The last post in this string was the bridge. We looked briefly at how books made it into the Christian canon (The Bible), the Gnostics, since Mr. Brown's book The Da Vinci Code (TDC) brought him up, poor ol' Constantine. Last time we addressed some of the tired old charges brought against Constantine and his supposed machinations in keeping certain things from Scripture (which were brought up yet again in TDC). We'll continue for a post or two on other alligations TDC makes and hopefully show you that what Mr. Brown calls "Facts" should be not taken just on his "authority".
In addressing the numerous errors in TDC it is difficult to being. We can talk about some his trivial errors such as stating that there are 666 panes of glass in the pyramid entrance to the Louvre (p. 21) when the actual number is 673. While it makes for a fascinating allegation (though the equating of the number of panes of glass on the Pei addition to the Bible's "Mark of the Beast" takes some real stretching), Brown is simply wrong. Surely, if anything should be a "Fact" it should be something as easily checked as this. But alas, it is not to be. But as fascinating as it is, this discrepancy between story and reality is minor and has no hard implication other than to case a rather dim conspiratorial shadow. We're interested in the serious ones such as those we discussed in relation to Constantine in the pervious post. Let's take a look at a couple more:
On p.309 of TDC Brwon writes "The Jewish Tetragrammaton YHWH - the scared name of God - in fact deried from Jehova, an androgenous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah." What is Brown up to here? Well, one of the accusations against Christianity is that we tried to do away with any connection of the feminine with the divine. Now, in this passage from his book Brown does get one thing correct, the Tetragrammaton was used in Jewish writings because they thought that base man using the name of God would profane it, so they used four Hebrew letters which we would translate Y-H-W-H. As to what they actually stood for, we do not know. What we do know is that YHWH goes back much, much farther than Jehovah, since we can trace its origin to the Middle Ages while YHWH can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. And just where did the word Jehova come from? It isn't from the fusion of the words Brown states, but rather from Jewish scribes called the Masoretes working in the Middle Ages, who used the vowels from the word adonai interspered amoung the "Latinized" YHWH. So what we got was something that could be pronouned in public readings, J-a-H-o-V-a-H. If you want to conjure up a plot to hide the feminine nature of the divine, you need look somewhere else.
To show Mr. Brown's linguistic ineptitude, let's look at one more passage today (and it happens to involve our old friend Constantine): "Anyone who chose the forbidden gospels over Constantine's version was deemed a heretic. The word 'heretic' derives from that moment in history. The latin word haereticus means 'choice.' Those who 'chose' the original history of Christ were the world's first heretics" (TDC p.234). Oh my. I honestly don't know where he gets this stuff. In linguistic reality, the word for "heretic" goes back farther than Constantine (early fourth century). Paul himself used the greek word hairesis and its variants in passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:19 and Titus 3:10 (both somewhere around AD 60-ish). Of course, if you only read titles, you can find it in the writings of Irenaeus (Irenaeus Against Heresies, circa AD 180) and Tertullian (Prescription Against Heretics around the late second centruy).
And folks, this is just the beginning...
Monday, April 17, 2006
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Theological Illiteracy, Part Four
Whenever conspiracy theories about the Bible are discussed one name always seems to pop up, that of Constantine. Mr. Brown's The da Vinci Code (TDC) is no different. For example, here is a sampling of Mr. Brown has to say regarding Constantine:
(1) "The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine... He was a lifelong pagan who was baptized on his deathbed, too week to protest" (pp 231 - 232).
(2) Constantine "commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. the earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up and burned" (p. 234).
But Mr. Brown's characters are quik to tell us all was not lost at the hands of the evil Constantine...
(3) [Some of the gospels Consantine tried to destroy] "managed to survive. The Dead Sea scrolls fond in the 1950s... and the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi.. These are... the earliest Christian records" (pp. 234, 245).
Alas, while the conspiracy to silence the Gnostic records by Constantine are not new, it appears few people have actually looked at the true historical record. Constantine (274 - 337) was not a lifelong pagan, but converted to Christianity. Even after his conversion Constantine was a tolerant emperor, allowing people to worship as they saw fit (see his Edict of Milan). As for his being too weak to protest being baptized, there is not one shred of historical evidence to this fact. What was known was that he was baptized in 337 and until several days later he wore "the white robes of a neophyte". This postponement of baptism was because of the seriousness with which one entered into baptism. The prevailing theological concept was that of baptismal regeneration, that baptism washed away sins and that it could be applied only once. Thus the desire to put it off to a time as close to death as possible was not unheard of.
Now what about that nonsense of Constantine "collating the Bible"? For starters, the Old Testament had been compiled before the birth of Jesus. The formation of the New Testament began around the end of the first century, about 200 years before Constantine. In fact, the official list of books to make up the current 27 books in the New Testament was not confirmed until the Council of Hippo in 393, over half a century after Constantine! To complicate matters, the final confirmation for the Eastern Orthodox Church did not occur until about AD 500! Amazing, isn't it. Now, what Constantine did do is to request 50 copies of the the books listed by Eusebius in his History of the Church.
Somehow, in all of this, supporters of conspiracy theories want to say that the books comprising the Bible were somehow altered/embellished by Constantine. But there is no historical evidence showing that any of the accepted Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were embellished by Constantine or any of the scholars under him. And how can anyone seriously say that the Gospels in the Bible were changed to hide Christ's human traits. Christians since the first centrury have believed that Christ was both 100% human and 100% divine and human traits are shows throughout the gospels (such as hunger and fatigue in Luke 4:2 and 8:23). Ah, but what about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library, were they not even earlier gospels that were suppressed for fear of changing what people believe? Of course not. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained no gospels of any kind. The manuscripts were pre-Christian Jewish writings, containing portions of the Old Testament, some secular documents, and even some accounting records! As for the Nag Hammadi writings, they do contain gospels of Gnostic origin, but they were not records of "earliest Christian writing" but data to around AD 250 - 300. These Coptic writings were based on Greek writings that scholars date back to the mid-100s at the earliest, about 70 years after the last of the synoptic Gospels was written.
Hopefully this gives you a feel for the type of sloppy "scholarship" that will pop up over and over in TDC. It appears that, for Mr Brown, there is littler difference between "fact" and fiction.
(1) "The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine... He was a lifelong pagan who was baptized on his deathbed, too week to protest" (pp 231 - 232).
(2) Constantine "commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. the earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up and burned" (p. 234).
But Mr. Brown's characters are quik to tell us all was not lost at the hands of the evil Constantine...
(3) [Some of the gospels Consantine tried to destroy] "managed to survive. The Dead Sea scrolls fond in the 1950s... and the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi.. These are... the earliest Christian records" (pp. 234, 245).
Alas, while the conspiracy to silence the Gnostic records by Constantine are not new, it appears few people have actually looked at the true historical record. Constantine (274 - 337) was not a lifelong pagan, but converted to Christianity. Even after his conversion Constantine was a tolerant emperor, allowing people to worship as they saw fit (see his Edict of Milan). As for his being too weak to protest being baptized, there is not one shred of historical evidence to this fact. What was known was that he was baptized in 337 and until several days later he wore "the white robes of a neophyte". This postponement of baptism was because of the seriousness with which one entered into baptism. The prevailing theological concept was that of baptismal regeneration, that baptism washed away sins and that it could be applied only once. Thus the desire to put it off to a time as close to death as possible was not unheard of.
Now what about that nonsense of Constantine "collating the Bible"? For starters, the Old Testament had been compiled before the birth of Jesus. The formation of the New Testament began around the end of the first century, about 200 years before Constantine. In fact, the official list of books to make up the current 27 books in the New Testament was not confirmed until the Council of Hippo in 393, over half a century after Constantine! To complicate matters, the final confirmation for the Eastern Orthodox Church did not occur until about AD 500! Amazing, isn't it. Now, what Constantine did do is to request 50 copies of the the books listed by Eusebius in his History of the Church.
Somehow, in all of this, supporters of conspiracy theories want to say that the books comprising the Bible were somehow altered/embellished by Constantine. But there is no historical evidence showing that any of the accepted Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were embellished by Constantine or any of the scholars under him. And how can anyone seriously say that the Gospels in the Bible were changed to hide Christ's human traits. Christians since the first centrury have believed that Christ was both 100% human and 100% divine and human traits are shows throughout the gospels (such as hunger and fatigue in Luke 4:2 and 8:23). Ah, but what about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library, were they not even earlier gospels that were suppressed for fear of changing what people believe? Of course not. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained no gospels of any kind. The manuscripts were pre-Christian Jewish writings, containing portions of the Old Testament, some secular documents, and even some accounting records! As for the Nag Hammadi writings, they do contain gospels of Gnostic origin, but they were not records of "earliest Christian writing" but data to around AD 250 - 300. These Coptic writings were based on Greek writings that scholars date back to the mid-100s at the earliest, about 70 years after the last of the synoptic Gospels was written.
Hopefully this gives you a feel for the type of sloppy "scholarship" that will pop up over and over in TDC. It appears that, for Mr Brown, there is littler difference between "fact" and fiction.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Theological Illiteracy, Part Three
Tonight boys and girls we look at (in somewhat short form) the big topic of Gnosticism. Much of what appears in The Da Vinci Code (TDC) and comes into play in the more recent Gospel of Judas (GoJ) is related to this topic and a proper understanding is required.
Those of you who have read the New Testament (NT) know that the apostle Paul met early in his career churches who were deviating from the "gospel once delivered". Nowhere more evident is this than what must have been happening at Corinth. Here, a "spiritual aristocracy" developed, those in it seemed to be inclined to pride themselves on the possession of "special knowledge" and having greater, deeper "experiences" than the more run-of-the-mill Christian. These people were often dualists, believing that the spirit is everything and the body (and anything else material) as evil. At Colossae in Asia Minor Paul met with those who were creating a new belief system resulting from a blending of Christianity, heterodox Judaism, and some of the currently existing "mystery cults". Both of these types of beliefs, that Paul felt needed correcting, belong to the more broad category of belief systems known as Gnosticism. This term, often applied to rival sects that appear to have broken away from the early church between A.D. 80 and 150, is from the Greek work for knowledge (gnosis). These sects claimed to possess a special "knowledge" which transcends the simple faith of the Church. Part of this special knowledge was the dualistic bent of spirit=good, matter=evil, extending to the belieft of not one true God, but two Gods. The first God is all spirit and it is he who created the second (evil) god responsible for creating the material world. Many Gnostics denied the divinity of Christ because for them it was impossible for the divine to exist in the material world while other believed that the material body of Christ was simply an illusion which those "in the know" could understand and move up to a higher spiritual plane. As you can see, these views fly in the face of what was being taught in the early Church and thus writing containing such teachings could be be considered part of the canon. To quote from Early Christian Writings:
The Gnostics were prolific writers, but from the start their views were contrary to what we know about Christian doctrine in the pre-Gnostic time. Their writings are also lacked in many of the other areas used in evaluating the canon such as apostolic origin, internal claims of speaking for God, veridicality, etc and were not included in what was eventually called "The Bible"... but more on that next time.
Those of you who have read the New Testament (NT) know that the apostle Paul met early in his career churches who were deviating from the "gospel once delivered". Nowhere more evident is this than what must have been happening at Corinth. Here, a "spiritual aristocracy" developed, those in it seemed to be inclined to pride themselves on the possession of "special knowledge" and having greater, deeper "experiences" than the more run-of-the-mill Christian. These people were often dualists, believing that the spirit is everything and the body (and anything else material) as evil. At Colossae in Asia Minor Paul met with those who were creating a new belief system resulting from a blending of Christianity, heterodox Judaism, and some of the currently existing "mystery cults". Both of these types of beliefs, that Paul felt needed correcting, belong to the more broad category of belief systems known as Gnosticism. This term, often applied to rival sects that appear to have broken away from the early church between A.D. 80 and 150, is from the Greek work for knowledge (gnosis). These sects claimed to possess a special "knowledge" which transcends the simple faith of the Church. Part of this special knowledge was the dualistic bent of spirit=good, matter=evil, extending to the belieft of not one true God, but two Gods. The first God is all spirit and it is he who created the second (evil) god responsible for creating the material world. Many Gnostics denied the divinity of Christ because for them it was impossible for the divine to exist in the material world while other believed that the material body of Christ was simply an illusion which those "in the know" could understand and move up to a higher spiritual plane. As you can see, these views fly in the face of what was being taught in the early Church and thus writing containing such teachings could be be considered part of the canon. To quote from Early Christian Writings:
There are numerous references to the Gnostics in second century proto-orthodox literature. Most of what we know about them is from the polemic thrown at them by the early Church Fathers. They are alluded to in the Bible in the pastorals (spurious Paulines of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus), for example 1 Tm 1:4 and 1 Tm 6:20, and possibly the entirety of Jude. Ignatius of Antioch writes against them as well as Docetism, a doctrine closely related to Gnosticism that stated that Christ was pure spirit and had only a phantom body. Second Clement is a document aimed at refuting early second century Gnosticism. Marcion was the most famous of the Gnostics, and he established a "canon" of the Pauline epistles (minus the pastorals) and a "mutilated" Luke (presumably considered so because it lacked proof-texts such as Lk 22:43-44). Justin Martyr mentioned him c. 150 CE, and Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote against him extensively in the late second century (in Against Heresy and Against Marcion, respectively).
Besides Marcion, other important Gnostics were Basilides and Valentinus. Some Gnostic documents are the Gospel of Truth, the Letter to Rheginus, Treatise on the Three Natures, Apocalypse of Adam, the Gospel of Matthias, Gospel of Philip, Acts of Peter, and Acts of Thomas...
The Gnostics were prolific writers, but from the start their views were contrary to what we know about Christian doctrine in the pre-Gnostic time. Their writings are also lacked in many of the other areas used in evaluating the canon such as apostolic origin, internal claims of speaking for God, veridicality, etc and were not included in what was eventually called "The Bible"... but more on that next time.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Theological Illiteracy, Part Two
The last week has brought considerable discussion on the topic of Christian scripture. Unfortunately the vast majority of it is worthless for anyone actually trying to learn anything about the Bible. Using the twin vehicles of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code (TDC) and the newly translated (but not lost) Gospel of Judas (GoJ), popular media has played up the questioning of the foundations of Christian belief. Unfortunately, most Christians know so little about what they claim to believe that they either look foolish when questioned or have shamefully bought into some if not all of the claims. So, in an effort to provide a little free education, let's take a look at some of the issues raised and what, according to scholars, do we know and what is speculation.
In this first posting, we'll begin with the process of canonization. Both TDC and those hyping the GoJ try to raise doubts on the message recorded in the Bible. The basic charge is that there was "secret information" deliberately kept out for (usually) political reasons. That early Christians hide this information to make their "product" the most attractive (or the only one available). But was this really the situation?
Canonization is the process by which the Bible was received in its final form. The word canon comes from the Greek kanon meaning "a rod or ruler" and literally is the measuring rod against which claims are compared. The Bible has 66 recoginzed books in the combined Old and New Testaments. The big question is "Why these 66 and why not xxx?" In determining which texts are considered part of the canon, the early Church applied five basic criteria:
Now why was there a need to create such an assembly of writing? There were at least two reasons that combined in the early years of the Church for such a process to happen:
Now initially, not all of the books of the Bible were accepted without question as belonging to the cannon. From here out we'll focus just on the New Testament since that is the focus of TDC and the GoJ. The basic groups that various writings fell into were:
So, where do we focus? If we accept Eusebius the text such as the GoJ is not part of the antilegomena, and obviously did not make it into the homologoumena (else we would be reading it in our ol' KJV/ESV/NIV already), so it would seem to fall into the class of "false writings", the pseudopigrapha. This was a HUGE class including the repeated brought up Gospel of Thomas. There were several so-called gospels in this list including Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of the Egyptians, and Protoevangelium of James to list just a few. Virtually no Church Father or council pronounced any of these books canonical. Not to say everything in them is false, but their interest is at best historical and not factual. What these books seemed to have in common was their contents consisted of Gnostic, Docetic, or ascetic errors of doctrine. This gets to a very important point... both TDC and GoJ rely heavily on a Gnostic "understanding" of the Bible (and that is being gracious to TDC). Briefly, the Gnostics were a sect claiming special knowledge into the divine mysteries, often denying the physical for the spiritual (and most of their writings denied the Incarnation since the "ultimate spiritual" could not be part of the physical) while the Docetists believed in the deity of Christ but denied his humanity. The ascetic Monophysites denied the dual nature of Christ and said that He was a fusion of the two into one nature. At best there books were revered by some cult, but never considered essential to the Christian faith except by those in the club who had the special "spiritual decoder ring".
Okay, now that your eyes are glazed over and I see that little bit of drool slipping out of the corner of your mouth, I'll rest for tonight. Tomorrow we will return to the canonical process, then march into the fun topics of examining TDC and GoJ directly.
In this first posting, we'll begin with the process of canonization. Both TDC and those hyping the GoJ try to raise doubts on the message recorded in the Bible. The basic charge is that there was "secret information" deliberately kept out for (usually) political reasons. That early Christians hide this information to make their "product" the most attractive (or the only one available). But was this really the situation?
Canonization is the process by which the Bible was received in its final form. The word canon comes from the Greek kanon meaning "a rod or ruler" and literally is the measuring rod against which claims are compared. The Bible has 66 recoginzed books in the combined Old and New Testaments. The big question is "Why these 66 and why not xxx?" In determining which texts are considered part of the canon, the early Church applied five basic criteria:
- Is the book authoritative, that is, does it claim to be from God?
- Was it written by a prophet or a declared servant of God?
- Is the book factual, that is, does it relay true information?
- Does the book have a life-transforming impact upon the reader?
- Did the early groups of Christians for whom the book was written
recognize the book as the word of God?
Now why was there a need to create such an assembly of writing? There were at least two reasons that combined in the early years of the Church for such a process to happen:
- Political: Events such as the Dioletian persecutions around AD 302 - 305, ordering for the buring of all Christian writings prompted a need for a collection and distribution of the "true" writings.
- Theological: First, which writings were to be acceptable for public readings during worship? Second, as early as AD 140 different listings of canonical writings were being circulated, some by leaders of questionable theology.
Now initially, not all of the books of the Bible were accepted without question as belonging to the cannon. From here out we'll focus just on the New Testament since that is the focus of TDC and the GoJ. The basic groups that various writings fell into were:
- Homologoumena: The books accepted by all of the early Church Fathers.
- Pseudepigrapha ("false writings"): Books rejected by all of the Church Fathers.
- Antilegomena: Books disputed (according to Eusebius [about AD 260 - 340] there were seven: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation).
So, where do we focus? If we accept Eusebius the text such as the GoJ is not part of the antilegomena, and obviously did not make it into the homologoumena (else we would be reading it in our ol' KJV/ESV/NIV already), so it would seem to fall into the class of "false writings", the pseudopigrapha. This was a HUGE class including the repeated brought up Gospel of Thomas. There were several so-called gospels in this list including Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of the Egyptians, and Protoevangelium of James to list just a few. Virtually no Church Father or council pronounced any of these books canonical. Not to say everything in them is false, but their interest is at best historical and not factual. What these books seemed to have in common was their contents consisted of Gnostic, Docetic, or ascetic errors of doctrine. This gets to a very important point... both TDC and GoJ rely heavily on a Gnostic "understanding" of the Bible (and that is being gracious to TDC). Briefly, the Gnostics were a sect claiming special knowledge into the divine mysteries, often denying the physical for the spiritual (and most of their writings denied the Incarnation since the "ultimate spiritual" could not be part of the physical) while the Docetists believed in the deity of Christ but denied his humanity. The ascetic Monophysites denied the dual nature of Christ and said that He was a fusion of the two into one nature. At best there books were revered by some cult, but never considered essential to the Christian faith except by those in the club who had the special "spiritual decoder ring".
Okay, now that your eyes are glazed over and I see that little bit of drool slipping out of the corner of your mouth, I'll rest for tonight. Tomorrow we will return to the canonical process, then march into the fun topics of examining TDC and GoJ directly.
Illegal Alien Day of Action
I know, this is off the stated topic for the next few days, but driving to work this morning really got me ticked off. Today is supposedly a "Day of Action" to protest the House Resolution and to make the "demands of the [illegal] immigrant known to our [sic] representatives." I added the commentary because it was difficult to dodge San Diego morning traffic and keep complete quotes in my head, so I remembered the context so you would get a flavor for what I heard. Don't these people know they won this round? Congress is in recess (where I think it should be placed permanently so the rest of us can get on with our lives) without passing ANYTHING! Nothing has changed. No one has been made a felon, no one is getting deported, no firms hiring illegal aliens are being singled out for braking the law... NOTHING IS DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS LAST WEEK, LAST MONTH, OR LAST YEAR! Don't these people know how a law is enacted in this country? Sheesh! OF course, in America we seem to no longer think, only feel, so it is more important to make your opponents feel badly about their position than it is to actually make them think about it.
I listened to the Bill Handel Show (not the most conservative of morning shows) and what I heard was disturbing. What amazed me was an article they discussed from the L. A. Times talking about the effects of the illegal alien situation upon Black America and how many within that community are losing out on entry level jobs to illegals. One person in the article said they were not hired because the hiring manager at the fast food restaurant told the person he couldn't use him if he didn't speak Spanish. I then flipped to CNN Headline news (actually KASH 1700 which does stock market and financial news in the afternoons in San Diego) only to hear the following conversation between reporters, one in studio and one at a protest:
Reporter 1 (in the studio): Has anyone there said that there was a proposal in Washington they could live with?
Peporter 2 (at the protest): No, they have said that none of the proposals are acceptable... They say that what they want are their representatives to listen to their demands. They say that they knowthe only avenue they have to representation is through the immigrants who are here legally ...
Excuse me... those that are here legally, that are CITIZENS, have representatives. What right do they think they have to representation?
Just one more thing of note... this weekend I actually heard a speak at a protest say "You [sic] know who was the first illegal immigrants to the United States? The pilgrims, that's who." The crowd cheered, either not realizing the stupidity of that remark... or they didn't care because it made them feel good. And in case you don't know what's wrong with that statement, stop and think... first, you can't be illegal without there being a law to break and second, which came first, the pilgrims or the United States.
God help us all.
I listened to the Bill Handel Show (not the most conservative of morning shows) and what I heard was disturbing. What amazed me was an article they discussed from the L. A. Times talking about the effects of the illegal alien situation upon Black America and how many within that community are losing out on entry level jobs to illegals. One person in the article said they were not hired because the hiring manager at the fast food restaurant told the person he couldn't use him if he didn't speak Spanish. I then flipped to CNN Headline news (actually KASH 1700 which does stock market and financial news in the afternoons in San Diego) only to hear the following conversation between reporters, one in studio and one at a protest:
Reporter 1 (in the studio): Has anyone there said that there was a proposal in Washington they could live with?
Peporter 2 (at the protest): No, they have said that none of the proposals are acceptable... They say that what they want are their representatives to listen to their demands. They say that they know
Excuse me... those that are here legally, that are CITIZENS, have representatives. What right do they think they have to representation?
Just one more thing of note... this weekend I actually heard a speak at a protest say "You [sic] know who was the first illegal immigrants to the United States? The pilgrims, that's who." The crowd cheered, either not realizing the stupidity of that remark... or they didn't care because it made them feel good. And in case you don't know what's wrong with that statement, stop and think... first, you can't be illegal without there being a law to break and second, which came first, the pilgrims or the United States.
God help us all.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Theological Illiteracy, Part One
First it was renewed interest in The Da Vinci Code because of a court case and the upcoming release of the movie, and now the bluster and confusion generated by the mainstream media over The Gospel of Judas have combined to leave me in a bit of a funk. All of this happening during the time we celebrate Easter detracts from the message we are to take from the events that happened about 2000 years ago. Add to this my shock that a country which wants to think of itself as sophisticated and literate has been taken in by a mediocre book and an ancient Gnostic document. The knowledge of history and religious thought (though apparently not religious experience) has reached such a low level that anything the media discusses really frightens me. I hope that the next few postings will in some small way provide a source for correction in how people think about these things as well as relay my own view of Easter and its significance.
The fun starts tomorrow.
The fun starts tomorrow.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Saturday, April 01, 2006
No Place Is Safe In NPR Land
I generally do not listen to what passes for news on National Public Radio. My moments of listening on FM 89.5 are often resticted to Car Talk, A Way with Words, and sometimes A Prarie Home Companion (yeah, I know Garrison Kiellor is more than just a bit liberal politically but he still produces a fine show). But the so-called news on NPR I tend to avoid. That's why this morning I thought listening to Only a Game would be safe (I mean, what does NPR actually know about sports? Not much if you have listened to the show). At first I thought I was in for a fun time when they went to an interview with Thomas Hackett, author of "Slaphappy: Pride, Prejudice, and Professional Wrestling". Now for those of you who didn't know it, I used to be a big fan of professional wresting (or as my friend Gregg taught me to say, professional "wrasslin'" to distinguish it from Greco-Roman wresting... we even attempted a game based on the WWF which we called "Wrasslin'"). Boy, was I in for a shock. Now I know that they were going to bash the "red state" people who watch it, I'm used to that, but the way they went about trying to display their supposed superior intellect was appalling! The interviewer asked Mr. Hackett the following: "In a world where investment professionals don't bother to investigate Enron's fantastic claims and where a former body builder gets elected governor of California essentially on the strength of the celebrity he gained by taking steriods, it really isn't fair to characterize pro-wresting as phoney. Have I got that argument right?" Now had someone said something like that to me I would have done a pile-driver on them right then and there with their face winding up smashed into a copy of Aristotle. But Mr. Hackett, being an author who is invited to speak on an NPR show, said "Well, I mean, it's phoney in the way pretty much everything else is phoney." Huh? First off, what kind of argument is that presented by the interviewer? It certainly doesn't fit with any known valid structure. In fact, his premises are not only false (investment professionals DID investigate the claims of Enron, some saying it was all a house of cards, and while some were just greedy, some were out-and-out stupid and didn't understand what was going on), they make no sense (what the heck is he saying about Arnold, whose celebrity didn't come from taking steroids, and how does it tie into Enron). And just how do his two statements tie into whether or not professional "wrasslin'" is "real" or "phoney"? And what does Mr. Hackett mean saying everything is phoney? Is he advocating some type of solipsism? *sigh* The entire interview is like that. At one point the language they use about "The Rock" indicated they do not consider him a "real celebrity", and at another place in the show that people who believe professional wrestling is "real" are just like those who believe in religion, unwilling to give up cherished beliefs in the face of "solid facts" (it's amazing how NPR shows go out of their way to try to show those of us who have genuine beliefs in God, the Bible, and a life after death as wacky non-intellectual boobs). Now if they had wanted to indicate they don't think he is a "real athlete", they might be able to come up with an arugment based on how they define their words, but who could say with a straight face that "The Rock" isn't a celebrity?! Can't they even do a simple, straightforward interview without getting sidetracked into lefty land? I guess I have to be even MORE vigilant... and Mr. Rock, you ARE a celebrity.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Letting Someone Else Speak
Tonight I take a break from writing my own thoughts and will allow a voice from the past to speak to you. It's amazing how knowing a little history allows you to see reoccurring patterns within society and civilization as a whole and one of my greatest joys is to find quotes from great men and women of the past to address our current siutation. So, for your edification and for my own pleasure, I am happy to turn this small platform over to a great American, President Theodore Roosevelt.
"We are face to face with our destiny and we must meet it with a high and resolute courage."
"Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor."
"It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it is the way in which we use it."
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life."
"Our country offers the most wonderful example of democratic government on a giant scale that the world has ever seen; and the peoples of the world are watching to see whether we succeed or fail... We believe in all our heartsin democracy; in the capacity of the people to govern themselves; and we are bound to succeed, for our success means not only our own triumph, but the triumph of the cause of the rights of the people throughout the world, and the uplifting of the banner of hope for all the nations of "
"We cannot do great deeds unless we are willing to do the small things that make up the sum of greatness."
"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs... It is both foolish and wicked to teach the average man who is not well off that some wrong or injustice has been done him, and that he should hope for redress elsewhere than in his own industry, honesty, and intelligence."
"Success, the real success, does not depend upon the position you hold but upon how you carry yourself in that position. "
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.
For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic. "
"We are face to face with our destiny and we must meet it with a high and resolute courage."
"Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor."
"It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it is the way in which we use it."
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life."
"Our country offers the most wonderful example of democratic government on a giant scale that the world has ever seen; and the peoples of the world are watching to see whether we succeed or fail... We believe in all our heartsin democracy; in the capacity of the people to govern themselves; and we are bound to succeed, for our success means not only our own triumph, but the triumph of the cause of the rights of the people throughout the world, and the uplifting of the banner of hope for all the nations of "
"We cannot do great deeds unless we are willing to do the small things that make up the sum of greatness."
"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs... It is both foolish and wicked to teach the average man who is not well off that some wrong or injustice has been done him, and that he should hope for redress elsewhere than in his own industry, honesty, and intelligence."
"Success, the real success, does not depend upon the position you hold but upon how you carry yourself in that position. "
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.
For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic. "
Thursday, March 30, 2006
A Confluence of Streams
It's been amazing the last few days. People in an uproar over the proposed U. S. House of Representatives immigration reform bill (H. R. 4437), students taking to the streets in protest. For me it has been such a horrorshow in the true sense of the word. I almost don't know where to begin!
First, I am very, very, very disappointed in our press on how it covers what is going on. It's amazing how supporters of H. R. 4437 are called "anti-immigrant" (see for example this story in the leftist (in a bad way) OC Weekly). A political rally was called "anti-immigrant" when it was anything but. For those of us who listened to what was being said, the sentiment was that yes, America is a nation owing much to immigrants, but not ILLEGAL ALIENS (*whew*, almost wrote "immigrants"). Yet they get a pass. In today's Union Tribune there is a cartoon in the editorial section showing an American flag with a magnifying glass help up to one of the stripes. There you see small stick figures spelling out "immigrants". Again, I don't hear anyone on my side of the fence (and what a strange side I have, which you would know if you have been keeping up with all my posts) say "We hate immigrants. Kick them all out!" Shame, shame, shame on you self-righteous media folks. Neutral? Just reporting the facts? Bah! I read three newspapers each day and about a dozen magazines each week (not counting what I scan on the Web) and you all sounds like you are simply taking each others' copy, shifting around a few words, slapping on a slightly different title and congratulating yourselves on how you are "informing" the masses. Please, we're not all that stupid. I have yet to read anywhere a thoughtful explanation of your arguments, only how "mean" those of us who think our country is worth protecting are and that if we someone DID remove the illegal aliens nothing in this country would get done. Boloney (or is it bologna?). Here I place as much blame on President Bush as I do the L. A. Times. The constant repetitions of "They are doing jobs that American's won't do" is a crock. Who did that work BEFORE the problem became such a large one? Those expelling that line should at least finish it with an honest appraisal such as "They are doing jobs that Americans won't do for below living wage." At least THAT statement would refect reality and not just be political spin. But then they say "Why, it would drive up prices. Lettuce would cost $5 a head" (I heard this from an illegal alien advocate on the radio). Actually, labor costs are only a tiny fraction of the total cost of food production. As for overall cost to the federal government (and a comparison of how much taxes illegal aliens pay verses how much they take out of the system) can be found here. Just to give you a sampling, here in California the state spends over $8000 per child in school. Now ask yourself this question: With a marginal state tax of 9.3% on every dollar you make over $32,000, how much do you have to pay in state taxes to support one child with the taxes you pay? And that is ignoring all of the other things the state has to try to do with the money it takes in. And as for what it does to wages, well, the impact on the market for wage earners will remain depressed. It's sad that many blue-collar jobs today are no longer sufficient to place those workers in the middle class. The affect on the low end is similar to what is happening to the upper end of salaried workers due to the effects of off-shoring.
Okay, enough on illegal immigrants. I mentioned a confluence and here it is. My other pain lately has been over education. It's amazing what has been happening with the student walkouts supposedly in opposition to H. R. 4437. I've been listening to interviews of the students who have participated in the demonstrations on several different stations and here are some observations and questions I have for you folks:
First, many students interviewed said they teachers told them to join the protest against the House resolution. Second, when asked what they were protesting, in over 30 interviews not one student could accurately say what it was in the resolution they were protesting. One particularly painful exchange was as followings:
Q: Why are you here instead of in school?
A: Because I don't want my family to get deported.
Q: When did your parents come to the United States?
A: I think it was 1975 or 1976.
Q: So you were born here?
A: Yeah.
Q: Were your brothers and sisters born here?
A: Yeah.
Q: [I thought this was quite slick] So when did your parents become U. S. citizens?
A: 1985
Geeze. Other commonly hear statements were "We have a right to be here" and "We pay taxes, we should get to stay and vote".
Okay, this is for you who claim to be teachers... if you ARE telling kids to protest, for heaven's sake at least tell them some FACTS so they don't come across as idiots when asked. Not one interviewed could tell the questioners what the H. R. meant nor how laws get made in this country. These are high school students and college students, haven't they learned anything (or, given the state of education these days, I might rightfully ask if they have been taught anything)? Of course, this makes the assumption they really are they to protest something. From the description of the atmosphere it sounded as if the vast majority were simply there to skip school. Let's not forget the exchange between L. A. Mayor Villaraigosa and the protesting students where after explaining how he supported them said that their voices had been heard, he stands with them, and now it was time to return to school the students chanted "Hell no, we won't go!"
Really? I wonder if they will at least get to claim their part in the protect under "Civic Participation" in their applications to Harvard. But of course, this just might get them in...
First, I am very, very, very disappointed in our press on how it covers what is going on. It's amazing how supporters of H. R. 4437 are called "anti-immigrant" (see for example this story in the leftist (in a bad way) OC Weekly). A political rally was called "anti-immigrant" when it was anything but. For those of us who listened to what was being said, the sentiment was that yes, America is a nation owing much to immigrants, but not ILLEGAL ALIENS (*whew*, almost wrote "immigrants"). Yet they get a pass. In today's Union Tribune there is a cartoon in the editorial section showing an American flag with a magnifying glass help up to one of the stripes. There you see small stick figures spelling out "immigrants". Again, I don't hear anyone on my side of the fence (and what a strange side I have, which you would know if you have been keeping up with all my posts) say "We hate immigrants. Kick them all out!" Shame, shame, shame on you self-righteous media folks. Neutral? Just reporting the facts? Bah! I read three newspapers each day and about a dozen magazines each week (not counting what I scan on the Web) and you all sounds like you are simply taking each others' copy, shifting around a few words, slapping on a slightly different title and congratulating yourselves on how you are "informing" the masses. Please, we're not all that stupid. I have yet to read anywhere a thoughtful explanation of your arguments, only how "mean" those of us who think our country is worth protecting are and that if we someone DID remove the illegal aliens nothing in this country would get done. Boloney (or is it bologna?). Here I place as much blame on President Bush as I do the L. A. Times. The constant repetitions of "They are doing jobs that American's won't do" is a crock. Who did that work BEFORE the problem became such a large one? Those expelling that line should at least finish it with an honest appraisal such as "They are doing jobs that Americans won't do for below living wage." At least THAT statement would refect reality and not just be political spin. But then they say "Why, it would drive up prices. Lettuce would cost $5 a head" (I heard this from an illegal alien advocate on the radio). Actually, labor costs are only a tiny fraction of the total cost of food production. As for overall cost to the federal government (and a comparison of how much taxes illegal aliens pay verses how much they take out of the system) can be found here. Just to give you a sampling, here in California the state spends over $8000 per child in school. Now ask yourself this question: With a marginal state tax of 9.3% on every dollar you make over $32,000, how much do you have to pay in state taxes to support one child with the taxes you pay? And that is ignoring all of the other things the state has to try to do with the money it takes in. And as for what it does to wages, well, the impact on the market for wage earners will remain depressed. It's sad that many blue-collar jobs today are no longer sufficient to place those workers in the middle class. The affect on the low end is similar to what is happening to the upper end of salaried workers due to the effects of off-shoring.
Okay, enough on illegal immigrants. I mentioned a confluence and here it is. My other pain lately has been over education. It's amazing what has been happening with the student walkouts supposedly in opposition to H. R. 4437. I've been listening to interviews of the students who have participated in the demonstrations on several different stations and here are some observations and questions I have for you folks:
First, many students interviewed said they teachers told them to join the protest against the House resolution. Second, when asked what they were protesting, in over 30 interviews not one student could accurately say what it was in the resolution they were protesting. One particularly painful exchange was as followings:
Q: Why are you here instead of in school?
A: Because I don't want my family to get deported.
Q: When did your parents come to the United States?
A: I think it was 1975 or 1976.
Q: So you were born here?
A: Yeah.
Q: Were your brothers and sisters born here?
A: Yeah.
Q: [I thought this was quite slick] So when did your parents become U. S. citizens?
A: 1985
Geeze. Other commonly hear statements were "We have a right to be here" and "We pay taxes, we should get to stay and vote".
Okay, this is for you who claim to be teachers... if you ARE telling kids to protest, for heaven's sake at least tell them some FACTS so they don't come across as idiots when asked. Not one interviewed could tell the questioners what the H. R. meant nor how laws get made in this country. These are high school students and college students, haven't they learned anything (or, given the state of education these days, I might rightfully ask if they have been taught anything)? Of course, this makes the assumption they really are they to protest something. From the description of the atmosphere it sounded as if the vast majority were simply there to skip school. Let's not forget the exchange between L. A. Mayor Villaraigosa and the protesting students where after explaining how he supported them said that their voices had been heard, he stands with them, and now it was time to return to school the students chanted "Hell no, we won't go!"
Really? I wonder if they will at least get to claim their part in the protect under "Civic Participation" in their applications to Harvard. But of course, this just might get them in...
Friday, March 24, 2006
Jesus Christ, Illegal Alien?
I almost succumbed to the California mindset and titled this post "Jesus Christ, Illegal Immigrant". Luckily my solid conservative genes kicked in and I caught myself. When the ruckus started a few years ago and I began to notice that the press was substituting the words "undocumented immigrant" for "illegal alien" I took a pledge then and there to always say "illegal alien". Now, about four years of left-leaning media saturation almost brought me down. The fact that most media outlets have dropped the "illegal" aspect made me think that I would be okay in changing "alien" for "immigrant". Subtle. Of course, the Devil took on the form of what the Scriptures call the most subtle of animals (Genesis 3:1 for you KJVers, or you can use other translations of the Hebrew such as "cunning" if you prefer say ESV). Now, being the conservative that I am I believe in standing for the American version of "God, King, and Country" but I still get a sharp pain in the pit of my stomach when politicians try to pepper their speeches with religious references because, let's face it, most have at best a facile understanding of the Bible. Hence the latest speech given by Mrs Clinton (or is it Ms Clinton, or Ms Rodham? I can't keep these kinds of things straight) on the issue of the recent U. S. House of Representatives bill concerning the status illegal aliens, where the junior senator from New York made the astonishing statement that would make criminals of the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus Himself! I have read the speech and tried to create logic diagrams of her "argument" and for the life of me I just don't see it. Thinking I may have missed something in the actual historical context I search through my rather extensive theological holdings and could find nothing that placed either the story of the Good Samaritan or anything of the facts surrounding the life of Christ into the current framework of the illegal alien debate. Now I know Bill Clinton did the same thing with some of his various invocation of religious imagery, but at least the man sounded like he meant it. If you listened to her give the speech you know what I mean... a complete lack of emotion or even the slightest hint of conviction in what she was saying displayed with her voice. While this does not take away from any argument, I think a speaker should at least convey something of the passion they feel when speaking on such a charged topic.
Will politicians on both sides of the spectrum PLEASE stop trying to bolster their support by the intonation of Biblical references? I distrust more than half of the so-called trained clergy out there, what makes politicians with no theological training believe that I am going to think "Why, they must be alright on this issue, they said 'Jesus' in their speech!" Perhaps this is what most Americans do these days... if so, God help us! I have the same words for the self-important actors attempting to speak with authority on political topics as I do for politicians using religion... "Shut up already!"
Will politicians on both sides of the spectrum PLEASE stop trying to bolster their support by the intonation of Biblical references? I distrust more than half of the so-called trained clergy out there, what makes politicians with no theological training believe that I am going to think "Why, they must be alright on this issue, they said 'Jesus' in their speech!" Perhaps this is what most Americans do these days... if so, God help us! I have the same words for the self-important actors attempting to speak with authority on political topics as I do for politicians using religion... "Shut up already!"
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Our Annual *NOT* Sideways Trip
Now that the car is unloaded, dinner finished (an excellent home-made pasta dish) and about half a bottle of Nebbiolo down it's time to catch the blog up to date. Long before the movie Sideways Pookie and I have made an annual trip up the coast to do some wine tasting. While we have done the Napa/Sonoma rounds, I think I enjoy the wineries in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties more than the more celebrated places further north. Over two days we visited 10 wineries and tasted a little over 80 wines (and even a couple of beers... it was Saint Patrick's Day weekend after all).
After waking up a little after 4 AM on Friday, we hopped in the car and headed to our destination, the wineries around Los Olivos. Our first stop was at Bridlewood Winery, one of the most beautiful properties in the area. Truth be told, over the years I have found their wines inconsistent. This year's tastings though found all they presented very solid, enjoyable wines. We left with several bottles of the 2002 Estate Syrah and their Vinter's Selection Viognier. Next up was my personal favorite, Brander Vineyards. One of the original vineyards of the Santa Ynez Valley, Brander had never let me down with their product and this year proved no exception. They have just released their wonderful Cuvee Natalie as well as their well regarded 2005 Sauvignon Blanc. I was also happily taken with their 2004 Merlot. I used to hate Merlots, but that was before I tasted those of the central coast. To me, most Merlots are watery and have no "legs". My first trip to central coast showed me there was hope for these and I was taken enough with Brander's that I bought a few bottles of it (so if you like Merlot, come on over). We added to our Brander list a couple of bottles of Cuvee Nicolas and we were ready to go (that completed our first case). We asked Nancy for some place off the beaten path to try and she said we should try Beckmen Vineyards. We took her advice and slowly, carefully made our way to Beckmen (amazing how fast wine tasting affects you when you haven't eaten for almost 6 hours). Beckmen's practices bio-dynamic farming and they have several maps in the tasting room to show you how they put their philosophy into practice. Their wines tend to be "Rhone style" which I truly enjoy. We came away with a few bottles of their tasty 2004 Grenache and a wonderfully blended 2004 Cuvee Le Bec. By this time we really needed something to soak up the wine. The choice was to go to the restaurant featured in Sideways (NOT!, though the food really is fantastic I just could not stand to hear one more "Oh it's just like in 'Sideways'" comment) or to a fine little dining spot just around the corner from Los Olivos cafe, this one NOT featured in Sideways, Patrick's Side Street Cafe. Their open face prime sandwich really hit the spot and after about an hour slowly savoring a fine lunch we were ready to go back out into the vineyards. We went by the tasting room of Fess Parker Winery where last time we got to spend a few minutes in the presence of Fess Parker himself (hey, if you grew up on Disney's Davy Crockett it would be a big deal to you too), and finally got to our last desination, Gainey Vineyard. Gainey has one of the best spots in the central coast to relax with a glass of wine and are known for their events held throughout the year. This year presented us with some difficult decisions on what to buy (we were running out of room and we still had Paso Robles to go), but after much agonizing we wound up with their bright Sauvignon Blanc and their just newly released Riesling (so new it's not up yet on their Web site).
By this time we had tasted about 45 wines and felt it was time to head to the hotel. After a nice little 90 minute nap it was time for dinner. We dressed and decided to head into Santa Barbara. Unfortunately CHP had different plans. It seems there was a car jacking in SLO resulting in a 70 mile chase down the 101 resulting the death of the car jacker. CHP had closed off 101, so we decided not to be reverse snobs and head to The Hitching Post where we were treated to a choice steak dinner and another sampling of local wines (as was stated in the movie this place does have its own label). After salad, soup, duck, steak, and a healthy slice of key lime pie (and a smattering of their own wine) it was time to head back to the hotel and tuck in for the night. Unfortunately for me, I discovered the new Doctor Who series on Sci-Fi and was mesmerized by it (in case you don't know, my home does not have television coming to it... a conscious decision made many years ago). I am not quite sure what I think about it yet, will probably have to wait and buy the series and watch it before making my decision. Only after watch the first two episodes was I able to fall asleep.
Saturday morning took up up 101 to Paso Robles. We went first to the only "big" winery on our trip, Meridian Vineyards. As luck would have it, we arrived during the 14th annual Paso Robles Zinfandel Festival, so in addition to their normal tasting they were offering barrel draws of their new Zins along with some scrumpy chocolates. After tasting some excellent wines and chocolates, we left with a few bottles of their limited release Paso Robles Syrah (some of their last bottles) and their just released limited edition 2004 Sangiovese. We next went to a very nice property that specializes in Italian style wines, the Arciero Family Estates, home of EOS wines. This is one of the most "butch" wineries, where else can you see a formula one racing car on the tasting grounds. We tasted some nice Italian style wines and walked off with some bottles of their 2004 Vin Rose and a fantastic blend under their Novella label called Synergy. From here it was just a short hop, skip, and slightly erratic drive to my favorite Italian style wine maker, Martin Weyrich where we dined on some delicious free BBQ while tasting some fantastic wines. By the time we were done we left with a case that included the aforementioned Nebbiolo and a "you gotta get some" Insieme, a great blend of seven different grapes in lip-smackin' proportion. After getting quite full on smoked meat and some of the finest red wine I had that day, we jumped across the 101 to Grey Wolf Cellars. Unfortunately we met up with our first wine tour bus and had to suffer several drunk people. Luckily, having to navigate through the inebriated masses didn't take away from the nice wines and BBQ tri-tip we tasted. After about 30 minutes we came away with a few bottles of their well-balanced 2003 Meritage and their 2003 Roussanne. We figured we had time for one more winery and we decided to try the "Dam [sic] fine wines" of Castoro Cellars. Unfortunately we encountered the largest congregation of wine tasting tours (perhaps due to the fact that their tasting sheet allowed 15 wines for sampling). We tried 13 (including a nice little port), but left with two very nice fruit-forward wines, a Petite Sirah and a fantastic little wine they call Primitivo.
By now it was back to the hotel in Buellton. After a quick stop in SLO, we went back to the hotel and took a short nap. That night we had dinner at a nice little restaurant. By now we were full of wine so we sampled their beers (simple but nice) and after a filling dinner retired back to the hotel.
That takes us up to this morning. After a long but uneventful drive back to San Diego and spending an hour at the gym, I now see that my glass wine, like my evening entry, is at an end. Now, I just have to think up how to get all of you over here to try them out...
After waking up a little after 4 AM on Friday, we hopped in the car and headed to our destination, the wineries around Los Olivos. Our first stop was at Bridlewood Winery, one of the most beautiful properties in the area. Truth be told, over the years I have found their wines inconsistent. This year's tastings though found all they presented very solid, enjoyable wines. We left with several bottles of the 2002 Estate Syrah and their Vinter's Selection Viognier. Next up was my personal favorite, Brander Vineyards. One of the original vineyards of the Santa Ynez Valley, Brander had never let me down with their product and this year proved no exception. They have just released their wonderful Cuvee Natalie as well as their well regarded 2005 Sauvignon Blanc. I was also happily taken with their 2004 Merlot. I used to hate Merlots, but that was before I tasted those of the central coast. To me, most Merlots are watery and have no "legs". My first trip to central coast showed me there was hope for these and I was taken enough with Brander's that I bought a few bottles of it (so if you like Merlot, come on over). We added to our Brander list a couple of bottles of Cuvee Nicolas and we were ready to go (that completed our first case). We asked Nancy for some place off the beaten path to try and she said we should try Beckmen Vineyards. We took her advice and slowly, carefully made our way to Beckmen (amazing how fast wine tasting affects you when you haven't eaten for almost 6 hours). Beckmen's practices bio-dynamic farming and they have several maps in the tasting room to show you how they put their philosophy into practice. Their wines tend to be "Rhone style" which I truly enjoy. We came away with a few bottles of their tasty 2004 Grenache and a wonderfully blended 2004 Cuvee Le Bec. By this time we really needed something to soak up the wine. The choice was to go to the restaurant featured in Sideways (NOT!, though the food really is fantastic I just could not stand to hear one more "Oh it's just like in 'Sideways'" comment) or to a fine little dining spot just around the corner from Los Olivos cafe, this one NOT featured in Sideways, Patrick's Side Street Cafe. Their open face prime sandwich really hit the spot and after about an hour slowly savoring a fine lunch we were ready to go back out into the vineyards. We went by the tasting room of Fess Parker Winery where last time we got to spend a few minutes in the presence of Fess Parker himself (hey, if you grew up on Disney's Davy Crockett it would be a big deal to you too), and finally got to our last desination, Gainey Vineyard. Gainey has one of the best spots in the central coast to relax with a glass of wine and are known for their events held throughout the year. This year presented us with some difficult decisions on what to buy (we were running out of room and we still had Paso Robles to go), but after much agonizing we wound up with their bright Sauvignon Blanc and their just newly released Riesling (so new it's not up yet on their Web site).
By this time we had tasted about 45 wines and felt it was time to head to the hotel. After a nice little 90 minute nap it was time for dinner. We dressed and decided to head into Santa Barbara. Unfortunately CHP had different plans. It seems there was a car jacking in SLO resulting in a 70 mile chase down the 101 resulting the death of the car jacker. CHP had closed off 101, so we decided not to be reverse snobs and head to The Hitching Post where we were treated to a choice steak dinner and another sampling of local wines (as was stated in the movie this place does have its own label). After salad, soup, duck, steak, and a healthy slice of key lime pie (and a smattering of their own wine) it was time to head back to the hotel and tuck in for the night. Unfortunately for me, I discovered the new Doctor Who series on Sci-Fi and was mesmerized by it (in case you don't know, my home does not have television coming to it... a conscious decision made many years ago). I am not quite sure what I think about it yet, will probably have to wait and buy the series and watch it before making my decision. Only after watch the first two episodes was I able to fall asleep.
Saturday morning took up up 101 to Paso Robles. We went first to the only "big" winery on our trip, Meridian Vineyards. As luck would have it, we arrived during the 14th annual Paso Robles Zinfandel Festival, so in addition to their normal tasting they were offering barrel draws of their new Zins along with some scrumpy chocolates. After tasting some excellent wines and chocolates, we left with a few bottles of their limited release Paso Robles Syrah (some of their last bottles) and their just released limited edition 2004 Sangiovese. We next went to a very nice property that specializes in Italian style wines, the Arciero Family Estates, home of EOS wines. This is one of the most "butch" wineries, where else can you see a formula one racing car on the tasting grounds. We tasted some nice Italian style wines and walked off with some bottles of their 2004 Vin Rose and a fantastic blend under their Novella label called Synergy. From here it was just a short hop, skip, and slightly erratic drive to my favorite Italian style wine maker, Martin Weyrich where we dined on some delicious free BBQ while tasting some fantastic wines. By the time we were done we left with a case that included the aforementioned Nebbiolo and a "you gotta get some" Insieme, a great blend of seven different grapes in lip-smackin' proportion. After getting quite full on smoked meat and some of the finest red wine I had that day, we jumped across the 101 to Grey Wolf Cellars. Unfortunately we met up with our first wine tour bus and had to suffer several drunk people. Luckily, having to navigate through the inebriated masses didn't take away from the nice wines and BBQ tri-tip we tasted. After about 30 minutes we came away with a few bottles of their well-balanced 2003 Meritage and their 2003 Roussanne. We figured we had time for one more winery and we decided to try the "Dam [sic] fine wines" of Castoro Cellars. Unfortunately we encountered the largest congregation of wine tasting tours (perhaps due to the fact that their tasting sheet allowed 15 wines for sampling). We tried 13 (including a nice little port), but left with two very nice fruit-forward wines, a Petite Sirah and a fantastic little wine they call Primitivo.
By now it was back to the hotel in Buellton. After a quick stop in SLO, we went back to the hotel and took a short nap. That night we had dinner at a nice little restaurant. By now we were full of wine so we sampled their beers (simple but nice) and after a filling dinner retired back to the hotel.
That takes us up to this morning. After a long but uneventful drive back to San Diego and spending an hour at the gym, I now see that my glass wine, like my evening entry, is at an end. Now, I just have to think up how to get all of you over here to try them out...
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Edyamuhkation
Ripped from the headlines of today's San Diego Tribune: CSU freshmen fail proficiency goal. According to the article more than half the freshmen in the state's largest public university system were academically unprepared this year. In fact, only 45% were "fully prepared" in both math and English. At Cal State San Marcos, of the 659 freshmen admitted in fall 2004, 63% needed remedial education in either math or English or both! Notice what this says, that 63% of those admitted, that is, they got in. Even though they were not prepared in the two most fundamental subjects they were allowed to enter the Cal State system. My question to you dear readers is "Why?" I just do not see the justification. Let me be frank, a college education is not due anyone but is something that must be earned. Yes, I will admit that I am a bit of an elitist but I don't see a problem with being one. I believe in earned privilege, that is, if you meet the criteria you are allowed to attend. I didn't grow up with any of the advantages that even most of the poor in San Diego have. Neither of my parents went to college. I went to the same rural high school they attended in the Missouri section of the Ozarks (yes, I am a hillbilly). The first house I remember didn't have running water and you could see the ground between the cracks in the floor. We didn't have a city paper, didn't have a town library (the elementary school library consisted of six book carts, one for each grade and even that was inaccessible 4 months out of the year). Growing up we probably had less than 20 books in the house (and several of those were different translations of the Bible). There was no Electric Company or Sesame Street and certainly no Discovery Channel or History Channel (heck, no cable television, we got CBS and NBC and on stormy days we picked up an ABC signal bounce). I was the first person in our extended family to go to college (my sister was the second). Not only did we go, we excelled (my sister graduated with a 4.0 majoring in business administration while I completed work in the areas of mathematics and computer science through the doctoral level). Our parents never pushed us to go to college, they couldn't economically support us, but they did emotionally and spiritually support us. I worked two and sometimes three jobs to put myself through the various colleges I attended. So please people, stop with the excuses.
It's interesting how people cry that our educational system needs more money, that we have too few teachers for so many students. Let's see, if 55% are not prepared perhaps that is one place to start looking. Just for fun take a class schedule, turn to the math and English offerings, and count the number of sections offered that are below the minimum level for college credit. Compare that number with the total number of sections offered for all courses that count toward a major in those areas (you may get quite a shock). Just think of the money and hours that are poured into classes whose sole purpose is to prepare students to take college-level classes (which I thought was one of the purposes of high school for those intending to go to college).
If we combine the information in this report with all those letters to the editor of people crying about our precious high school students being required to pass an exit exam to obtain their high school diploma (and for those of you not in California this simply amounts to the student showing they can adequately demonstrate eight grade math skills and show proficiency in English equivalent to that taught in the tenth grade) we get a sorry picture of what education is in our state. God help us.
It's interesting how people cry that our educational system needs more money, that we have too few teachers for so many students. Let's see, if 55% are not prepared perhaps that is one place to start looking. Just for fun take a class schedule, turn to the math and English offerings, and count the number of sections offered that are below the minimum level for college credit. Compare that number with the total number of sections offered for all courses that count toward a major in those areas (you may get quite a shock). Just think of the money and hours that are poured into classes whose sole purpose is to prepare students to take college-level classes (which I thought was one of the purposes of high school for those intending to go to college).
If we combine the information in this report with all those letters to the editor of people crying about our precious high school students being required to pass an exit exam to obtain their high school diploma (and for those of you not in California this simply amounts to the student showing they can adequately demonstrate eight grade math skills and show proficiency in English equivalent to that taught in the tenth grade) we get a sorry picture of what education is in our state. God help us.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Another Quiz
Actually, I have been told this before by other people.
You scored as Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones is an archaeologist/adventurer with an unquenchable love for danger and excitement. He travels the globe in search of historical relics. He loves travel, excitement, and a good archaeological discovery. He hates Nazis and snakes, perhaps to the same degree. He always brings along his trusty whip and fedora. He's tough, cool, and dedicated. He relies on both brains and brawn to get him out of trouble and into it.
Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com
You scored as Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones is an archaeologist/adventurer with an unquenchable love for danger and excitement. He travels the globe in search of historical relics. He loves travel, excitement, and a good archaeological discovery. He hates Nazis and snakes, perhaps to the same degree. He always brings along his trusty whip and fedora. He's tough, cool, and dedicated. He relies on both brains and brawn to get him out of trouble and into it.
Indiana Jones | 78% | ||
Neo, the "One" | 67% | ||
Lara Croft | 63% | ||
William Wallace | 63% | ||
James Bond, Agent 007 | 58% | ||
Batman, the Dark Knight | 54% | ||
Captain Jack Sparrow | 54% | ||
El Zorro | 50% | ||
Maximus | 46% | ||
The Amazing Spider-Man | 46% | ||
The Terminator | 38% |
Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com
Friday, March 10, 2006
Ramblings On Abortion, Final Thoughts
Well, it's time to finish (for now) my thoughts on the topic of abortion. I have yet to find any arguments that undo my initial logical construction showing how abortion is murder. It's simply a matter of logic. However, logic takes you only so far in real life. In my library I have a series of lectures by Professor Ronald Nash on philosophy and Christian apologetics. In a section addressing the logical problems that evil proposes to the Christian world view, after showing how many of the problems can be refuted using the tools of logic, Professor Nash says something to the effect of "When you are personally faced with problems of enormous evil in the world, you shouldn't turn to a philosopher to help you through it." What he means is that when you are emotionally distressed, knowing that a logical syllogism can "explain" the "why" doesn't do anything for the honest heart-wrenching feelings that you are experiencing. In the first three postings I leaned very hard on the logic and scientific facts that, to my mind show abortion to be wrong. These would not help me in dealing with say a rape victim who is contemplating an abortion. What that person needs is someone who will listen, who will show compassion and honestly try to help her and her family in this situation. That being said, we must make sure that we do not completely throw out logic to make way for emotion. Yes, someone was violated, a terrible act, but it does not follow that the wrong of rape can be countered with the wrong of murder (that in and of itself would take several postings, but to boil it down to what I am sure everyone has heard, "Two wrongs don't make a right"). As for the general argument pro-abortionists make of a woman's "right" to choose to have an abortion (the "It's my body, I can do with it as I so choose" position), how any anyone hold that position when it comes to taking the life of another human being? Privacy arguments do not help here either since wrongs done in private do not become rights. Your right to act for your own benefit ends at least at the point it places the life of another at risk, yet this is exactly the situation for elective abortion. Cases of rape and incest are one thing, but simply wanting to end a life just because you don't want the child is the weakest reason to have abortion.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Work and Fulfillment
My current "business related" book is John Maxwell's The 360 Degree Leader. In it Maxwell shows how 99% of all leadership in most organizations takes place in the middle, not the top, and how people in the middle who want to be considered leaders have to "lead up", "lead across", and "lead down" (interesting how people only view leadership as from the top down). A section I want to share is entitled "How to be fulfilled in the middle of the pack". The short answer is "learn to see the big picture", but rather than just leave it like that Maxwell gives the following hints:
Develop strong relationships with key people. "It's more important to get along with people than to get ahread of them"
Define a win in terms of teamwork. Here Maxwell quotes former basketball coach John Wooden "The main ingredient of stardom is the rest of the team."
Engage in continual communications. This includes communicating UP the chain as well as down.
Gain experience and maturity. "Maturity doesn't come with age. It begins with the acceptance of responsibility."
Put the team above your personal success. Leadership is about helping others to win.
Interestingly enough, this looks pretty much how a good familial relationship should be run. You and your partner/wife/husband/children are a team, a single unit. The strength of that unit rests in the relationships you have one with another. You win as a family, not just as individuals (second person plural pronoun here folks). As part of a family you have responsibilities to the other members in the family. Hmmm... looks like Maxwell provides not just good business advice, but he makes a pretty good "Dr. Laura" as well.
Interestingly enough, this looks pretty much how a good familial relationship should be run. You and your partner/wife/husband/children are a team, a single unit. The strength of that unit rests in the relationships you have one with another. You win as a family, not just as individuals (second person plural pronoun here folks). As part of a family you have responsibilities to the other members in the family. Hmmm... looks like Maxwell provides not just good business advice, but he makes a pretty good "Dr. Laura" as well.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Fun With Quizes
My friend Chris just sent me a fun little quiz to take. I thought I would share the results:
You scored as Babylon 5 (Babylon 5). The universe is erupting into war and your government picks the wrong side. How much worse could things get? It doesn't matter, because no matter what you have your friends and you'll do the right thing. In the end that will be all that matters. Now if only the Psi Cops would leave you alone.
Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)
created with QuizFarm.com
You scored as Babylon 5 (Babylon 5). The universe is erupting into war and your government picks the wrong side. How much worse could things get? It doesn't matter, because no matter what you have your friends and you'll do the right thing. In the end that will be all that matters. Now if only the Psi Cops would leave you alone.
Babylon 5 (Babylon 5) | 81% | ||
Millennium Falcon (Star Wars) | 81% | ||
Enterprise D (Star Trek) | 81% | ||
Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica) | 75% | ||
Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix) | 69% | ||
Moya (Farscape) | 63% | ||
Serenity (Firefly) | 63% | ||
FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files) | 56% | ||
Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda) | 50% | ||
Deep Space Nine (Star Trek) | 50% | ||
SG-1 (Stargate) | 44% | ||
Bebop (Cowboy Bebop) | 31% |
Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)
created with QuizFarm.com
Ramblings On Abortion, Part Three
Okay, where were we? Oh yes, examining the key question to the abortion debate and the options avaiable (or, to sound fancy, applying our epistemology to the ontology of the fetus). So, if the fetus is an innocent human being, then based on the syllogism displayed in the first posting on abortion we must conclude that abortion is murder and if our moral values place murder in the "naughty" column then it must be avoided at all costs. So let's take a look at this idea of the fetus as a human being (I am assuming that people do not have a problem with me dropping the "innocent" part for now, so if you do please email me so we can discuss it).
In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court, in thinking it was taking a neutral position, said that they were not going to address whether or not the fetus was a human being. What is amazing to me is that these supposedly sharp folks couldn't see (or perhaps didn't want to see) that they really did. By allowing abortion, they in effect said that human life does not begin at conception, that the fetus is not a human being and thus can be removed/extracted/aborted/killed. I have never understood how people cannot see that just because they claim neutrality it does not mean they are neutral. Let me be as clear and as blunt as possible: Human life begins at conception. Period. Done. Next topic. What, you don't accept my word that it is? You want me to provide an argument for something that I see is as clear as crystal? (Hey, calm down, just being a little facetious). For me, the case of a fetus being a human being can be made on the following facts:
Fact: Let's look at a little basic genetics. Each human being has, to the best of our knowledge, a unique set of 46 chromosomes contining the genetic code for that person (forgive the mix of "human being" with "person", I know some people have problems with this but I promise to address it in a later post). If you stayed awake in class, you recall that 23 of come from the father's sperm and 23 come from the ovum and they combine to create a new and unique zygote. This tiny little creature has all of the genetic information that a fully developed person has. This isn't simply a blob of tissue, it is a completely new creature.
Fact: Because it is a new creature, the fetus in the mother's womb cannot be considered "part" of the mother. In fact, if you follow this line of thinking (that the fetus is simply part of the mother's body) then you get some startling conclusions, such as, the mother has will have four legs, four arms, two heads, and in about half of the cases both a penis and a vagina. When you also take into consideration that often the bloodtype of the fetus is different from the mother as well as the fact that fertilized ova maintain their characteristics regardless of where they incubate (a fertilized ovum from a black couple that is implanted in a white woman will become a black baby), it is pretty clear to see that the fetus isn't simply an extention of the mother.
Fact: The development requirements for a fetus as the same as those of a baby (or for a human at any stage of development): food, water, air, and time. This leads to certain problematic issues for those who want to maintain that the difference between a fetus and "human being" is one of development, for going down that path we have to conclude that we are NEVER really human beings since there is always some level of development occurring.
The conclusion is pretty easy to make: The union of a sperm with an ovum causes the creation of new human being. This human being, which at the time of union we call a zygote, if given time, air, and nourishment will be born (even though I disagree with this usage I will call this) a baby. Given time, air, and nourishment this baby will grow into a toddler, then a teenage (the argument against being a human being is stronger here than at conception IMHO), then an adult, etc. Aha! (you might say "This fetus is only a 'potential' human being"... but let's think seriously about this folks, even a potential human being must be an actual something in order to be a potential human being. What is it? Let's not confuse development and function with ontology. There are no "potential human beings" just as there are no "potential cats". All human beings are actual. We might be potential NBA stars (like my nephew Justin) or potential CEOs (me, me, me), but it's the functioning that is potential, the "being" is actual. If you disagree, write me, for even I your humble blogger have the potential to be mistaken.
In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court, in thinking it was taking a neutral position, said that they were not going to address whether or not the fetus was a human being. What is amazing to me is that these supposedly sharp folks couldn't see (or perhaps didn't want to see) that they really did. By allowing abortion, they in effect said that human life does not begin at conception, that the fetus is not a human being and thus can be removed/extracted/aborted/killed. I have never understood how people cannot see that just because they claim neutrality it does not mean they are neutral. Let me be as clear and as blunt as possible: Human life begins at conception. Period. Done. Next topic. What, you don't accept my word that it is? You want me to provide an argument for something that I see is as clear as crystal? (Hey, calm down, just being a little facetious). For me, the case of a fetus being a human being can be made on the following facts:
Fact: Let's look at a little basic genetics. Each human being has, to the best of our knowledge, a unique set of 46 chromosomes contining the genetic code for that person (forgive the mix of "human being" with "person", I know some people have problems with this but I promise to address it in a later post). If you stayed awake in class, you recall that 23 of come from the father's sperm and 23 come from the ovum and they combine to create a new and unique zygote. This tiny little creature has all of the genetic information that a fully developed person has. This isn't simply a blob of tissue, it is a completely new creature.
Fact: Because it is a new creature, the fetus in the mother's womb cannot be considered "part" of the mother. In fact, if you follow this line of thinking (that the fetus is simply part of the mother's body) then you get some startling conclusions, such as, the mother has will have four legs, four arms, two heads, and in about half of the cases both a penis and a vagina. When you also take into consideration that often the bloodtype of the fetus is different from the mother as well as the fact that fertilized ova maintain their characteristics regardless of where they incubate (a fertilized ovum from a black couple that is implanted in a white woman will become a black baby), it is pretty clear to see that the fetus isn't simply an extention of the mother.
Fact: The development requirements for a fetus as the same as those of a baby (or for a human at any stage of development): food, water, air, and time. This leads to certain problematic issues for those who want to maintain that the difference between a fetus and "human being" is one of development, for going down that path we have to conclude that we are NEVER really human beings since there is always some level of development occurring.
The conclusion is pretty easy to make: The union of a sperm with an ovum causes the creation of new human being. This human being, which at the time of union we call a zygote, if given time, air, and nourishment will be born (even though I disagree with this usage I will call this) a baby. Given time, air, and nourishment this baby will grow into a toddler, then a teenage (the argument against being a human being is stronger here than at conception IMHO), then an adult, etc. Aha! (you might say "This fetus is only a 'potential' human being"... but let's think seriously about this folks, even a potential human being must be an actual something in order to be a potential human being. What is it? Let's not confuse development and function with ontology. There are no "potential human beings" just as there are no "potential cats". All human beings are actual. We might be potential NBA stars (like my nephew Justin) or potential CEOs (me, me, me), but it's the functioning that is potential, the "being" is actual. If you disagree, write me, for even I your humble blogger have the potential to be mistaken.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Station Break
My partner and I have been watching "Absolutely Fabulous" recently. Last night, while watching the episode titled "Jealous", Edina (Jennifer Saunders) gave one speech that, if you pay attention, actually gives a rather meaningful message to today's society:
"I was gonna make a speech, but I just can't be bothered anymore. I mean this used to be, like, fun, you know. You know it used to be fun, you just ball out all the fun bits now, you know, with all these lunches and launches… You know, with some no career celebrities and party desperates… And what for, huh? It all culminates in crap-tags and mags? Well I'm sorry there has to be something more than that, doesn't there? Well I had a speech, you know? The whole projected-intergrated-global-tele-network system, bloody system, system… But you know, if that's what the world's coming to I don't want to be in it, I don't want that.I don't want to be in some sort of hyper-space bloody virtual reality, I don't want that! Exchanging email with some bloody old-age hippies with more information at their fingertips than is safe, I don't want that. What kind of reality is that, with a 13-amp plug on the end of it, huh [Emphasis mine]? That can be unplugged like that. [She gets up to leave] No, I'm not going yet. No, you, [points to her competition] you you sit there with your bell-curves and bloody ad-man, crack-head ad-man over there, those kings of bastardization, who took anything that was ever real and genuine and honest and attached it to a toilet cleaner. Whereas I, like a bird upon the wire, like a drunk in a midnight choir, I have tried, in my way, to be free. [Edina tries to sing] You can laugh but you know something, I don't want more choice I JUST WANT NICER THINGS! And you, tear that look off your face with your whales and your cancer and your AIDS and starvation, yeah, skimming any profit off the whole of human misery, ladeling us all with this 'global guilt.' You know it may not be all great and good but it ain't that bad, you know, so common' world cheer up, it may never happen ? [Emphasis mine]."
Eddy... I couldn't have said it better myself.
"I was gonna make a speech, but I just can't be bothered anymore. I mean this used to be, like, fun, you know. You know it used to be fun, you just ball out all the fun bits now, you know, with all these lunches and launches… You know, with some no career celebrities and party desperates… And what for, huh? It all culminates in crap-tags and mags? Well I'm sorry there has to be something more than that, doesn't there? Well I had a speech, you know? The whole projected-intergrated-global-tele-network system, bloody system, system… But you know, if that's what the world's coming to I don't want to be in it, I don't want that.
Eddy... I couldn't have said it better myself.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Ramblings On Abortion, Part Two
Okay, let's talk a little more about the charged topic of abortion. Last post I created a simple syllogism to show my problem with the current state of abortion on demand:
P1: Murder is the killing of an innocent human being.
P2: A fetus is an innocent human being.
P3: Abortion is the killing of a fetus.
C: Abortion is murder.
The greatest argument I see people having is with P2, my statement that the fetus is an innocent human being. How, let's discuss that premise for a moment. There are two parts in the description of a fetus: (1) it is innocent and (2) it is a human being. Let's start with the second part first, as that seems to be the largest source of objection. Let's look at it first as a logic puzzle (ignoring for the moment any emotional appeals) and ask "What are our possible options?" These options are rather simple, either the fetus is a human being or it is not. Two options. However, the problem goes a little deeper than that as a main part of the argument of Roe (and, honestly, almost all pro-abortion arguments) deals not just with ontology but also epistemology(that is, not just what the fetus is, but what we know about what the fetus is). So, when thought of this way, the options laid out before us are as follows:
Option 1: The fetus is a human being, and we know it.
Option 2: The fetus is a human being, and we don't know it.
Option 3; The fetus is not a human being, and don't know it.
Option 4: The fetus is not a human being, and we know it.
Now, I take the position of option 1, which means that abortion does equate to murder. Most pro-abortionists would claim option 4 is correct and, if they are correct, there is no reason to disallow abortion in any case. However, a large number of people (perhaps even the majority of Americans) claim to hold one of the "agnostic" position (option 2 or option 3). In fact, Blackmum in his opinion about Roe v Wade made the statement that the Supreme Court could not settle the question of the personhood of the fetus and thus they should err on the side of pro-abortionists (essentially, we don't know what it is, so it is okay to kill it). I claim that this is the wrong path to take in the case of expressed agnosticism. In the case of option 2, abortion is at best manslaugher, the accidental killing of a human being. It's like fumigation without checking if anyone is in the building. If there is and they die, you cannot plead ignorance. Thus the more conservative approach of checking before you release the gas is the best course, that way you can say that you know the building is empty and knowingly answer the question "Is there anyone in the house?" Now what about case 3? Again with the fumigation example, you didn't check, fumigated the building, and no one died. So what? At best, you got lucky. You didn't care, you were simply irresponsible (and criminal negligence is still open as a charge). Thus to me, the agnostic position cuts the way opposite of that taken by most pro-abortionists. Being a responsible human being means erring on the side against the willful killing of the fetus.
P1: Murder is the killing of an innocent human being.
P2: A fetus is an innocent human being.
P3: Abortion is the killing of a fetus.
C: Abortion is murder.
The greatest argument I see people having is with P2, my statement that the fetus is an innocent human being. How, let's discuss that premise for a moment. There are two parts in the description of a fetus: (1) it is innocent and (2) it is a human being. Let's start with the second part first, as that seems to be the largest source of objection. Let's look at it first as a logic puzzle (ignoring for the moment any emotional appeals) and ask "What are our possible options?" These options are rather simple, either the fetus is a human being or it is not. Two options. However, the problem goes a little deeper than that as a main part of the argument of Roe (and, honestly, almost all pro-abortion arguments) deals not just with ontology but also epistemology(that is, not just what the fetus is, but what we know about what the fetus is). So, when thought of this way, the options laid out before us are as follows:
Option 1: The fetus is a human being, and we know it.
Option 2: The fetus is a human being, and we don't know it.
Option 3; The fetus is not a human being, and don't know it.
Option 4: The fetus is not a human being, and we know it.
Now, I take the position of option 1, which means that abortion does equate to murder. Most pro-abortionists would claim option 4 is correct and, if they are correct, there is no reason to disallow abortion in any case. However, a large number of people (perhaps even the majority of Americans) claim to hold one of the "agnostic" position (option 2 or option 3). In fact, Blackmum in his opinion about Roe v Wade made the statement that the Supreme Court could not settle the question of the personhood of the fetus and thus they should err on the side of pro-abortionists (essentially, we don't know what it is, so it is okay to kill it). I claim that this is the wrong path to take in the case of expressed agnosticism. In the case of option 2, abortion is at best manslaugher, the accidental killing of a human being. It's like fumigation without checking if anyone is in the building. If there is and they die, you cannot plead ignorance. Thus the more conservative approach of checking before you release the gas is the best course, that way you can say that you know the building is empty and knowingly answer the question "Is there anyone in the house?" Now what about case 3? Again with the fumigation example, you didn't check, fumigated the building, and no one died. So what? At best, you got lucky. You didn't care, you were simply irresponsible (and criminal negligence is still open as a charge). Thus to me, the agnostic position cuts the way opposite of that taken by most pro-abortionists. Being a responsible human being means erring on the side against the willful killing of the fetus.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Ramblings On Abortion, Part One
Today my good friend Chris sent a link to an issue I admit has been off my radar scope for some time regarding the decision of the South Dakota supreme court on abortion. The letter was short but passionate regarding his disagreement with their decision. I'm not too sure if he knew my thoughts regarding abortion, so to make the record public I hereby declare myself firmly in the "pro-life" camp. Now to be honest, my most passionate reasons tend to stem from my theology rather than my philosophy but I do think that my rational processes create a valid structure for being against abortion as it currently stands. The email though did something to me (something good), it started me thinking about the subject matter again, which lead me to think about this whole blogging thing. Some topics are really difficult to write about, especially ones that are (1) emotionally charged and (2) require strong, often long-winded and intricate logical arguments. I don't know about you, but I still have problems reading online articles for extended periods of time. So, to help us both out I will chop what I have to say into several hopefully smaller articles (though perhaps not consecutive, depending on who Cheney shoots or Michael Moore lies about). I will also try to the best of my ability to leave overt reference to theological arguments out since not everyone is convinced that God or some higher power exists.
So here goes nuttin': For me, abortion as practiced today is simply murder. Okay folks, thanks for stopping by, don't forget to tip on your way out. But seriously, if my understandings are correct, the conclusion is inescapable and we must take action (after all, murder is at the very least illegal if not down right immoral... and yes, I do separate the two). So how do I come to this conclusion? By the following argument:
P1: Murder is the killing of an innocent human being.
P2: A fetus is an innocent human being.
P3: Abortion is the killing of a fetus.
C: Abortion is murder.
Now I don't think my definition of murder is off the mark so P1 should stand. Some people may quibble with my use of the word "fetus" in P3, so if you want to use "embryo" that would be fine with me, I think that the argument works as well. Where I think most people will have problems is with P2, that is, they will say that I am off my rocker to say that a fetus (or embryo) is an innocent human being. In fact, to me, that is the the nut of the problem that needs to be cracked, and unlike Justice Blackmum in the original Roe v Wade decision , I am not afraid to try (interesting enough, I think one of his strongest arguments works against the pro-abortionist, but more on that in a later blog).
So, there you have it, my starting point. In subsequent writings I hope to expand on the argument with attention to P2. Hope you stick around and let me know what you think.
So here goes nuttin': For me, abortion as practiced today is simply murder. Okay folks, thanks for stopping by, don't forget to tip on your way out. But seriously, if my understandings are correct, the conclusion is inescapable and we must take action (after all, murder is at the very least illegal if not down right immoral... and yes, I do separate the two). So how do I come to this conclusion? By the following argument:
P1: Murder is the killing of an innocent human being.
P2: A fetus is an innocent human being.
P3: Abortion is the killing of a fetus.
C: Abortion is murder.
Now I don't think my definition of murder is off the mark so P1 should stand. Some people may quibble with my use of the word "fetus" in P3, so if you want to use "embryo" that would be fine with me, I think that the argument works as well. Where I think most people will have problems is with P2, that is, they will say that I am off my rocker to say that a fetus (or embryo) is an innocent human being. In fact, to me, that is the the nut of the problem that needs to be cracked, and unlike Justice Blackmum in the original Roe v Wade decision , I am not afraid to try (interesting enough, I think one of his strongest arguments works against the pro-abortionist, but more on that in a later blog).
So, there you have it, my starting point. In subsequent writings I hope to expand on the argument with attention to P2. Hope you stick around and let me know what you think.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
"Don't be evil": Only as good as the definition of evil.
For those of you who do know know the significance of the phrase, "Don't be evil" is the informal motto of Google, probably the most talked about company of the last couple of years. Over the past couple of weeks I have seen more articles than I care to recount on how American search companies (including Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft) are dealing with China and how they caved in to the pressure exerted by the Communist Party (no, not the Democrat party of the U. S., the Communist party that controls mainland China). If you really, truly don't know what I am talking about, here are a couple of articles, two condemning their actions from the International Herald Tribue and Reporters Without Borders (yeah, I'm referencing them, don't have a stroke), and one that is a bit more mixed from InformationWeek. Now I think there may be some merit in the arguments of the big companies that they are "bringing the Internet" to China and that it is practically impossible to actually block everything. So be it. But let's be honest, if in the pursuit of profit they are willing to compromise here then what else will they compromise on? As Google is market's "flavor of the moment" they will be the main topic of discussion, but in all honesty they bring it upon themselves. You see, for all the supposed depth that the Googlites think exists in saying they are guided by "Don't be evil", I am shocked that these supposedly smart people would allow themselves to be guided by such fuzzy thinking. Google has claimed that they are simply making themselves be in compliance with a foreign government. I hope they do not really think that legal = good (or moral). In fact, if you look at their activities in other areas, this appears not to be the case those this is their main argument with respect to the China issue. When examined from a philosophical point of view they are terribly all over the map... which I suppose reflects a solid indoctrination in elitist moral relativism (and in reading up on my subjects under current discussion, that appears to be an accurate assessment of their background). For example, in an article in Wired, Google says that they have a policy of not accepting ads for any person or group is "anti- anything". So if you are a group against the selling of children for sex (that is, "anti" child sex slave trade), Google wouldn't, based on this simple statement of their current moral view, accept an ad from you while there is at least the possibility of them accepting one advertising the Asian child sex trade (after all, if you are advertising it you can take that as a "pro" position)? Of course, the "anti" policy seems to be more a suggestion (or a quip for the press) than a true guide since Google does accept ads for "anti-smoking". The fact that Google accepts advertising for adult content sites is an intriguing commentary on their morality: Cigarettes and booze are evil; porn is not... welcome to contemporary liberal thinking. And lets not forget that while they didn't acquiesce to the federal goverment's request for search information in the name of privacy, they did collaborate with China in the fight AGAINST freedom of access of information.
Contemporary market purists may say that what these companies are doing is simply "the price of doing business". This is why I suppose I am not a proponent of contemporary market theory. I am all for free markets, but I do not buy what has become known as the Nexus of Contracts Theory of the corporation, an outgrowth of economic work lead by Milton Friedman based on the idea of the corporation's sole moral obligation of protecting shareholder profits. I think we let companies get away with far too much just because of market valuations. I'm sorry, but for me "money makes right" has no more argumentative strength than does "might makes right".
Contemporary market purists may say that what these companies are doing is simply "the price of doing business". This is why I suppose I am not a proponent of contemporary market theory. I am all for free markets, but I do not buy what has become known as the Nexus of Contracts Theory of the corporation, an outgrowth of economic work lead by Milton Friedman based on the idea of the corporation's sole moral obligation of protecting shareholder profits. I think we let companies get away with far too much just because of market valuations. I'm sorry, but for me "money makes right" has no more argumentative strength than does "might makes right".
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Work, work, work
Short post. Between work and school starting back up this week has been quite busy. And look at all the fun we could be having! I mean, how many times does the vice president shoot someone during a hunting trip? And just how many ways can California Democrat assembly people reject a sexual predator law (and just what is the acceptable number of images of child pornography should one be allowed)? And your friendly conservative blogger has actually found a terribly liberal cartoon funny (no, not the ones causing the Islamic uproar... Boondocks!). So, hold on, I'll be back ASAP.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Two Huhs?
Huh Number One: In yesterday's San Diego Union Tribune, Babak Rahimi, assistant professor of Islamic Studies at UC-San Diego, wrote the following in an editorial titled Why Many Muslims Are Angry: "In sum, the demonizing caricature of Muhammad is more about the reduction of the Muslim world into a single sterotypical image of violence and rage than a satirical critique of Muslim's rejection of freedom of speech." So let's see... they react to the West's supposed caricature of them as full of violence and rage by, let's see, being violent and showing rage? What makes it almost humorous is Rahimi's throwaway sentence, after eight paragraphs of speaking of inflamatory cartoons and "explaining" why they act that way, "The above explanation is not, however to absolve those Muslims of responsiblity of the recent violence...", but then goes on to say that they are taking the "bait" and that the "true reality" is that the Muslim rage is a reaction to the "dehumanization" of Muslims than an essential feature of Islam. Geeze, let's see, if the initial, common reaction is rage and violence, from where does this come? And the dear professor seems to overlook the fact that repeated reports of Islamic clerics fanning the flames of the common people. Now where do the common people find their understanding of what is core to Islam? Hmmm...
Huh Number Two: While I rarely, rarely read the Los Angeles Times (AKA Left-Angeles Times I came across an article that really, really made me go "HUH?". The article was End Is Not Near Enough for Pastors. The opening was typical of those about evangelical gatherings, Evangelical ministers meet in Inglewood to discuss ways to convert millions and hasten the Second Coming. Hasten the Second Coming? "No way" I thought, but then I read the whole article and sure enough there is a quote from James Davis, president of the "Billion Souls Initiative"of the Global Pastor's Network: As we advance around the world, we'll be shortening the time needed to fulfill that great commission [Christ's command to spread the Gospel to the ends of the Earth]. Then, the Bible says, the end will come. Excuse me, but having read and studied the same passages of the Bible, I see nothing of the sort. Logically what we have here is a problem of causality. Spreading the Gospel to the whole world will not CAUSE the Second Coming. At most we can say that while it is a necessary action it is not sufficient in a causal manner on its own. In the end, no one knows the time, only God. There is no indication that you can manipulate God's divine timeline. Why, oh why, do they have to make such statements in a public forum? It just makes it harder on the rest of us.
Huh Number Two: While I rarely, rarely read the Los Angeles Times (AKA Left-Angeles Times I came across an article that really, really made me go "HUH?". The article was End Is Not Near Enough for Pastors. The opening was typical of those about evangelical gatherings, Evangelical ministers meet in Inglewood to discuss ways to convert millions and hasten the Second Coming. Hasten the Second Coming? "No way" I thought, but then I read the whole article and sure enough there is a quote from James Davis, president of the "Billion Souls Initiative"of the Global Pastor's Network: As we advance around the world, we'll be shortening the time needed to fulfill that great commission [Christ's command to spread the Gospel to the ends of the Earth]. Then, the Bible says, the end will come. Excuse me, but having read and studied the same passages of the Bible, I see nothing of the sort. Logically what we have here is a problem of causality. Spreading the Gospel to the whole world will not CAUSE the Second Coming. At most we can say that while it is a necessary action it is not sufficient in a causal manner on its own. In the end, no one knows the time, only God. There is no indication that you can manipulate God's divine timeline. Why, oh why, do they have to make such statements in a public forum? It just makes it harder on the rest of us.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
I just don't get it
This is what I get for going too long between vents. The more I read in the papers the more confused and angry I seem to become. Let's take two events, one major and one that should have been major but got little coverage in the San Diego Tribune.
First, has anyone not heard about the cartoons involving Mohammed? If you've been sleeping for the last few weeks you can read the story here. Because of some Danish cartoonists depicting Mohammed in not necessarily the most flattering of light we have had riots, massive property damage, dozens of injuries, and even deaths. Some of the extremists within Islam are calling for the deaths of the cartoonists, claiming that any depictions of Mohammed are prohibited by the Koran. Apparently that is not true. While Islam carries the same prohibitions against graven images as the Christian Bible, there is no explicit prohibition against creating images of Mohammed (see here). Now it has come to the surface that not only is the initial argument about the prohibition against images of Mohammed bogus, but so are some of the images circulated by come Islamic leaders being used as instigation and agitation of Arabs around the world! And they want to be called the religion of peace?! Let's get real. At lunch the other day with my friend Andrew I compared how the "peaceful" radical Islamists handle the cartoons with those of how fundamentalist Christians handled the infamous Piss Christ and The Virgin Mary where we have in one a crucifix submerged in urine and the other an image of Mary splattered with elephant dung. I searched for reports of rioting Christians, acts of vandalism, injury, and killings... couldn't even find a Christian fahtwa. Let's see, on the one hand we have Mohammed, a prophet, whose image is drawn, not necessarily in the most flattering of light. On the other we have a crucifix, a symbol of God incarnate at the supreme moment of passion, submerged in a jar of human waste along with a depiction of Mary, the mother of Jesus, the one the Bible declares to be the most blessed of women, covered in animal excrement. Geeze, which would you think should generate the most heat? What's worse, my own government, headed by those who are supposed be of my party and represent my values, are screwing up again. On the one hand our state department seems to be saying that the cartoonists were naughty and shouldn't have done it while President Bush says that we stand by our friends in the Netherlands. Please, people, one signal (and in this case it had better be at least on the side of Bush's rather lukewarm support).
The second story is somewhat related to the other at least tangentially. Last year a mother in Queens, Andrea Skoros, sued the New York City public school system after being told her kids' Nativity scene could not be a part of the holiday display although a Hanukkah menorah and the star and crescent representing Islam could be exhibited. The school officials said that the display was of secular symbols and did include a Christmas tree (oops... shouldn't say that, in our screwed up world we are supposed to say "holiday tree", which I suppose means I can keep mine up all year round since we have holidays throughout the year and those who demand the use of the "holiday tree" term don't specify WHICH holiday... naw, I'll call it what it is, a Christmas tree). What is frightening is that today a small AP article states that a federal appeals court has upheld the school's policy. What idiots! The menorah isn't a religious symbol? Are those people completely ignorant of what the menorah symbolises?! And the star and crescent represents what? (Is there ANYONE who doesn't know... anyone?) I am so happly at least one judge dissented, the brave Judge Chester Straub, who said that the policy utilizes religious symbols of certain religions but bans the symbols of another. So let's see, the school places symbols of certain religions in the display but has banned a nativity scene... how can anyone disagree with Judge Straub's commonsense dissent? As Mrs Skoros has said, she never was wanting the other symbols removed, just add an appropriate symbol for the nearly two billion Christians. Now, if she were a (so called) peaceful extreme Islamist do you think she would be seeking the addition at least one symbol of equal communicative value, or the subtraction of all symbols not a part of Islam? And yet gentle readers, what religion, what one set of beliefs is it okay to disparage and ban in our supposed modern age? Here, let me help you, it isn't Islam...
First, has anyone not heard about the cartoons involving Mohammed? If you've been sleeping for the last few weeks you can read the story here. Because of some Danish cartoonists depicting Mohammed in not necessarily the most flattering of light we have had riots, massive property damage, dozens of injuries, and even deaths. Some of the extremists within Islam are calling for the deaths of the cartoonists, claiming that any depictions of Mohammed are prohibited by the Koran. Apparently that is not true. While Islam carries the same prohibitions against graven images as the Christian Bible, there is no explicit prohibition against creating images of Mohammed (see here). Now it has come to the surface that not only is the initial argument about the prohibition against images of Mohammed bogus, but so are some of the images circulated by come Islamic leaders being used as instigation and agitation of Arabs around the world! And they want to be called the religion of peace?! Let's get real. At lunch the other day with my friend Andrew I compared how the "peaceful" radical Islamists handle the cartoons with those of how fundamentalist Christians handled the infamous Piss Christ and The Virgin Mary where we have in one a crucifix submerged in urine and the other an image of Mary splattered with elephant dung. I searched for reports of rioting Christians, acts of vandalism, injury, and killings... couldn't even find a Christian fahtwa. Let's see, on the one hand we have Mohammed, a prophet, whose image is drawn, not necessarily in the most flattering of light. On the other we have a crucifix, a symbol of God incarnate at the supreme moment of passion, submerged in a jar of human waste along with a depiction of Mary, the mother of Jesus, the one the Bible declares to be the most blessed of women, covered in animal excrement. Geeze, which would you think should generate the most heat? What's worse, my own government, headed by those who are supposed be of my party and represent my values, are screwing up again. On the one hand our state department seems to be saying that the cartoonists were naughty and shouldn't have done it while President Bush says that we stand by our friends in the Netherlands. Please, people, one signal (and in this case it had better be at least on the side of Bush's rather lukewarm support).
The second story is somewhat related to the other at least tangentially. Last year a mother in Queens, Andrea Skoros, sued the New York City public school system after being told her kids' Nativity scene could not be a part of the holiday display although a Hanukkah menorah and the star and crescent representing Islam could be exhibited. The school officials said that the display was of secular symbols and did include a Christmas tree (oops... shouldn't say that, in our screwed up world we are supposed to say "holiday tree", which I suppose means I can keep mine up all year round since we have holidays throughout the year and those who demand the use of the "holiday tree" term don't specify WHICH holiday... naw, I'll call it what it is, a Christmas tree). What is frightening is that today a small AP article states that a federal appeals court has upheld the school's policy. What idiots! The menorah isn't a religious symbol? Are those people completely ignorant of what the menorah symbolises?! And the star and crescent represents what? (Is there ANYONE who doesn't know... anyone?) I am so happly at least one judge dissented, the brave Judge Chester Straub, who said that the policy utilizes religious symbols of certain religions but bans the symbols of another. So let's see, the school places symbols of certain religions in the display but has banned a nativity scene... how can anyone disagree with Judge Straub's commonsense dissent? As Mrs Skoros has said, she never was wanting the other symbols removed, just add an appropriate symbol for the nearly two billion Christians. Now, if she were a (so called) peaceful extreme Islamist do you think she would be seeking the addition at least one symbol of equal communicative value, or the subtraction of all symbols not a part of Islam? And yet gentle readers, what religion, what one set of beliefs is it okay to disparage and ban in our supposed modern age? Here, let me help you, it isn't Islam...
Friday, February 03, 2006
Old enough to read fairy tales
Okay, I admit it, I cried during some scenes in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (LWW for short). Tonight, while finishing up Lewis' The Horse and His Boy a few tears fell again. Perhaps now in my advanced years (remember, I am now 43... horrors!) I am old enough to read fairy tales. Lewis wrote that line in the dedication to his goddaughter and it has been published in every edition of LLW. Obviously it has nothing to do with base literacy. Let's face it, the words in fairy tales are hardly difficult to read, but remember Lewis was a professor of literature and for him reading was far more than simply knowing the meaning of words in print. Reading was connection, and tonight, just like when I sat watching LLW (all three times actually), I connected again with what Lewis (and Tolkien) called "true myth". Unfortunately today the word myth has taken on a connotation of falsehood, but that isn't quite what they had in mind when they used the word. Christians get terribly squirmish in use of the word "myth", but as this wonderful article from Christianity Today states, Myth Matters. Here are are a couple of samples of what touched me tonight:
Myth, properly understood and applied in the hands of a master, connects you to "the true", or, to sound a little more philosophical, to Plato's highest form, "The Good" (or for Lewis you can remove one 'o'). For a Christian what better mental image of God can you ask for? What better way to describe a being who is perfect love, perfect mercy, perfect compassion, as well as perfect justice (the attribute most often forgotten) as someone who is both terrible and beautiful! When I read stories like this it makes me stop all of the generally meaningless hustle and bustle of my own life and experience the same reaction as Shasta:
"Don't you think it was bad luck to meet so many lions?" said Shasta.
"There was only one lion," said the Voice.
"What on earth do you mean? I've just told you there were at least
two the first night, and--"
"There was only one; but he was swift of foot."
"How do you know?"
"I was the lion." And as Shasta gaped with open mouth
and said nothing, the voice continued. "I was the lion
who forced you to join with Aravis. I was the cat who
comforted you among the houses of the dead. I was the
lion who drove the jackals from you while you slept. I
was the lion who gave the Horses the new strength of fear
for the last mile so that you should reach King Lune.
And I was the lion you do not remember who pushed the boat
in which you lay, a child near death, so that it came to shore
where a man sat, wakeful at midnight, to receive you...
Who are you? asked Shasta.
"Myself," said the Voice, very deep and low so that the
earth shook: and again, "Myself," loud and clear and gay;
and then the third time "Myself," whispered so softly you
could hardly hear it, and yet it seemed to come from all
around you as if the leaves rustled with it...
He [Shasta] turned and saw, pacing behind him, taller than
the horse, a Lion. The horse did not seem to be afraid of
it or else could not see it. It was from the Lion that the
light came. No one ever saw anything more terrible or beautiful.
Myth, properly understood and applied in the hands of a master, connects you to "the true", or, to sound a little more philosophical, to Plato's highest form, "The Good" (or for Lewis you can remove one 'o'). For a Christian what better mental image of God can you ask for? What better way to describe a being who is perfect love, perfect mercy, perfect compassion, as well as perfect justice (the attribute most often forgotten) as someone who is both terrible and beautiful! When I read stories like this it makes me stop all of the generally meaningless hustle and bustle of my own life and experience the same reaction as Shasta:
But after one glance at the Lion's face he slipped out of the
saddle and fell at its feet. He couldn't say anything but then
again he didn't want to say anything, and he knew he needn't say
anything
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Rudeness
Why are people so rude? I'm not talking about the inability to set a table or knowing the proper manner of introducing people, but simple, common, everyday courtesy. Take driving. Driving in San Diego is a nightmare. Yes, we have had a huge influx of "square state" refugees in recent years, but that doesn't tell the whole story (and in my humble opinion simply pushes off responsiblity to the nameless "them"). Part of my commute to work takes me past several merges where the drivers on the freeway refuse to allow people on. I've seen people in the right hand lane deliberately close a gap just so a car cannot merge onto the freeway. What do these people think they are going to win by keeping someone from merging in front of them. When my parents taught me to drive I was taught the "one car" rule... to let one car merge in with the idea that the car behind you would do the same, kind of like shuffling cards. People get on the freeway, traffic may slow but doesn't stop, pretty much the best situation. Of course courtesy on part of the people who want to merge is also expected. If someone creates a gap for one car to merge, two cars shouldn't attempt it ("wait your turn" is another lesson in courtesy). But rudeness extends beyond playing in traffic. My gym has a large plaque stating very clearly "All Members Must Have A Towel At All Times", yet there isn't a day go by when I don't see people without towels... and some of those with towel should really learn to use them (I mean, who likes to put their hand on the handles of the elliptical machine and feel the nice wetness of sweat, or sit on a weight bench and suddenly HOPE that what you feel is sweat). And don't get me started on the bathroom... I can't speak for the ladies' room, but for heaven's sake men, make sure the toilet paper goes into the bowl and FLUSH!). Today I was coughed on and sneezed at by people who refuse to cover their mouths. I mean, really, who raised these people?
I think people have forgotten the reason for good manners. They are not to impress people (and in fact, as in the case of proper speech, good manners will cause many today to think less of you than more of you). In How To Be A Gentleman, John Bridges has this to say (with my assistance to make it more PC *ugh*):
"The truth of the matter is, being a gentleman [or lady] is not rocket science. Being a gentleman [or lady] requires a little logic, a bit of forethought, and a great deal of consideration for others [emphasis mine]. It is not about complicated rules andconvoluted instuctions. Instead, it is about trying to make life easier for other people. It is about honestly and sincerely being a nice guy [or gal]. "
I think people have forgotten the reason for good manners. They are not to impress people (and in fact, as in the case of proper speech, good manners will cause many today to think less of you than more of you). In How To Be A Gentleman, John Bridges has this to say (with my assistance to make it more PC *ugh*):
"The truth of the matter is, being a gentleman [or lady] is not rocket science. Being a gentleman [or lady] requires a little logic, a bit of forethought, and a great deal of consideration for others [emphasis mine]. It is not about complicated rules andconvoluted instuctions. Instead, it is about trying to make life easier for other people. It is about honestly and sincerely being a nice guy [or gal]. "
Just being considerate, being thoughtful of others and aware that the world really doesn't revolve around any one of us (well, actually, my friend Nicolas sent me a picture of two Americans at Burger King who looked large enough to have their mass be considered in the gravitational attraction calcuations of heavenly bodies, but that is another rant for another day) would make our lives go much more smoothly. And people, please, the next time you use the treadmill don't use to hand to wipe off sweat from your head and fling your hand to get rid of it... here's a hint: that's what the towel is for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)