Every vote cast has the same marginal effect, since the aggregate is what is important not an individual vote. In the manner in which votes are counted, there is no way to sequence the votes so that a given vote is the one that puts the issue to rest, whether candidacy, referendum, or tax levy. It is only the sum of all the votes that counts. The same is true of the opposing side. And it is only after all sums are obtained that a result is valid. There may be projections and predictions based on the apparent trends in the sums to a given point, but the actual validation of the outcome is only after all votes are counted.

When we look at the Electoral College, there seems to be a conclusion that the fewer the electors the less important the vote. This is inaccurate on the face of it. A state that has five electors, e.g. Nevada, actually deserves three on the basis of population, yet a large state like California, which gets the two electors for the senate just as Nevada does, gains far less proportionately, two more to forty some, vs. two more to three. So actually a vote in Nevada counts a bit more than a vote in California. But more importantly, the closeness of the electoral vote totals in most races, indicates that even a block of five electoral votes is important.

What is important to realize is that the electoral vote rests on the total popular vote for the state. By extension, the arguments for the importance of voting for totals, become as important or more in voting for electors.

There is also a pragmatic argument. The greater the margin of the win, the less likely there is to be a recount. I don’t have problems with the idea of a recount, I just wonder if it is more accurate, or simply corrects one set of errors while introducing ones of its own.

In summary the answer is, ALL votes count, including yours.

Once again Wicked Thoughts has posted one of his serious posts. These are never to be missed. They always make a very exact point.

Gerard Van der Leun, who's American Digest you should be reading every day, has three articles and a link that are worth all the time to read and savor. First is "The Religion of the Left". A great essay on the Religion of the Self (ROTS). The comments are important also. The second is "If Politics Imitated 'The Godfather'", and the comments are mandatory. The assist is the link to this essay, and the hat trick comes from this post. The comments are worthwhile.

The Maverick Philosopher and Dennis Mangan have been having a discussion concerning the value of an afterlife. I cannot do the discussion justice with any description. It is well worth following the back links and thinking about.

The AnalPhilosopher had his first anniversary blogging yesterday. Congratulations and keep it up, Keith. Your odometer tells the story, but I will say it, you have a great blog.

The Gates of Vienna has a very refreshing take on the latest events based on this paragraph:

For the last two generations the political spheres in America have been in the process of making their distinctions by contrast with each other. In one sphere, the good of the group is paramount. In the other sphere, the group is background and the individual moves to the foreground. The tension between them is the difference in world views: one of scarcity and entitlement and one of plenitude and responsibility.

Go read the rest.

And the sad thing is, it is someone who should know better, Stephen Hawking. Alas, all that mathematical genius doesn't help when one talks outside one's area of competence.

Thanks to Dennis Mangan for the link.

The Maximum Leader has a long (the longest I remember his ever posting) and very thoughtful post about the election. I consider it well worth the time to read.

From Fox News the Grapevine:

Meanwhile, the foreign editor of a FOX sister newspaper publication, The Australian, reacted with astonishment, saying, “George W. Bush is the most enigmatic modern president...He never looks as though he is going to win anything, and then somehow he wins everything."

The Republicans supported Arlen Specter in the primaries against a new, much more conservative challenger. Specter almost lost anyway. The Republicans apparently wanted an incumbent, despite Specter being the most liberal Republican in the Senate. Specter is quoted in a news conference as saying:

Adding that the current Supreme Court lacks legal "giants" on the bench, Specter said the president would want to avoid nominating anyone who would oppose the 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," he said.

Specter is up for the Chairmanship of the Senate Judicial Committee. Just what those of us who are strict constructionists don't want.

See what happens when you don't pay attention to principles?

Thanks to Fox News for the report.

UPDATE: The Curt Jester has also posted on this bit of pragmatism.

Tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of my son's death. The post after this one will be the last until Friday or this weekend. We will go over to Indiana where he is buried to spend the day with the rest of the extended family.

Here is one last laugh at the expense of the liberal/left. From Wicked Thoughts comes this joke that was too good not to post [and after this I promise to behave and be polite...until the next time]:

A WISE LEXUS

A woman bought a new Lexus LS400, and returned the next day, complaining that she couldn't figure out how the radio worked.

The salesman explained that the radio was voice activated. "Watch this!" he said..."Nelson!" The radio replied, "Ricky or Willie?" "Willie!" he continued....and "On The Road Again" came from the speakers.

The woman drove away happy, and for the next few days, every time she'd say, "Beethoven," she'd get beautiful classical music, and if she said, "Beatles!" she'd get one of their awesome songs.

One day, a couple ran a red light and nearly creamed her new car, but she swerved in time to avoid them. "ASSHOLES!" she yelled.

John Kerry came on and introduced the French National Anthem, sung by the Dixie Chicks...

I was up until 3 AM watching returns. I had spent a pleasant evening with friends of similar political persuasion watching returns earlier. I finally looked at it and said that Bush had won, figuring that it would resolve when I got up for work. So it didn't. But a little over an hour ago Kerry apparently decided to concede and called President Bush to do so. I will be interested in the text of the formal concession speech.

I have surveyed all my usual blogs and found the following of note:

My friend Peg at What If? posted on "Why they Lose", and said, in part,

Yet one simple fact seems to elude the Democrats. Until they recognize this fact, learn to deal with it and somehow formulate it into their strategy, winning will only occur in races similar to the one where a good candidate like Obama faces a bad joke.

The simple fact is this: the majority of those who vote for Republicans and who support George Bush are not bad people.

These people aren’t stupid. They’re not selfish. They aren’t racists nor bigots, and even if they aren’t in favor of gay marriage, they’re not homophobes. Just like the liberals, they want kids to get a good education and people to have access to decent health care. I could list more goals that they share with the liberals, because both want much of the same.

Where they differ, and they differ significantly is in the way to those goals.

Read the rest.


Wretchard at Belmont Club had his usual deep analysis of the meaning:

Thoughtful people within the Liberal establishment must now accept, or at least seriously consider the possibility that:

- the world is indeed facing a new fascist threat in the shape of radical Islam. It is not imaginary;
- chaos and disorder are threatening to engulf large parts of the Third World and international institutions, like the World Bank and the UN have proved incapable to deal with it; and
- the populations of Europe and America, or America at least, retain certain core beliefs -- never mind what these are for the present -- which are absolutely nonnegotiable and which will not be surrendered under any circumstances.

The rest of the post is important to read.

Gerard, (American Digest) made this note when John Edwards came out at 2:30 AM:

2:30 AM Eastern Time, November 3: Kerry, lacking manliness in defeat, sends his boy out to say that while "Hope" is no longer on the way, lawyers are. Sigh. The Democratic Race ends as it began, classless and leaderless.

Here are a few of the comments to the post:

No class. No realism. No sportsmanship.
Not a good way to unite the nation or preserve your dignity.
Not a good way for the MSM to rebuild any of their shattered credibility.
Posted by Grumpy Old Man at November 3, 2004 06:24 AM

One measure of a man is how he acts in defeat. Another measure is how he preens and brays about his real and imagined accomplishments. The contrast between the two party leaders is stark and valuable.
Carville had it exactly right, and he is to be commended for his insight.
The Kerry/Edwards ticket should gather as much of their self-respect as possible, make a generous concession statement, and work toward uniting the country. But they won't.
Congratulations to Bush/Cheney and the entire team. Get back to work.
Dan Patterson
Winston-Salem, NC
Posted by Dan Patterson at November 3, 2004 06:30 AM

[quoting a previous comment]Well done America on being 'offically stupid'. Voting for a monkey in a suit once was bad but twice!!!!! Still, you can have the world as I think most of the worlds population is going to the moon to escape death and destruction.
Matt, this is your wake-up call. The election is over, we have a war to win, and there's a lot of work to do. It's time to grow up now.
Posted by Harry at November 3, 2004 07:54 AM

For those of you who think that all Bush is is a monkey in a suit, all I can say is that description is not vey nuanced. In fact it is very simplistic and showes you to be a spoon fed moron.
But I would like to point out that as of hearing that Kerry conceided the race, I will admit that John F. Kerry has a lot more class than Al Gore.
I hope that the left can start to listen to the right and see that our views really are based on logic and not Rovian mind control beams. In fact they might find that we will agree with them on many things.
Posted by jungus at November 3, 2004 08:37 AM

TexasBestGrok concurs on the concession:

Update: Looks like Kerry is a bigger man than Al Gore, and that he has more grace than I was expecting.

I am relieved not to see a long, drawn-out legal battle. Let's now start dealing with the problems we face at home and abroad.

Wicked Thoughts has published some tourist questions and answers. I laughed until I got tears in my eyes.

Attention John Ray, your compatriots have tremendous senses of humor!

The American Digest has posted this essay with a very different perspective on Iraq.

Here is the opening:

WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ : Military Bases Are A Requirement, Democracy is Merely an Elective.

Resolved: To safeguard the personal and economic wellbeing of the civilized world in the 21st century, it is essential for the United States to control Iraq for strategic and tactical military purposes alone.

Let's take a step back from our always entertaining electoral circus to cast a cold eye on what needs to be done in Iraq beyond November and far beyond 2005. Don't watch the hand waving the magic wand around, watch the hand held behind the back. It holds what is going to be pulled out of the hat.

Instead of spending untold hours listening to this or that speech from the two sides of the American coin, it's more instructive to take down an atlas, turn to a spread displaying the middle-east and meditate on what needs to be done to control that section of the world.

I just looked at the image of UBL again. The man is getting senile and in ill health. He has not long. Its subjective, but the whole gestalt, the gesture, the posture, the face, are of a very old man. We haven't heard from him because it has taken this long to get him presentable. We must have hurt him really badly in Tora Bora. If we can last today, the future will be easier.

The AnalPhilosopher has a very eloquent essay in TCS this morning on his vote and why he votes. He also announced for whom he was voting, and why. It is well worth the read.

Finally, the decision time is tomorrow. We, collectively, will determine not just the President for the next four years, but possibly much of our history for decades. Most of us will be unaware of the second part. Generally in voting our self-interests, the second part is well-taken care of.

This time around while reading the ranting, screaming, and invective, to which I, as well as many others, have contributed, I am less sanguine that we can vote our particular self-interests successfully. This is because I think at one time our self-interest was rationally based and had a solid moral foundation.

When I was in high school, even the lowest looser in the school had some sense that there were things one just did not do. Not so today. Self-interest seems to have devolved into a predominantly hedonistic, short-term view of what I want now, and not a reasoned or well-taught take on longer term values.

My wife and I have been invited to dinner and to watch the returns for a while. It will be a nice evening. Our hostess is the mother of one of Adam's best friends and she was often as much a mother to Adam as his own mother. I may take my PC along and make some notes. I won't be set up to real-time blog. I'm not sure it is my style anyway.

I realize that regardless of who wins tomorrow, we will survive, at least for a while, but I don't have to like it if Kerry wins. In my mind it will be the triumph of the petty. Kerry is the first politician that I would consider casting in the role of Mr Thompson, Head of State, in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. He has that same amorphousness and lack of any principle save that of obtaining power.

When the lawyers start in afterwards, the invective will be gone. There is nothing that sucks the life out of anything like a lawsuit, or any trial. My impression of the OJ trial was a few sound bites surrounded by weeks of maneuvering, dry testimony, and all the things that remove any semblance of emotion from the proceedings.

I do have one wish that I know won't come true; I wish that everyone who is polled at the exit to the polls, refuses to answer. Can you imagine what THAT would do to the MSM? It did happen in Afghanistan. Their ballot was secret and they wanted to keep it that way. We are too self-absorbed. We want to show off, maybe be the one that is displayed for three seconds or less on national or local news. I would really like to see the pollsters and the media totally flummoxed. They have made our lives hell for six months, one night of misery would at least be a down payment in return.

I voted early; I have been a spectator since last week. In keeping with the preceding paragraph, I won't say who I voted for, but all of you can guess. It is a shame that two of the fundamental protections of our freedom, the ballot box and the jury box, are shunned by most US citizens. I think it is the fault of our upbringing at this point. I was raised both at home and in school with the idea that civic duty included jury duty and voting. Now jury duty is something to be gotten out of, and voting is encouraged only if you are on the "correct" side of the issue.

I believe Ben Franklin said this:

The problem with a democracy is that we will get what we deserve.

Wicked Thoughts has an excellent post today. The punch line is exquisite.

American Digest provided the link to this Open Letter to Michael Moore. Here are the opening paragraphs.

Mr. Moore,

You are a scurrilous, obese, disgusting, treasonous dog. A stinking boil on the ass of humanity.

How did it feel when you heard Osama Bin Laden, the arch enemy and single most prolific mass murderer of 3000 Americans, quote your movie? Did it give you a vicarious thrill? You piece of shit.

It gets better.

What If? has a link to another test. I tried it and got 8/20.

As Peg notes, it is difficult to discern the differences between Osama, Michael Moore, and Kerry. We just aren't nuanced enough.

I have not seen this argument in favor of the Electoral College:

Suppose that between the election and the inauguration, the elected candidate for President or Vice-President or both, dies. Under the Constitution, the electors are not required to vote for a particular candidate. They are bound by state law, but with the pledged candidate deceased, their pledge or binding is no longer valid. Even if they have already once chosen the person to fill the office next, it is far easier to reconvene the electoral college in time for a legal inauguration than to rehold the elections. The Electors would chose a candidate that they thought would become the best President or Vice-President.

Comments?